Government Leaks: Ten Years Since Edward Snowden

It's been a decade since Edward Snowden leaked government documents. Today, we're reviewing the history of what led him to that point and what happened in the aftermath. We found it so helpful to look at the story as a whole rather than the slow trickle of reveals that happened at the time. We hope you'll find this look back valuable both as a historical exercise and as we think about the larger impact of leaking government documents.

TOPICS DISCUSSED

  • An American History of Leaks

  • Edward Snowden’s Path to Leaking

  • Outside of Politics: Family Dialects

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do it without you. To support the show, please subscribe to our Premium content on our Patreon page or Apple Podcasts Subscriptions, or share the word about our work in your circles. Sign up for our newsletter or follow us on Instagram to keep up with everything happening in the Pantsuit Politics world. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website.

EPISODE RESOURCES

TRANSCRIPT

Sarah [00:00:07] This is Sarah Stewart Holland.

Beth [00:00:08] And this is Beth Silvers.

Sarah [00:00:10] Thank you for joining us for Pantsuit Politics. Welcome to another episode of Pantsuit Politics. We are here on the 10th anniversary of the Edward Snowden leaks. We thought in the decades since, we've learned a lot about leaks and the data collection and how we feel about Edward Snowden himself. So we thought this would be an excellent opportunity to sort of have a bigger conversation about leaks, about our government, how we feel about it, and how we feel about the leakers themselves. So we are here today to talk about Edward Snowden. And as always, we will end the show on what's on our mind Outside of Politics. We want to talk about family dialects. I'm so excited.

Beth [00:01:00] We hope that you really enjoy this and all of our episodes. And if you do, we would be so grateful if you would take a moment to leave a five star rating and review in your podcast player of choice. It helps other people find Pantsuit Politics. One of the best parts of doing this job is getting to hear from all of you. And as more people are listening, the diversity and thoughtfulness of those emails just increases. So please, please share Pantsuit Politics with others in your lives. And thank you in advance for your kind words.

Sarah [00:01:30] Next up, we're going to talk about the history of leaks in our country. Before we get into Mr. Snowden, we thought we'd do just a little review of intelligence leaks. I looked through a timeline of some of the most important intelligence leaks in United States history and was, if I'm being honest, a little surprised that it started before the founding of the country. In 1772, Benjamin Franklin received a packet of letters between the governor and lieutenant governor of the colony of Massachusetts in English military authorities, where they were basically, like, "Help, they're mad about taxes, send more troops." And because they released these letters, people were furious. And it's sort of credited with accelerating the revolution. So it's like the first intelligence leak even before we were a nation.

Beth [00:02:29] That is both really interesting and also unsurprising, because I think when you talk about leaks, it sounds like something different than people are bad at keeping secrets, but it is just an old truth that people are bad at keeping secrets.

Sarah [00:02:41] Yeah, my favorite one I learned about, though, was during the Civil War, Union forces just happened upon some cigars left in a battlefield that had been wrapped up in Confederate battle plans, and finding these gave them the upper hand. Still wasted by General McClellan, my least favorite civil war General. I know everybody has a favorite and least favorite. He's my least favorite. But it's still credited with giving them a lot of strategic advantage during the Battle of Antietam.

Beth [00:03:11] Wars are where we typically see leaks. And that's how we get to the modern era of leaks with the Pentagon Papers in 1971, when famously military analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked Robert McNamara's 7000+ page report. I have to think about that in terms of the technology available in 1971 to create such a report. Seven thousand pages.

Sarah [00:03:36] I have to think about how they thought they were going to keep 7000 pages secret.

Beth [00:03:40] True.

Sarah [00:03:40] To your previous point, 7000 pages, you thought you're going to keep that under lock and key? Really? In such a massively unpopular war? Sure, I bet that was going to work.

Beth [00:03:51] Not a year later, you get Watergate when government officials leaked the Nixon tapes, proving President Nixon's involvement in the break-in Watergate. Such a confusing mess of facts.

Sarah [00:04:01] It is.

Beth [00:04:02] But that leak was pivotal in the public's understanding of what was happening and everything that followed.

