Civic Education and Democratic Representation (with Sharon McMahon)

sharonmcmahonheadshotwebsite-1.jpg

Topics Discussed

  • Covid-19 Vaccine Updates

  • Military Force Used in Syria

  • American Rescue Plan

  • Moment of Hope: Virginia Abolishes the Death Penalty

  • Sharon McMahon

  • Outside of Politics: Bedtime Routines with Partners

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do what we do without you. To become a financial supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, purchase a copy of our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook for our real time reactions to breaking news, GIF news threads, and personal content. To purchase Pantsuit Politics merchandise, check out our TeePublic store and our branded tumblers available in partnership with Stealth Steel Designs. To read along with us, join our Extra Credit Book Club subscription.

Episode Resources

Transcript

Sarah: This is Sarah

Beth: And Beth, 

Sarah: You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.

Beth: The home of grace-filled political conversations.

Beth: [00:00:00] Hello, and thank you so much for joining us for another episode of Pantsuit Politics. We have a packed show today. We're going to do some news and there's a lot of it. Then we're going to spend some time with Sharon McMahon, who is on Instagram, as SharonSaysSo, former government teacher. Sharon is doing a lot of civic education for adults on Instagram.

And we have a conversation with her about what that looks like, what the gaps in knowledge are for people and how we can have a more trusted relationship with our media sources. And then outside of poltics we have another listener commemoration to share. This one is a throwback to our conversation about revenge bedtime procrastinationso stick around for that at the end. 

If you are here because you saw us on the Apple spotlight feature, we're so glad. On Tuesdays, we tend to process the news, just react to what's going on in the world. Fridays, we try to learn something here and Sarah and I are always committed to just showing up and starting a conversation that helps us think more about what our obligations as citizens are. We hope it's a good [00:01:00] conversation starter in your life. 

Sarah: [00:01:01] On this theme of we're big learners here at Pantsuit Politics, we have an extra credit book Club subscription that you can join either through the Wild Geese Bookshop in Franklin, Indiana, who helps us with our book club subscription or as a Patreon where it is a bonus perk for those at the $50 and a hundred dollars a month level.

 So you have two options, but it's the coolest book club. I know I'm biased, but every quarter, um, we select three to four books and then Tiffany at Wild Geese Bookshop includes just little delightful treats everything from like chocolate bars to the perfect foot balm to candles.

So you get a little treat and you also get books that we select, and we're moving into a new system where we're going to answer a question. Sneak peak, the next question we'll be answering for the second quarter of 2021 is what book has changed your understanding of power? And I can't wait [00:02:00] for y'all to get these books in the mail.

Beth: [00:02:01] Let's open with some really exciting news. Today, we have the approval of Johnson and Johnson's vaccine. I think we can not overstate the importance of a one shot vaccine, not having to have both the initial dose and the booster. It's just one. They have about 4 million ready to go less than they anticipated having now, but they are ramping up production and expect to have 16 million more doses by the end of March.

Sarah: [00:02:25] They're releasing the entire stockpile, cause there's only one shot, so we don't have to hold any back for the second shot so they're all flowing out. Between Johnson and Johnson, Moderna and Pfizer, they expect the United States to be receiving about 3 million shots every single day by the end of March. You know, one of my absolute favorite writers on the internet, Zeynep Tufekci,  just wrote a great article we'll link to in the Atlantic and she talked about like, we're not celebrating this enough. 

We've been talking on Patreon that I'm like defensive of the shots. I just feel like every adult conversation should be like, How about this modern medical miracle [00:03:00] we're witnessing right now with these vaccine shots and their efficacy, and like, isn't this the most amazing thing we've all witnessed?

So we really want to emphasize that here on the podcast cause it is just, unbelievable. You know, Beth and I were just talking about if you'd asked us last Monday, when we were recording, when we be getting our shots, we would have said like, I would have said it probably end of March. And here we are a week later, we both received our first shot.

I have ton of friends in the same situation where they thought they were weeks away. And then all of a sudden there seemed to be shots at Walgreens, shots at Walmart that we didn't know were coming, shots at Kroger, um, especially through the, the big retailers where the vaccine shots are out there. I went through the New York times map and every single state in the United States has had at least 10% of their population with at least one vaccine shot and most are closer to about 15%. So I think you can really see evidence of the vaccine distribution ramping up. 

Beth: [00:03:57] And it's ramping up unevenly and it is really [00:04:00] hard to talk about this because our experiences are so uneven. I think that part of what you and I have experienced is the benefit of living in relatively small places with a, with a very focused government that has very clear priorities and a very clear strategy about the vaccines.

And as I mentioned in our last episode, I know that even in Kentucky, there is an unevenness of experience. I think a lot about the populations who need this most, but don't have internet access so it's not as easy as just popping onto the Walgreens app and making an appointment. Sarah, you have upset a lot of people with your, uh, with your comments about all of this.

And I feel like in listening to you process and work this out over the past couple of weeks, you've really gotten clarity on what's motivating you in these conversations. So do you want to talk a little bit about that? 

Sarah: [00:04:52] Yes. I wrote a note for our newsletter that hurt people and I never want to hurt people. I hope that goes without saying, but it shouldn't. We should [00:05:00] always say that. Well, listen, the first mistake was trying to tackle something as complex as our anxiety surrounding COVID and the end of the pandemic and something entitled A Note. It's more like we need like a month long seminar and retreat to process our stress cycle, you know, surrounding the pandemic.

So that was the first mistake trying to tackle this in a shortened format like that. It's really hard to tackle the breadth of experience that we've all had this pandemic obviously. But what I was trying to get at one was what I see as a lot of the mental shortcuts, that's where the mental processes we're taking that I don't think are serving us again, not to just make this a complete stan for Zeynep Tufekci, but she, this article she wrote where she talks about our five pandemic mistakes.

She did a much better job at articulating what I was desperately trying to articulate, but I think what else I'm trying to think through is you know, I keep thinking about Burnout, the book we all love from, gosh, what 2019, and where they talk about, we have to complete a stress cycle, [00:06:00] right? I'm looking at all of us as like in this intense stress cycle from the pandemic and thinking about like, how do we deal with that?

How do we process this? Because truly, I believe under any rubric and I think epidemiologists and virologist and public health experts, I read um a ton of articles and it seems like even the media coverage is shifting, will agree with me that we are on our way out. We're not done. We're not abandoning our masks.

It's been uneven, but we are working our way towards the end of the pandemic, right with all these vaccines in particular. And I'm thinking about like, okay, well, how do we come out of this? Because every single one of us has been worked on by fear and anxiety surrounding this pandemic. Some of us, because of our health risk or the health risk of the people we live with at much higher levels than others.

Right. But all of [00:07:00] us nobody's been processing this pandemic from a, you know, a cool-headed rational place from beginning to end, nobody. So all of us have been in fight or flight right for extended periods of time. And I'm thinking about like, okay, so what does that mean? How do we process that, how do we heal from that?

How do we learn how to come out of that? That's really what I was trying to think through because fear and anxiety are so intense and so truly like toxic, I think if left unchecked and if left on processed on our psyches and our relationships in our communities. And that's what I was really trying, that's what I'm still trying to work through. You know, I am, I am an optimist and I am sort of defensive of the vaccines. I'm kind of like defensive of hope. And so when I hear media coverage that won't give everybody a moment to just feel what's happening right in front of us to feel [00:08:00] hope. I struggle with that.

I really, really do. And that's what I was desperately trying to work through. Like what has anxiety done to us over this, this time? How do we think about that? Think about what it's done to us and our relationships and the way we're connected to one another and what is the role for hope right now? Because we, we get in these dichotomies where you only have one choice, right?

You only think everything's awful or it feels like that when we talk about on the internet. Right. And like, everything's awful or everything's great. And that's not where we are right now. We're, we're in a transition and I am truly terrible at transitions at most points in my life. And so I think I can feel the transition coming and I'm like trying to do that better, to just transition better in my own life and how I think about where we're at as a country. 

Beth: [00:08:52] I've been listening to you with a lot of interest on this topic because I don't trust myself completely yet to form any kind of [00:09:00] thesis about even what I should personally feel, let alone what kind of the broader message should be. If you are new to our show, my parents contracted COVID in September.

My mom has rheumatoid arthritis and a host of related autoimmune conditions and that was my worst case scenario. She spent 15 days in the hospital, most of them in ICU. And there were several very real days when I did not think she was going to survive and looking back now as she is still dealing with the fallout of COVID and it is serious and intense and painful, and there are still a lot of suffering going on for both of my parents and especially my mom.

There there's not really a template to help you sort through what it feels like to have a family member go through that and to understand that it is really the fortune of her having gotten sick at a time after healthcare professionals had [00:10:00] figured out how to treat COVID patients and before they got slammed with so many more of them in the winter, that she did so well coming through it.

There's, there's not a rubric for how to process the feelings that accompany something like that, this, this awful mix of gratitude and fear and anxiety, and a little bit of the kind of guilt of, Oh my gosh. Look at how much worse so many people had it. And yet still, I feel very traumatized by this and I still haven't seen my parents on the other side of it.

I have plans to do that at the end of this month because they have been vaccinated. It's a lot and to know that just in me, I have this brewing storm of emotions and that I am one of millions upon millions of people going through something like that. And then there are people who have lost others and there are the healthcare professionals who see this every day.

It's just the breadth of human experience is overwhelming to me in terms of what we're going through and I just think it's going to take a lot of time for me to [00:11:00] trust my own intuition about where we are in the process. 

Sarah: [00:11:04] Well, I told my husband, I think part of where my desire to start dissecting, this is because I feel like I've had, and maybe it's not as unique as I think it is, but I feel like I've had sort of a unique experience in that.

I feel like I'm called a COVID moderate. I feel like, like the Lisa Murkowski of my, of COVID because I live in a place where I am much more liberal than most of the people around me. And so I've had the experience of being around people who did not take COVID as seriously as I thought they should but who I know to be loving, caring people.

So they weren't all the way to the extreme, right? Like they weren't like deniers or refusing to wear their masks, but they took risks that I thought were inappropriate, but I still love them. And we're still friends and it didn't, I wouldn't say it affected our relationship because their behavior wasn't necessarily extreme.

It was just different than what I would do. And then I've been around people who I thought took precautions that [00:12:00] were over and above what were needed. So I've been on the other end of the spectrum with people who I thought were taking a pretty extreme approach, who I also know to be thoughtful, loving, caring people, and it didn't necessarily harm our relationship.

Right. So I have this sort of spectrum of behavior around me and have for the most part the entire time, because I live in a small place and I live in a place where we, it's not that we didn't have a surge, but it was nowhere near the level of like a, a New Jersey or a New York or California. And so my experience was in a way, like more moderate, even though my father also contracted COVID.

 He didn't go to the hospital, but you know, he's been in the hospital previous years for pneumonia so I was very, very scared about him getting it. And he lives in California. He's sorry. He was far away so that was also a scary experience. And so I'm like, just trying to, like you said, like that brewing storm of emotion and all these things, like.

How do I feel about the people who didn't take it seriously? How do I feel about the people who were more cautious than I were? How do we, how are we [00:13:00] going to relate to each other coming out of this as we continue to have to make these assessments? And like, all of that is wrapped up in the media coverage, the public health messaging, mistakes made by even leaders I really, really like and respect. Right.

 And I'm just, I think, because I'm usually so bad at transitions and I think there's so much to process here, there's this feeling in me of like, we're going to start talking about what we've been through because we can't just wait till it's all over and normal life has picked up to its regular pace, which I kind of hope it doesn't all the way go back to, but you know what I mean?

Cause I just feel like if it's we're all in and we're all back to like concerts and sports arenas, like we'll do what we always do in America, which is like, Buck up and keep moving. And there's like a desperate part of me of like, Oh, wait, well, I want to talk about what we all just went through the parts where we were mad at each other, the parts where we were upset with each other and disappointed with each other.

And not even like out of a sense of [00:14:00] judgment, but just a sense of like, This is how I felt. Did you feel the same way? You didn't? Okay. Well then I'm, I'm gonna, I'm gonna think through that, or this is where we really could have used leadership so we weren't so mad and frustrated with each other all the time.

 Or this is where there was good leadership and there was a way to talk about how we handle this and get through it. Like that's just, and that's a big ask and that's a complicated process. And you know, I very awkwardly tried to do that in the, again in, uh, in too short of a conference format. And I just hope that though, even though it's hard because the emotions are so intense that we can still be gentle with each other and work with each other as we come out of this.

Beth: [00:14:45] Well, let's switch gears to an also intense, even more complex, I think, topic. Monday morning as I'm getting into all of my news, which I tend to get first through emails, [00:15:00] I had so much SeaPak in my inbox and so little about the Syrian airstrike that I lost my mind and I understand that we have two parties in this country, and I understand that one of those parties being basically anti-democratic and moving it's conference not, you know, it's not the GOP, but SeaPak is been somewhat important to some meaningful segment of the GOP for awhile now and moving from Washington DC to Florida and centering around the trumps.

 I get that that matters, but it does not matter as much as the United States using military force throughout the world. It doesn't. So let's talk about what does matter. I think it is important to just orient ourselves in Western Asia for a second. I use Western Asia instead of the Middle East, because I read several articles a few years ago about how Middle East is a geographically imprecise term.

You don't talk about middle in geography and we live on a globe [00:16:00] and so there also is not a middle of the globe and it's kind of a Western centric ,sort of racist way to talk about this part of the world and so I'm trying to, I have changed my language because I am a geography nerd. I don't expect anybody else to, but just to let you know.