Sarah [00:04:07] Well, and I just think that combination of events, the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate leak, they're not unrelated. I mean, Nixon felt weak because of the Vietnam War. That's why he broke into Democratic headquarters to a certain extent. And I just think, though, that it's all wrapped up in that moment in time where you see leaks really undercutting institutional trust. It was crumbling because of these bad decisions. But then the leaks they're confirming almost these conspiracy theories. Like this way people think about the government that had been sort of a fringe way, I think, of viewing institutions like the military or the military industrial complex or even the White House. And then you have these leaks confirming like, oh, my gosh, it is out of a really bad movie that they have this information and we have to somehow get it out there. Between [inaudible] and all this stuff, it's people inside and outside (often inside) leaking this information.

Beth [00:05:12] And then surrounding the Iraq war and after 911, we got another major moment with regards to intelligence leaks.

Sarah [00:05:21] Yeah, I think this is like phase two of the modern era of intelligence leaks, and I'm just going to be really honest here. I had lumped Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and WikiLeaks altogether. And I did not understand the difference between what was going on, the sort of timeline of events. And I think really breaking them out and making sure we talk about WikiLeaks and Chelsea Manning is really helpful before we dive in and talk about Snowden, because I just don't think you have Snowden without these other two pretty momentous developments.

Beth [00:05:53] WikiLeaks was founded in 2006 by Julian Assange. It really jumped out at me to see 2006 because I think WikiLeaks has become such a dominant part of the culture that I would have guessed a much earlier date if you had asked me in a trivia competition or something. So it shows you how powerful WikiLeaks has been in our imaginations.

Sarah [00:06:13] And that it's this continuation because he was inspired by Daniel Ellsberg. He points to the Pentagon Papers, this giant leak of information around an unpopular war as really inspiring him with regards to WikiLeaks, which was definitely in the first sort of important phase of WikiLeaks, really motivated by opposition to the Iraq war. And so when it starts, you have founders, you have an advisory board. It wasn't Julian Assange equals WikiLeaks. I don't think that came till much later. He's-- I don't think I'm saying anything shocking here-- quite a character. And he ultimately sort of alienates many of the fellow founders and the advisory board, especially around the leak of these Iraq war logs that he gets from Chelsea Manning that show that there's been this devastating civilian impact of the war that to a certain extent, Western countries, including the United States, have been successful in keeping secrets.

Beth [00:07:08] So Chelsea Manning, you might remember, is a former Army intelligence analyst convicted for violating the Espionage Act. She served time in prison from 2010 to 2017. President Obama commuted Chelsea Manning sentence very controversially. Time-wise, interesting and important to note, Chelsea manning is in jail when the NSA hires Edward Snowden in 2013.

Sarah [00:07:31] Yeah, very important as we move in to Edward Snowden story, which we're going to cover up next. All right, Edward Snowden, let's get into his background before we get to the specificity of what happened 10 years ago. So he dropped out of high school. He was very fascinated by computers and later guys like [inaudible]. But he tries to join the Army after 9/11. And I think that's a thread through both him and Chelsea Manning story, which is they felt like they wanted to defend America. It was a very patriotic decision. They sort of had this narrative in their head when they joined the military after those attacks. And then as they get inside the system, I might just say their hearts were kind of broken by what they see is actually happening. So he gets into the Army, but he is injured and then discharged.

Beth [00:08:28] And his life before this is really spent on computers; he's like a real whiz kid. There are some interesting stories about moments when he got invited to conferences among other people who are into computer programs, and he's too young to go and they're shocked by his age. So he's kind of a prodigy. And like a lot of other computer prodigies, the conventional path is not for him.

Sarah [00:08:54] And I think it's so interesting because this is like Internet 1.0. This is where the Internet held all this promise, right? Like it was going to democratize everything, it's going to change the world. So I think you have these two paths that he's on that he feels holds a lot of promise, a lot of sort of ability to make a difference. And one breaks his heart, so I feel like he's like, well, this other one is still out here. Maybe I could just do something with this one.

Beth [00:09:19] So he gets into the CIA and 2006 as a technical I.T. expert, and he receives a top secret clearance. 2006 WikiLeaks is being founded at this time. And first he goes to Geneva and he does not like what he sees. Now, is it surprising that you might get into the CIA and not feel good about what you're seeing? I don't think so. But still, young Edward is troubled. He talks to a supervisor about this. His supervisor places a critical assessment of his behavior and work habits in his personnel file, and he voiced a suspicion that Edward had tried to break into classified computer files that he wasn't authorized to access at that time. So Edward leaves government employment. He goes to be a government contractor for Dell. But, again, he keeps a security clearance. And I just feel like this is worth kind of hovering on too because we had conversations in the last couple of months about who all has access to top secret information, especially who all has access because they are I.T people and it's just a lot of people. So remembering that Edward Snowden is a contractor for Dell, also funny to think about Dell computers and just the timeline of everything when he starts to work at the NSA.