Okay. So let's put ourselves in Western Asia, we have war in Yemen. We have war in Lebanon. We have war in Syria. We have ISIS throughout the region, particularly in Iraq. We have conflict with Iran and Iran escalating its nuclear program. We have Saudi Arabia and our government recently releasing its intelligence assessment that the crown Prince of Saudi Arabia personally ordered the killing of an American journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

I'm going to talk more about the Khashoggi intelligence report on the Nightly Nuance next week, but it's a very complex picture. It always has been, it always will be. I think Senator Chris Murphy's piece in foreign affairs recently, which we'll link here does a good job of zooming out and saying, what are we [00:17:00] doing in Western Asia?

And he talks about how we have been since the 1970s operating under the Carter doctrine, this idea that we protect our relationships with the Gulf cooperation council. That's Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Why? Because they are oil producing States and in the seventies, oil was extremely important to the American economy and we weren't producing our own the way we are now. 

Today we import more oil from Mexico than any country in Western Asia and we are competing with these Gulf countries in our own oil production. So it's a very different set of circumstances, but we're still using the old rule book. And what Chris Murphy explains, that I think is so beneficial as we think about what the administration did on February 25th, is that our cooperation with those States has led us to two objectives that are bad for us and bad for the [00:18:00] region.

The first being fighting regional proxy Wars and the second being maintaining silence on domestic political repression. So with that in mind, On the 25th, 10 days after a militia backed by Iran, populated mostly with Iraqis named Kataeb Hezbollah, launched a rocket attack in Iraq that killed an American contractor and wounded an American service member.

10 days later, we did a rocket attack in Eastern Syria, near the Iraqi border on buildings belonging to Kataeb Hezbollah  and, and used by other militias that are part of the popular mobilization forces. So think about that and just, I think just saying the sentence out loud shows the absurdity of the situation where mired in here.

 Militias backed by Iran, populated by Iraqis, did a rocket attack against the United [00:19:00] States in Iraq. And we responded with a rocket attack in Syria and it's just, it's it's bananas. It's reported that one militia fighter was killed and others were wounded. Why do we have troops in Iraq at all? Because we're trying to assist Iraqi forces fighting ISIS.

Kataeb Hezbollah has also been really effective in fighting ISIS, but they are also supporting the Assad regime in Syria. It is impossible to draw straight lines on who our allies and who are enemies and all this is, in my opinion, your probably getting the sense that I'm very opposed to what the Biden administration did here and I am because this is just the classic proportionate response that I think continues to lead us to perpetual expensive, pointless, harmful conflict. 

Sarah: [00:19:53] You know, I'm a history buff. And so when you say it's so hard to draw lines, to me, [00:20:00] it's not that we're stuck in the Carter doctrine, although I totally agree with that. It's that we're still stuck in this like post-World war II world where we drew lines that did not exist. We drew lines that did not exist. We just made it up. And like, I think the easiest way to orient yourself when these lines are so confusing, when you're saying a statement like you did Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, is to just orient yourself that we have Saudi Arabia and Iran.

They are enemies and they know that. There's no confusing what are we to each other between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but then when you add in the other countries and the other issues in the other alliances, you start talking about the war in Yemen, which is really just a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia and our responses there.

And you talk about [00:21:00] the intelligence report that was declassified shows us without a doubt that the crown Prince of Saudi Arabia was involved, but how can we aren't holding him responsible because, Oh, by the way, Iran has now rejected our offer to renegotiate in person the nuclear agreement. Like it's because those two players and the way that that breaks out is really what matters. 

And like I said, like, they're, they're not confused about how they feel about each other. It's just when the, when the United States gets involved, and I think you're right, continues to play under the rules of this old doctrine with old priorities and bad objectives is where we're left, stating the sentence and describing a situation like you did.

Beth: [00:21:45] And we keep getting involved, kind of, enough, a little bit. It's like we are dabbling in these conflicts. I'm not advocating that we go in full force. I'm advocating that we take an entirely different approach, [00:22:00] recognizing that our interests, if you ever thought military conflict over oil was justified.

Recognizing now that it is definitely no longer justified for the United States to be using our military over oil. It's not justified anymore. That is an old world that we have left and recognizing that the world is about to change for these States in the Gulf, because oil in general is not going to be the future.

And when you think about all of those pieces and how much has shifted, I'm just sad that the administration immediately defaulted to the old playbook. I really liked this from Senator Murphy. He said, "as a general matter, US foreign policy has become dangerously anachronistic, an instrument tuned to play a song that the orchestra is no longer performing, but US policy is perhaps most incontinent in the Gulf where the US interests  have changed but its policy has not." 

Sarah: [00:22:58] I actually think there's a through line [00:23:00] between what we were talking about first COVID and this foreign policy and the Biden administration in particular. There was a really great line in Axios email today, where they were talking about the thin path for the Biden administration and its success.

And that Biden was very purposeful in filling his administration with veteran loyalists focused on two priorities, vaccines and relief, COVID. That was the focus and I thought, well, that was very wise to fill the administration with veteran loyalists, because I imagine that entering the white house is even as a longtime politician is overwhelming.

And the power and the decision and the choices available, the decisions and choices available to you, um, are both overwhelming and intoxicating. And I think what so often happens with particularly new administrations is this, this overwhelm in this decision fatigue. And I thought was very wise to fill it with veteran loyalists, who understand how the process works, who understand the [00:24:00] temptation of being a new administration and responding to the situations in front of you and just staying laser focused on two priorities.

 This is all that matters is that we move quickly on vaccines and economic relief. And I can see how, if that was your approach and you were feeling your administration with veteran loyalist, staying laser focused on those two priorities that you would default to the old way of doing things, even as a president with a prolific resume on foreign policy.

But, you know, I think it is a lot to ask the Biden administration and particularly Joe Biden himself to shift everything all at once. I expect to see a new approach and the way we've seen a new approach in a lot of ways that we didn't expect to see from Joe Biden on domestic issues, when it comes to foreign policy, but like putting those two pieces together, it makes sense to me that they're sort of defaulting under foreign policy since the, the real [00:25:00] priority is COVID.

Beth: [00:25:02] I get all of that. And I am not saying I'm so smart, I have a better way because I acknowledge it's very hard. It's very hard. And you don't want Iran, especially through proxies to feel free to do whatever it wants in the region. You don't want rockets going at American bases or harming American contractors and service members.

At the same time, there was 10 days between the attack and the retaliation. It feels much more like a political message to me than one that accomplishes actual military objectives. And I know that the line between those is never hard and fast either to say, we want to negotiate with you on the nuclear treaty and we're going to slap you down when you take a shot at us and we're going to cooperate with the Iraq's government and so we're going to harm you in Syria, not Iraq. So we don't embarrass Iraq's government by doing some kind of [00:26:00] strike there.

 I get that they are trying to thread very small needles and not only walk and chew gum, but like run a marathon and solve a pandemic and everything at one time, it's very, very difficult. I'm just disappointed that this is the first kind of major foreign policy action, because it feels like such a throwback to a time when we kept layering on a broken system. 

Sarah: [00:26:28] Yeah. It's not really a defense more than just an observation of what I think is happening inside the Biden Administration. 

Beth: [00:26:34] Well, one more thing to talk about quickly before we move on, the American rescue plan, that we spend a lot of time on last week, passed the house of representatives.

No Republicans supported it. Two Democrats voted no with Republicans, but it was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats. The minimum wage increase to $15 an hour was rejected by the Senate parliamentarian. And what that means is that she took a look at it and said, because we're [00:27:00] using reconciliation, that budget process we talked about last week, the $15 minimum wage is not tightly connected enough to the budget reconciliation process to go through on 51 votes instead of 60.

Democrats had some ideas about maybe we could work it in by doing a tax penalty against companies that pay less than $15 an hour. They seem to have put that plan aside for now and the intention is to get this through the Senate by March 14th. 

Sarah: [00:27:31] So we, before we share our interview with Sharon McMahon, we wanted to pause as we often do and have a moment of hope.

Virginia's legislator has officially passed legislation abolishing the death penalty and this is the first Southern state to abolish the death penalty. It's just waiting on a signature from governor Northam, which he has pledged to do. I am all for any States that want to join the roster of eliminating the death penalty.

I think this is particularly important [00:28:00] because have you been following the case in Tennessee, Beth, that they think they're going to be able to conclusively prove that an innocent man was executed using DNA evidence? 

Beth: [00:28:09] Yes. And we know this happens all the time. We, we just know. 

Sarah: [00:28:13] Yeah, this was just one we can actually prove, but make no mistake, it's not the only one that's happened. There are many, many cases where there's lots of evidence that an innocent person was executed and by the way, I don't want to abolish the death penalty just because I think innocent people are executed, although I do. Um, I think there's a lots of other reasons, including the, you know, many, many, and well-documented failures of our criminal justice system to abolish the death penalty. And I'm happy to see a Southern state do it. 

Beth: [00:28:45] Next up, we are going to talk with Sharon McMahon.

[00:29:00] We are so delighted to have Sharon McMahon of Sharon Says So of Instagram with us. Recognizing that the Venn diagram of podcast listenes and Instagram government aficionados is not a perfect overlap, can you please tell people who have not been to your account and watched your stories a little bit about who you are and what you do?

Sharon McMahon: [00:29:44] Hello! Thank you so much for having me really. My goal on Instagram is to give people education, non-partisan education about government topics, current events, topics. My goal is [00:30:00] never to get you to think like me, it is really to give you education so you can form educated opinions on your own. You know, if we want to talk about, say campaign finance reform, it's hard to have a real genuine, needle moving conversation on that topic if you don't have any idea how campaigns are financed. Right. So you need to understand the facts behind the situation in order to make sense of it for yourself. So that's really at the heart of what I do. 

Sarah: [00:30:30] Now you're a former government teacher. Tell people like how you were able to tackle these subjects with such ease, especially during the election is where you were starting to get a lot of traffic, right?

Sharon McMahon: [00:30:41] Yes. You know, this is just an extension of what I've been doing in my classroom for a very long time. I always wanted students to leave my classroom feeling like I have no idea what she believes, because my goal is always to use Socratic techniques to leave no opinion unexamined. You [00:31:00] don't get to just say, well, I believe X, Y, and Z, without being able to back that up.

Why is that the case? Well, well, you know, I just think it's more fair. Why is it more fair? What evidence do you have that holding that a position is more fair. So leave no opinion unexamined and be willing to backup whatever it is you have to say with substantiated, verifiable information. So again, it's just like training and practice what I've done every day for a super long time, just an extension of what I have done in my classroom.

Beth: [00:31:35] So you're out there every day, allowing people to ask you questions on Instagram. I am astonished by the number of questions that you take in and answer every single day. Give us a sense of what the biggest knowledge gaps are that you're taking in from your audience. What do people really not understand about how their government works?

Sharon McMahon: [00:31:55] I think it's one of those things where there's, you know, a range. I have a range of people in my audience [00:32:00] that range from actual government officials, to people who, you know, are still in high school. So there's a huge, a huge range. I am finding that there are some people who are just now tiptoeing into trying to understand how government works and they have been afraid to ask questions because they fear looking stupid or they fear being made fun of. You know, that's one of human's core fears is feeling like you're being judged and made fun of. We avoid that feeling of being mocked, we avoid that at all costs. So we avoid engaging with information in a way that we feel is going to put us, make us vulnerable to that.

So I have people who range from, could you please explain the difference between the Senate and Congress? You know, like extremely basic level questions, which to me, I never mind hosting those kinds of questions because [00:33:00] I know that a person is taking a risk to even ask and hopefully I've built up enough trust that they see number one, we're not going to out them and be like, did you see that Beth doesn't know the difference?

I'm not going to out them and I'm not going to make fun of them. I'm going to give them an honest, genuine answer. And I actually commend people who are willing to start taking steps now to engage with that information, they're willing to ask, like, this might sound dumb, but why can't we just print more money so to make up for the national debt? And it's actually not a dumb question, that is a legit question.

Beth: [00:33:35] That's a hard question. That's a really tough, lots of people would disagree about that question. 

Sharon McMahon: [00:33:42] So there's, you know, people at that end of the spectrum, and then there, it ranges all the way up to like, Why does Mitch McConnell have so much power in the Senate?

How does Congress get to just like make its own rules? How is that even fair that they get to, they set their own salaries. They make their own rules and then the rest of us are [00:34:00] just subject to this like we're supposed to go along with whatever they say? What if they're crazy? What if they're inefficient? What if they don't do anything meaningful?

 So it kind of this moving into this sort of middle range of the spectrum, where people do pay attention to current events, but they don't really understand the inner workings of how the government actually functions. And then, like I said, people who actually are, you know, high level government officials who are just interested in what the general public is, their perception of their work is. So it's actually one of the things that I enjoy, is having that spectrum of knowledge. In my audience. 

Sarah: [00:34:39] Well, and I think what you're seeing is it's really no longer an option, particularly during the presidential election to say, I don't care. I don't, I'm checked out of politics. Like we hear that from people like I used to try to check out.

And I think at our particular moment in American history, like that just stopped being an option. Like it takes, it takes almost more effort to check out at this point than it would be [00:35:00] to, you know, pay attention. And so I think when people start to pay attention and there's that knowledge gap, you get people applying their own experiences.

That's what we do as humans. Right. We have to find a way to filter the information and put frames around it. And so they, you know, they use their own experiences. You've been tackling one of my favorite, which is, we cannot apply household budget management to government finance. That wears me out, wears me out one day.

You were like Dave Ramsey people, please don't roll up in here again and tell me why can't we snowball the national debt? Doesn't work like that, but like, it makes sense, right? If you have a knowledge gap, you're going to use the knowledge you do have, you're going to use the experiences you do have and say, well, okay, why can't it just work like this?