Sarah [00:10:32] How did it get missed that he had a critical assessment that said we think he was trying to break into a classified computer he didn't have authorized. And they're like, yeah, sure, give this government contractors top clearance, who previously worked for us, left our employment and had a critical assessment about his access to classified documents. Seems like a missed opportunity. Listen, I wasn't there. I had to Monday morning quarterback, but I don't know guys. So he moved to Hawaii and that's where he begins working at the NSA facility there as the government contractor. And, listen, he is not there very long before he's like, you know what, I'm going go to the top office. And it has less to do with the war and more to do with the access to everyday citizen information and data that he is seeing behind the scenes at the NSA that is saying, "No, no, no, we only spy on bad guys." And what Edward Snowden is saying is that, "No, the spying is much larger than that. It is much, much, much larger than that." In particular, he is concerned about a tool called PRISM, which was created for the NSA by the 27 Patriot Act that collected personal information on all American citizens who used Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Apple and several other companies. There was no public understanding or information about this. It was a very, very big deal.

Beth [00:11:51] And I think just putting yourself in the timeline, again, is helpful because 2007 is when everybody has a Facebook account now, right? And everybody's posting the most mundane thing, our every day movements, we're writing our statuses in these weird ways to provide all this information. Our attitudes about what we share online have changed so rapidly since these tools first came to our being. And 9/11 is still so present in the American psyche. And I can imagine that especially inside a place like the NSA, the line between who the good guys and the bad guys are is extremely messy. And so I get why someone who's idealistic, who's seen what the CIA is doing in Geneva, comes into the NSA and thinks, "Whoa, if I was concerned before, look at this. This feels like big brother to me."

Sarah [00:12:47] Well, because it's not just from 2006 to 2013, the course of his career through Geneva and Hawaii, and then the leak which happens in 2013. It's not just the proliferation of social media, it's the proliferation of smartphones. It's that it went from some people having smartphones to everybody having smartphones, taking pictures with those smartphones, having cameras on those smartphones. I think he is experiencing that as someone who is very online, he's experiencing that proliferation of the technology. At the same time, he is sort of having the scales fall from his eyes through the lens of national security and where that information is being used by the government. So he's in Hawaii in 2013. He reaches out to Laura Poitras, who's a documentary filmmaker. He reaches out to Glenn Greenwald initially and to another journalist, Barton Gellman of The Washington Post. And at first, he can't get through to them. I heard an interview with Glenn Greenwald, who was like, "I got people all the time telling me they had everything that was going to confirm everyone's worst fears, so it's sort of hard to pick through." But Laura Poitras is, I guess, because she's a documentary filmmaker, probably didn't have as many people reaching out to her. He gets through to her. She follows back up with Glenn Greenwald and is like, "I know you heard from this guy. He's for real. He has all these documents." And so he leaked them through a-- have you heard this story that he leaked them through a Rubik's Cube? I think he put the SD card in the Rubik's Cube. He gets them out of the facility.

Beth [00:14:16] Can we just talk about that story for a second? Because I think it's so remarkable the way he gets the USB drive, I guess, out of the NSA facility is by handing the Rubik's Cube to the security officer and then taking it from him on the other side of the screening floor.

Sarah [00:14:31] He's like, try to solve it.

Beth [00:14:32] Yes.

Sarah [00:14:32] He's like, "Have you ever done one of these? Try to solve it." Although, I don't think it would have gone off. I was kind of confused by that part of the story. I don't think they're so sensitive they'd have gone off for a USB drive, but it's still pretty clever. So he gets the documents out. He tells the supervisor in May of 2013 that he needs to take some time off to undergo treatment for epilepsy, which he had been diagnosed with the previous year. He tells his girlfriend that he's going to be away a few weeks but is very vague about why. And he, on May 20th, 2013, flies to Hong Kong from Hawaii. He feels like this is a safe space. Meanwhile, in the background, Glenn Greenwald and Poitras have been working with The Guardian to publish the information they believe they're going to receive from Edward Snowden in Hong Kong. And this was pretty intense negotiation as far as like, are we going to name him? Are we going to publish this? Will we protect the source? Is the government going to have to go after us and arrest us? And so they're all in Hong Kong. And in this very cloak and dagger operation, they meet up and he passes this information off to Greenwald and Poitras.