 I mean, I also personally blame the movie, Dave, where he had his accountant roll in and look at the national budget. I was like, Oh yeah. That's like, like we did it in the movie. Like we can't Dave our way out of this, you guys. But I think that that's, it makes sense that that's what people do, right.

Is that they're trying to take their own experiences and use that as a filter. And I think the more [00:36:00] facts we can bring into the conversation, the more framework people can use to look at it from a different perspective, because that's going to change people's perspective more than just you saying what you think is right.

Is actually applying a little more depth, a little more complexity, a little more history. History is my favorite way to change people's perspective, to see it not just through the lens of their own expense. 

Sharon McMahon: [00:36:21] And it's, it's a lot of it is people don't know what they don't know. And that's, you know, such a challenging obstacle to overcome is you think you know, You think you have an answer to a question. And so consequently, you feel confident in your response to an issue and in reality, you don't know what you don't know. 

Sarah: [00:36:48] Because we don't let people say I don't know in politics. 

Sharon McMahon: [00:36:51] That, we will, you'll get annihilated for that. And that's one of the things that I, you know, I have observed that as well. Like, it is not okay to [00:37:00] change your mind in politics. If you don't come out of the gate with the perfect answer and then you hold fast to that answer 24/7 for the rest of your life, you are going to get slammed as being wishy-washy and you don't even, Oh, well, didn't even know before trying to pretend like, you know, the answers in reality, you don't.

 You're going to get slammed for saying, I, you know what? I don't know the answer to that. And in reality, that is humanity. It's a good expert admits what they don't know. Fake experts says they know everything.

Sarah: [00:37:30] It's my favorite thing to say. I love to say, I don't know on the show. I don't know. I don't know about how I feel about that, or I don't think I can know how I feel about that.

I think that's an unknowable thing that shifts based on your place in life, your emotions, your experiences, like there is no one right way to feel about this. And we act like Twitter desperately wants there to be one answer on everything. That's why that particular medium wears me out. 

Beth: [00:37:53] When you think about the Dave Ramsey example, I'm just going to stick with that for a second, because I think it's such a good one.

Sarah: [00:37:58] It's so easy to beat up on, listen. [00:38:00] The 

Beth: [00:38:00] bigger thing is it's not just people extrapolating from our own experiences. There are elected officials who use the household budget metaphor. People are being led down paths that don't comport with how our government is supposed to work or what laws actually require or how an issue should actually be analyzed.

And so building trust with an audience is an enormous challenge and you've taken a really different approach to that than we do, which I love. So our approach is always just radical transparency. Let me tell you everything about me. Here's my situation with my kids. Here's what I'm struggling with in terms of doom scrolling.

Here's how I used to vote about this and how I'm voting now and why and what I might do in the future. And for you, it is much more like I'm going to show up as a teacher and you are not going to get that information about me, except for your fascination with whales. 

That it is that it is going to be very much like, no, my, my leanings [00:39:00] are not the business of this account. And I would love to hear you talk about how that approach is working for you and kind of what you've learned about the challenge of trying to be neutral in such a polarized era. 

Sharon McMahon: [00:39:12] You know, there's a few topics that I'm not willing to be, you know, non-partisan or neutral on. There's a few things where I'm like, we're not. That's not real. We're not going to give that any time. So there are definitely some standards, but overall, I think there's a tremendous amount of value in giving people the facts that exist outside of your political leanings, because there are things that we can say, this is factual, this is in the constitution.

And what kind of actions you take or what kind of beliefs you hold based on that fact, those vary. That's your bias, right. But the fact that, you know, um, article one of the constitution sets up how Congress is to [00:40:00] function and run. Those, that's just, it says what it says y'all. You know what I mean? Like it says you have to be 25 to be in the house of representatives.

That is a fact. And whether or not that is a good idea now, or whether or not we should have more requirements, like, should you have to pass some kind of test, should you be free from a criminal background? You know, like there's a variety of things we could talk about relating to that, but those facts that exist outside of your political leanings, that topic is lacking in the public square of let's just talk about what is real in this scenario. And then we can talk about how you might think about the facts. 

So that is always, my goal is to just lead with facts and lead with things that are verifiable substantiated, and then give you maybe some different ways to think about that. You know, here's one way you might think about these facts. Here's another way you might think about these facts, but I, I really take umbrage with the idea that we should be making [00:41:00] decisions based on things that are not real or things that are not verifiable substantiated or true. 

Sarah: [00:41:07] Well it's because we struggle so much with the spectrum. We struggle with the idea that we can have both this is our no go line and also areas where there's more fluidity. Like I just think we struggle with that tension as human beings. We want it there. We do better with black and white. We do better with easy filters. We do better with the both sides. As a mole, both sides are a little bit wrong, both sides have some criticisms.

And like, I think we're seeing the weaknesses of that approach. And I think you see that the weaknesses of that approach with people's attitudes towards journalism. And what struck, what I struggle with so much is I feel like the trust was lost because of that both sides approach. And it's almost like people don't trust you, unless you do say both sides have issues.

It's like this weird paradox where I feel like the truth is that was where the trust was lost. With when people would say, instead of setting up both approaches [00:42:00] as equally attainable or equally valid, instead of saying no, The side, the side of the facts is on one side here. Maybe it won't we every time, but it is here and it's like, but then you talk to people and they want that.

They want this idea of like both sides are equally bad and equally wrong on every issue and that's why they struggle with journalism. And I'm like, but that's what got us here, guys. Like that, that approach is what got us here because journalism, you know, as in particular, which is different than teaching.

And the hard reality I think is that all of us are, are riding that line, riding the, you know, in the new media, we're riding that line between journalists, teachers, pundents, ordinary citizens. Like it's very fluid, but for journalist, which I don't claim to be, I think that's, what's really hard is there's this trust lost because of an approach, but that approach seems to be the only way people want to build trust back with journalism. 

Sharon McMahon: [00:42:56] It's. I mean, I, I talk to journalists all the time [00:43:00] and I know they're frustrated because they're, they feel like I'm out here fighting the good fight. I'm sitting here watching hours and hours and hours of congressional testimony and writing up a summary so you don't have to. You know, like I am doing the heavy lifting and I'm just getting spit on all day long. So I know that there is a frustration in that profession too, you know, where they just feel like they are not being respected for the very, very important contributions that they are bringing to the table.

One of the conversations I had recently with somebody who works at a large media organization was about, you know, like she was saying what responsibility do we have? That's a question they ask themselves, like, what responsibility do we have in this loss of trust? Where have we gone wrong where if you're currently held beliefs do not align with the perspective that I am presenting in this story, that you will [00:44:00] automatically assume I am lying to you.

And that is a big difference between. You know, people are having a difficult time distinguishing between a bias and a lie, or they conflate the two. They think I don't like what you're saying, what you're saying does not align with my beliefs thus, it is not true. And those are, that is the standard that many people are currently applying to their evaluation of a situation.

 That source is so right-leaning or that source is so left-leaning, I don't believe a word they say when embedded in, you know, using good journalistic practices and standards, embedded in perhaps a piece that has a biased lens are the facts of the matter. That in fact, these three people testified before the Senate, this, these are some quotes that actually happened. It's [00:45:00] verifiable that they said those things. People have a difficult time right now. And I'm seeing this on the daily difficult time distinguishing facts from bias. 

Sarah: [00:45:10] Well, especially because there's such a mix of news and opinion. 

Beth: [00:45:13] I worry that we're talking a lot, not the three of us here today, but the general conversation, we're talking so much about the responsibilities of journalists and not enough about the responsibilities of us as citizens taking that information in, because a lot of what we're describing is a reader problem. Yeah. How is a journalist to meet an audience where it is when some people don't understand what Congress is and some people want to talk about a variety of economic theories.

 That's an impossible task. And so I feel good about being part of the new media effort to try to fill some of those gaps. And I think that's so valuable about what you're doing. I also notice that when you start filling some of those [00:46:00] gaps for the audience, there is a quick desire to start acting on this new information.

So we talk a lot on our show about what's your work to do. We don't want people to get overwhelmed, right? Sometimes people kind of get awakened to their politics and are like, Oh my God, I have to save the world now. And so we talk a lot about, it's not stainable, if you feel the burden of saving the world every day. You need to think about your particular contribution.

And I think you model this really nicely because you do a lot of fundraising with your page. So it's kind of clear what you see as one of the forms of your work to do, in addition to the education that you're providing. I wonder what kinds of requests you see from your audience? Like what sort of action items are they hungry for?

Sharon McMahon: [00:46:43] People want to know how they can affect government change. I bet you see this in your audience all the time. Like, what can I do? Like, I really disagree with X. What can I do? I, people have been told for so long that they should just [00:47:00] contact their representatives and I'm for that. I think that's great. And yet that is, if you are a representative in the state of California, you might be, you're representing hundreds of thousands of people.

Sarah: [00:47:14] Sharon don't get me started on this. This is my soap box, 40 million people in 80 representatives. Does that make sense to literally anyone in California come on. And they're just the worst. We all have that. 

Sharon McMahon: [00:47:25] Hundreds of thousands of people. And it's a, it's impossible for one person to just like completely shift their, you know, perspective based on one letter that they get. So I think that, yes, we should take the time to let our representatives know what what's important to us, but people very much want to know, what can I do to fix what I view as a very, very important issue whatever that is for them. 

Whether that's, how can we get rid of this Senate, filibuster, how can I work to get rid of the death penalty? [00:48:00] How can we work to either eliminate abortion or expand abortion access? What can we do to it? You know, like whatever your passion project is, how can I affect change? That is a question I see a ton of, what can I do? 

Sarah: [00:48:13] Well, you are running like, one of the worlds largest focus groups on right now. So I'm totally fascinated by the trends you see. And I do, I want to know, like, you know, that's what happens. It's not just what work you want to do, but you see, like, if you start to develop a deeper understanding of systems, then all of a sudden you're like, this system is whack. I got to fix this. Like this system needs help. So what are you seeing as like the trends as people like gain that deeper information?

Like reforms that you feel like people are really coalescing around. I hope it's like better proportional representation because I want 6,000 representatives in the house of representatives. This is my passion project. So like send them my way. Maybe we can get them to go if there are people concerned.

Sharon McMahon: [00:48:50] Yeah. We actually were talking about that last night in my government for grownups class, which talking about amendments to the constitution that have passed Congress, but never [00:49:00] been ratified by the States. And one of them is about, but one of them is about the number of representatives or number of humans that each representative has.

Sarah: [00:49:08] Written by James Madison, just out there hanging out like half ratified. Y'all. I'm telling you. 

Sharon McMahon: [00:49:13] And George Washington was a big proponent of like 30,000 people. Boom. That's the number. That's the number I want. And everybody was like, yes. Agreed. He said it, that was Washington's, you know, one contribution to the constitution was like, I think 30,000 is the right number pf representatives.

Sarah: [00:49:30] We're a smidge off on that right now. 

Sharon McMahon: [00:49:33] Yes. Yeah. So one of the things that I see literally daily, I'm asked about dozens of times a day, how can we get number one, an age limit on who's in Congress? And number two, how can we get term limits? That I see that every day. I'm tired of these old people.,And again, this might be a fair criticism or not, but I see this all the time. I'm tired of these [00:50:00] old people who are these 80 year olds running this country. 

Sarah: [00:50:02] Eighty is generous. They're creeping up towards 90. Please tell me you saw the Tik Tok where the guy walked on his hands while Siri listed their ages until they got the age of retirement? No, I never saw that. I, I gotta send it to you. It's so good. 

Sharon McMahon: [00:50:15] Why is everybody old and why are they in Congress for literally 40 years? You know, the idea of career politicians, we idea of a political outsider is definitely having a moment in, in American politics right now. You know, Donald Trump is the ultimate political outsider. That idea has become very popular. You think about like the Marjorie Taylor green and the Lauren Boberg and people like them who are, who are running campaigns on being a political outsider. 

Sarah: [00:50:44] I wonder if there's something to that Sharon about that is an actual, and I don't say this because I actually, I think there are very, very, very few issues that are truly both sides, but those two might be it because both sides have way too many [00:51:00] octogenarians, both sides have people serving multiple, multiple, multiple terms. So maybe I wonder if that's part of the appeal of that. It's like it, I don't want to say easy, but there is like the it's less complex because it applies a very 

Sharon McMahon: [00:51:15] Well there are eighty five year olds that are Republicans and Democrats, quite easily. And I think if you were to survey. If you were to poll the American people, you would probably find some pretty broad bipartisan support for both of those ideas. And people are like, how can we get term limits in Congress? How can we do it? 

And, you know, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it's like, who's going to vote themselves out. The most direct route that I see is a constitutional convention of the States deciding for themselves, listen. 

Sarah: [00:51:51] But then everything's on the table. 

Sharon McMahon: [00:51:53] You do not want the Pandora's box that that would open. Cause they're not gonna.

Sarah: [00:51:57] I'm ready for it though. I'm ready. I'm [00:52:00] done. We've talked about this a lot too. I'm ready.

Beth: [00:52:02] Here's what I want. Listen. I'm happy to do it, but here's what I want first. I want the passage of a constitutional amendment through the ratification process first that sets the rules for that convention. I don't want that convention beginning with who gets to be here? What are the rules? Because then all of the same entrenched interests that we're upset with about everything now we'll make the rules for that convention.

And what are we doing? And now we're just giving them like free reign and unlimited tools to enact agendas that, that you can't get popular support for. So I will go to the free for all if we have it a little less free for all. 

Sarah: [00:52:45] Now, this seems like a very good intersection of your interests. Have you heard about how Iceland did this?