Beth [00:15:33] So I think if you put together that he went to Hong Kong, that he was vague with his girlfriend about what he was doing, that he had the Rubik's Cube, the picture emerges of somebody with a real flair for the dramatic. In addition to having a detailed plan, he also, you can tell, has a sense of who he is, that he's doing something historic, that he wants to approach it in a historic way. I just think that helps me understand why him. When you think about these leakers, you think about the many, many, many people who see the same things and don't leak; the many people who are troubled equally or even maybe more so, and don't take these steps. And just these little moments of drama with him help me better understand some of what distinguishes the people who end up leaking versus the people who continue to either work inside the system to effect change or just accept that the world is a morally gray place and that they are but a cog in the wheel of it all.

Sarah [00:16:36] Well, and I just think it's interesting because he makes some very different decisions. I think some of those were informed by what happened to Chelsea Manning. The Guardian publishes these first revelations on June 5th, and then he reveals his identity on June 9th. He's like, this is who I am. I am not hiding because I believe this information belongs out there. But he also doesn't just turn himself over to authorities to go sit in jail either. He's fired. The government issued a warrant for his arrest and he is on his way to Ecuador, where he believes he will be able to pull a Julian Assange and hide out from extradition. The US revokes his passport almost midair. So he gets stuck in Russia and he spends a month living in the airport in basically limbo until the Russian authorities come and offer him asylum.

Beth [00:17:24] And he remains in Russia to this day. It's difficult for me. I have followed this with so much interest since it happened. I have followed Glenn Greenwald for years on Twitter because of the Edward Snowden leaks. I have followed Edward Snowden. I love to go read his tweets. It is so hard for me to watch him paint himself as a crusader for transparent government and free speech knowing that he lives in Russia and that the Russian government is absolutely in love with what he's done. And in those initial days in the airport, the Russian government really tries to kind of cozy up to him and use him. And it seems like he mostly resists that. But, again, it's hard for me to view that story with the knowledge that he's still there and not have some suspicion about all of it.

Sarah [00:18:16] Yeah, I think the Russia component is very difficult. I am sympathetic to what happened in the moment, which is we revoked his passport and he got stuck. So I don't think that was a part of the original plan. I don't think he was trying to give the Russian government some sort of upper hand. I definitely don't think he was working for them. But it is hard, since then, over the past 10 years to watch him doing interviews with Vladimir Putin and you're like, "What are you doing, dude?" And I think that he has very much taken up this mantle and he believes himself to be a hero. But I do think that his decision making since then-- and also I just kind of want to be, like, don't make Edward Snowden your whole personality, Edward Snowden. It's a huge thing that he did and we'll get into the fact in a minute, but it doesn't have to be the rest of his life. Although, there's a warrant for his arrest, so it's not like he can come back to the United States and try to start up another career. But he's clearly very smart. I understand that he has this crusade and now the stakes are so high and he's put so much on it, that I guess he just feels like he has to continue to double down. But I do think the Russian turn of the latter part of his story is problematic.

Beth [00:19:21] Do you want to talk about his legacy then? I think it's complicated. I wonder often how we would view these leaks had he turned himself in. If he had done this, gotten the information out, and then said, "Okay, go ahead, arrest me, let's have a trial. Let's really let the American public understand what's at stake here and what was at stake for me."

Sarah [00:19:42] It's hard because in some ways I think he exposed very, very important information. These were all justified basically under the FISA amendment that said, well, if it touches a foreign server, then we're legally allowed to collect it. Well, everything touches a freakn’ foreign server. So that just means all data can be collected for national security purposes. I think people react to that moment of thought, no, that's not right. But we really hadn't done anything about it since then, which I think is difficult to consider that it was earth shattering. Although, it did get buried a little bit by the drama of the personal story that the United States government was collecting all our data. But I'm not sure we've changed much since then to prevent the collection of that data.

Beth [00:20:32] We've given away lots and lots and lots more data since this happened. That's another thing I wonder about Edward Snowden. If I were just going to sit down and have a chat with him, what would he think about the fact that he gave up his life and devoted his entire identity to something that the vast majority of people do not seem to care that much about? Even now, when I have conversations with people about TikTok what you hear back is, take my data; I don't have anything to hide.

Sarah [00:20:57] I know.