Sharon McMahon: [00:52:49] No tell me. 

Sarah: [00:52:51] Yes. I listened about this yesterday on the Ezra Klein show. They chose like a couple hundred, not may 94, 900. [00:53:00] I don't remember. I'm not good with the details, but they like chose like a random assortment of citizens. They came together, they set some of the rules Beth was talking about, and then they chose average citizens to talk about like, what do we want in the preamble?

What do we want? What's important? And this coalesced around  their financial crisis, because it was really bad in Iceland in 2008. And then, so they were like, something's got to change and they got it all and they wrote it all and everybody loved it. And it was approved by like 75% of the population.

And then parliament killed it because by that time, the economy had gotten better. Another party was in charge of that never liked this idea, but they did it. They like got this random and the woman arguing for it was like elections and representatives favors a particular type of person. And who is to say that shy, introverted people that don't want to run for office, can't be leaders and can't bring us into the future. Right.

 And we're so focused on elections as the way to have democracy and maybe there's other ways. And watch what Iceland did. They like chose people at random. [00:54:00] They had some rules, they had experts at their disposal so that they could work through some of these issues with expert help, and then they wrote it and I was like, this sounds great. I think let's, let's use these rules and Beth's amendment and we'll have a constitution committee. I mean, we fixed it today. 

Sharon McMahon: [00:54:15] One of the things that we were, I was talking to some people about last night too, is that, you know how we were talking about how social media has changed politics. And I think, you know, obviously it's changed in big ways.

Sarah: [00:54:27] Yeah, how hasn't it changed? 

Sharon McMahon: [00:54:30] Subjected every single thing that somebody does to intense immediate public scrutiny whereas that used to be, you know, Somewhat shielded from public view and information took a long time to move around the world. And so, you know, like maybe it was coming on a movie reel when you went into, when you went to see a movie or 

Sarah: [00:54:52] or a literal horse, on a horse.

Sharon McMahon: [00:54:54] Or on an actual horse. And so that has to speak to your point about who's to say introverts wouldn't be great [00:55:00] leaders, um, there were a lot of people who would be great leaders who are not willing to subject their families to the incredible intense social media scrutiny. What have you have a FA what if you have a child who is struggling with mental health?

What if you have a child who is not performing well in school? What if you have a husband who is struggling with some addiction, whatever you have, you know, a mom who was whatever? Um, It can be, it, it, it automatically disqualifies people who, um, have these kinds of challenges in their families. 

And it, we are currently breeding a generation of politicians who are narcissists because only they would be willing to subject themselves to that incredible intense, constant social media scrutiny. And I'm not saying that everyone in politics today is a narcissist. I just see that on the horizon of only [00:56:00] the most narcissistic of personalities is going to be willing to step into that intense, intense scrutiny and say like, come for me, I'm willing to take it.

Beth: [00:56:11] As a person who is relatively private, despite having a podcast where I talk about my opinions on the internet, I look at politics and I think I am not shameless enough to compete in this arena because if certain things from my life were exploited, it would be devastating to me. And also, I am not willing to explain things about other people in order to beat them.

Sarah: [00:56:36] That's a good verb though. Exploited versus revealed. It's not that you're trying to keep them a secret. It's like, you just don't want them to push them under the, yeah, I got that. 

Beth: [00:56:45] And I feel like that is related a bit, maybe not all my muscles clenched up. Sharon, when you were talking about the political outsider.

Mm, because while I both affirm that desire to have greater diversity in [00:57:00] general, not just age, but greater diversity in general in our representation and some limit on people staying forever so that we can have some forward momentum and keep that diversity, I worry about the idea that people, who are one day asking questions on Instagram, about how Congress works, tomorrow saying I'm ready to be in the house of representatives. 

And I have worried watching some of the new members of Congress, not just those you named, but people in the Senate even, saying things about the constitution that are incorrect, they are factually incorrect. Yep. And so I wonder as we wrap up today, because you're doing such good work to try to fill this knowledge gap, what you have learned about how we can do better in our civics education? And I'm really not even talking about in school. I think schools are doing what they can and need more resources [00:58:00] and getting them those resources involves more adult education. So I feel like we're always tempted to start with the kids.

And the truth is we got to start with the parents. With the tax payers. Start with the systems. And I just would love to know what you think would be more effective in helping people better understand their government. 

Sharon McMahon: [00:58:15] Such a good question. And of course it's a very multi-faceted answer. I, you know, obviously can't just drop one bot truth bomb on you and be like, here's the answer to all of them.

Sarah: [00:58:24] You don't have your amendment ready for the constitution, the convention we're going to have?  

Sharon McMahon: [00:58:28] We do. I like the idea though, of having, having a convention. I think that's, that's a fun idea. I'd go to that convention.

You know, I think the internet is the next frontier. I really do. I mean, I love books. I'm working on a book project. You guys have had both have a, had a book. I love books. It's certain kind of person that buys a book. They're already people who are engaged. They are already people who are interested. And I think the internet really is the next frontier of where this kind of education is going to come from. 

[00:59:00] You're seeing, um, even the government in terms of like the CDC, trying to use the internet to promote its, it's thoughts that promote its agenda. Like we're going to go online. We're going to make these graphics for habit. We're going to have a graphic that says, this is what, what we think, this is what you should get this vaccine. You know, that you're seeing that even become saturated within, um, executive departments of using social media as a tool because people now get the majority of their news and information from social media.

They don't get them from the card catalog at the library. So I think there's going to just continue to be, and there needs to be more, people who are interested in filling these knowledge gaps for people, because I obviously, and you guys obviously cannot do, we cannot do this alone. 

 People want to learn in different ways. And I think there needs to be more of a concerted effort to meet people where they are, rather than just demanding that they obtain information in the [01:00:00] manner that we deem appropriate. 

Sarah: [01:00:02] Amen. Well, and listen to all three of us. The truth is too, it's not just teacher student, because what all three of us do is create teachers and maybe they don't start an internet class. Or maybe they don't, you know, find another channel to meet thousands of people, but they are talking to their neighbors now and they are talking to their family members now.

This is, look, I cry every episode, Sharon, this is important. That's how we know to get upset, but I find myself tearing up because that's what we do. That's, what's so powerful. That's why I'm glad you're doing it too. And that's why I love our community so much is because I know that's what they're out there doing. They're out there spreading that knowledge and spreading that information on the internet and off the internet. And I think that's, what's so beautiful.

Sharon McMahon: [01:00:43] People learning to, um, walk the walk and not just talk the talk of being the change they want to see. And that to me is a big component of what is missing and what's important in this discussion.

[01:01:00] Beth: [01:01:37] Thank you to Sharon for her time and what she's doing on Instagram to educate more people about our government. Sarah, we got such a brilliant commemoration from Sarah C. 

Sarah: [01:01:48] Yes, she really loved your discussion of bedtime revenge, and how we take back our personal quiet time by staying up late. My favorite part of her [01:02:00] message was she says that her husband is a romantic and wants to go to bed at the same time. I feel like we could do a whole conversation about like both sleeping in the same bed with somebody else, how we created that as a culture and what that means. And also this situation where you have either night owls or in morning people in a marriage together or people.

 I just like that she described it as like this romantic idea that we should all go to the bed at the same time. I love that so much. So she says, I developed a pattern of getting in bed to keep him happy. As soon as he was asleep, five to 10 minutes, I'd get up. I decided to become assertive. I redecorated my office. I'd added an easy chair.

I surrounded myself with inspiring positive things. Put a sign on the door that said my hideaway and each night after he settled in bed, I have my time alone in my hideaway. For the first two months, I explained I needed quiet time before I sleep. Last night, he turned on the light in the room as he headed to bed victory.

Beth: [01:02:52] So do you and Nicholas go to bed at the same time? 

Sarah: [01:02:54] Okay. How much time do you have? Okay, so for many, many [01:03:00] years, I was like the bedtime person. It will not surprise you at all to know that I have a pretty prolific bedtime routine as I also have a very prolific morning routine. And so I would do all my things and I get in bed and he'd like fall in front of the sleep in front of the TV and it drove me crazy.

Now when we canceled our cable, that changed. So he doesn't fall asleep in front of the TV anymore cause we don't really have cable. So he's like watching things streaming on his devices. And it's funny. So now that he doesn't do that, he usually goes to, he'll get in bed before me. And we've started reading together, which I love I, this is why it's appealed to me.

I am also a romantic and I have this vision in my head that we should like go to bed at the same time, reading a book like in the movies and like turn off our little lights, but often it's me keeping the light on later. Like now that he actually gets in bed, it's apparent that like, I actually stay up later a lot more often than he does.

Beth: [01:03:48] We go to bed together. We usually, we watch something together before we fall asleep. I know that's not good for us, but we do it. 

Sarah: [01:03:55] And we don't have, we don't have a TV in our room and haven't ever. 

Beth: [01:03:58] And we do not intend to change that anytime [01:04:00] soon. I love you so much. I'm not going to change my mind about that. We enjoy it right now. And right now we are having enormous marital conflict over this routine because Chad really likes the show Yellowstone. Have you watched Yellowstone? 

Sarah: [01:04:15] It's Kevin Costner, Right? It's Kevin Costner, and I love him. He's so cute. I watched one episode. That's not for me. 

Beth: [01:04:21] It is not for me for me a lot. Okay. I hate Yellowstone. 

Sarah: [01:04:24] Cause its ense. Right? You don't like super-intense things like that. Don't you 

Beth: [01:04:28] I do not like super-intense things. I do not like to have bad dreams. I do not like cruelty and suffering. I do not like murder. I thought the SNL sketch about watching a murder show was hilarious, but it is a thousand percent not who I am. So Yellowstone is beautifully shot. And that's why I think he thought I would be into it because seeing this sweeping ranch in Montana, it's gorgeous. And I do like it 

Sarah: [01:04:52] And you get to look at Kevin Costner. That's nice too. 

Beth: [01:04:55] You know, whatever, not for me also, but the only [01:05:00] character that I like in this show kills someone like in every episode. There is just, it's just too much. And so the other night we get in bed and I have made it clear that I am done with Yellowstone and Chad turns it on. And so I'm like, all right, fine. And I pick up my phone and I mean, I made a production of staring at my phone the entire time Yellowstone was on our television. Even still four people died in the episode and I caught all four of them.

And did I dream about it? Yes, I did, because it just gets in my psyche and plants itself there. And the next day I woke up and I said, guess what I dreamed about last night, four people dead in a snake, even though I tried so hard to just read long reads in bed next to you, it's still in my brain so you're going to have to stop. It's a real conflict that we're having here. So maybe I need to go visit Sarah C's hideaway. 

Sarah: [01:05:52] Yeah. That's that's intense. And this is like, this is what I've noticed cause you know, I stopped binge-watching and we would watch TV on Sunday nights. We haven't [01:06:00] quite found the perfect combo of the Crown and Ted lasso that we did.

So we've been like watching a movie or a documentary or something with the kids. And it's just because I watched so little TV and now that I'm watching it on Sunday nights, like the intensity, it all stays with me. I'm thinking about it for like, cause I'm pretty visual person anyway, like I'm thinking about it for days afterwards. Like it's like the less TV I watch, the more it impacts me. Which I guess makes sense. 

Beth: [01:06:23] I think that's it for me too, because I don't watch much TV. The only TV I watch really is what I sit down and watch Chad with and we watched jeopardy with the girls and the masked dancer, which is over finally, like even the Queen's Gambit it was so intense for me. And it wasn't like violent. Right. It was just so sad. I was like, what else is going to happen to this poor woman? I just don't like it. I need like British bake-off I'm ready for Ted lasso season two.

Sarah: [01:06:48] Just all of the Ted Lasso. 

Beth: [01:06:50] I will watch Schitt's Creek through again, I'm enjoying Mr. Mayor. It makes me laugh, but I can not can not with Yellowstone. 

Sarah: [01:06:57] Now, have you watched the Righteous [01:07:00] Gemstones? I have not. Oh, you should watch that. Now there's some intense parts, but because they're such a jackasses, like it doesn't really matter. Like it's, it's definitely not dramatic and it's hysterical. So maybe that would be a good compromise. Maybe you try The Righteous Gemstones.

Beth: [01:07:16] Okay. I'll think about it. I'm going to lean into some British Baking for a while though first I think, and SNL. Old SNLs make me happy before bed. Thank you all so much for joining us for this episode of Pantsuit Politics, wide ranging as it's been. We will be back here on Friday.

We're getting so many questions about what's happening in immigration. And it's a lot. I started making notes. I think there are about 72 things you need to know about immigration right now. So we're going to talk about that on Friday. Between now and then we'll see you on social media and on Patreon. Have the best week available to you

Beth: Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production.  

Sarah: Alise Napp is our managing director. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music. 

Beth: Our show is listener supported. Special thanks to our executive producers. 

Sarah: David McWilliams. Ali Edwards, Martha Bronitsky, Amy Whited, 

Janice Elliot, Sarah Ralph, Barry Kaufman, Jeremy Sequoia, Laurie LaDow, Emily Neesley,  

Allison Luzader. Tracey Puthoff,  Danny Ozment, Molly Kohrs, Julie Hallar, 

Jared Minson, Marnie Johansson. The Kriebs! 

Beth: Shari Blem, Tiffany Hassler, Morgan McCue, Nicole Berkless, Linda Daniel, Joshua Allen, and Tim Miller. Sarah Greenup

Sarah: To support Pantsuit Politics, and receive lots of bonus features, visit patreon.com/pantsuit politics. 

Beth: You can connect with us on our website, PantsuitPoliticsShow.com. Sign up for our weekly emails and follow us on Instagram.

Alise Napp3 Comments