Beth [00:20:59] And I think that's why we are more interested in the drama of this person, this individual's story, than with the information that he was trying to get out into the public eye.

Sarah [00:21:10] Yes, there definitely seems to be a collective shrug, and I think that's always the danger of these leaks going back to the beginning of Watergate and the sort of modern era leaks and the Pentagon paper, is are you exposing something and motivating people to change or are you just exposing something and allowing people to double down on their cynicism? I think that's what's so dangerous about this. And the only thing I'm encouraged by, and I think this is bigger picture than just Edward Snowden, but in this 21st century journey through leaks, through WikiLeaks, through Chelsea Manning, through Edward Snowden, I think the thing I'm most encouraged by is that we decided-- I don't know if we decided or this was just a natural and I think overall positive evolution-- that this sort of data needs to be filtered, understood, analyzed, synthesized by professional journalists across the globe. And that's what you see with things like the Panama Papers in 2016, the Pandora Papers in 2021, which I do think have a more positive effect. I felt like when that information was written about and released by this international conglomeration of journalists, it was like just see. It's like there's the problem, when you just dump the information and you just go, "See." There's just no where to go with that. But I feel with the Panama Papers and the Pandora Papers, there was outcome. There are like regulations in countries. There's global efforts to try to prevent this evading of taxes and this filtering of money. If nothing else, I think the fact that Credit Suisse is going under is a good sign. I do feel like we have evolved into a better management of these leaks, be they coming from banks or coming from national security sources in a way that directs that energy. Because I think that's the problem, it was so explosive, was so dramatic and then everybody went, "What are we supposed to do with that?"

Beth [00:23:07] Yeah, it tells you who the leaks are for. With the Panama Papers and the Pandora Papers, those were pretty clearly leaks that were not intended to be like a general public audience.

Sarah [00:23:16] Yeah.

Beth [00:23:17] They were for regulators and journalists and policymakers. In some ways, the leaks of those documents were a reminder to people in positions of power that something can come out at almost any time. It's the threat of the leak that is more significant than the leak itself. And when the leak itself happens, usually the volume is still so overwhelming that the public can't react much. And we've seen so much now. It's not new anymore that everyone does go right back to life. And we don't have a role really as citizens in accountability around any of this. But it still matters. And I do think that you see through our movies, through our policymaking, through our general attitudes about the NSA, that Edward Snowden made a big dent. We have come a long way since the days when we allowed our post 9/11 fear to drive the entire bus on our policymaking. And we have pushed back some against the scope of Pfizer. Again, that doesn't happen because the general public, but it happens because of the people that operate in that space. And so, I wouldn't have done what Edward Snowden did. I wish he had done it a different way. And I can see that it was really significant, perhaps not in the way he intended, but it has been significant.

Sarah [00:24:36] What you see in comparison to like Pandora Papers or the Panama Papers or even Chelsea Manning to a certain extent, the way he chose to do this made it very easy to make him the villain and the enemy. And there are still people inside the United States government who feel very strongly should we ever get our hands on Edward Snowden, he should go to jail for the rest of his life because he compromised sources and he put people in danger. And so, it's like when you allow that narrative, if you don't follow the processes-- and I think there are many, many catch 22s for whistleblowers and leakers. Absolutely. There's no right way to do it to a certain extent. But I think the way he chose to do it to, like, proudly put his name on it and then run created a narrative that allowed an escape from this blockbuster information, that allowed the government to say like, "No, see how he's behaving? We don't have to take this seriously." As opposed to International Association of Journalists saying the rules are not being followed and you are the enforcers of the rules; what are you going to do about that? That's just a different situation I just think that allows less PR maneuvering, if nothing else.

Beth [00:25:49] Well, and much of what was leaked with the Panama and Pandora papers was about money being moved around. And that is different than human beings in covert operations. Where you are talking about international military operations and any level of exposure around that, it is a different analysis. It cannot just be about the principle. It has to also be about the reality on the ground for the people who didn't create the principles, who didn't make the system, who don't endorse every aspect of it, and still are willing to be involved because they believe they're doing something good for their country.

Sarah [00:26:25] But I think always the flow of information, be it from a military source or a financial source, that moment where you read these stories and you think, oh, right, there's just this entire other universe that exists. And I do value the people who remind us that the people in power are making decisions that do matter because that plays against the conspiracy. These leaks in a way expose light on something and say, this is not a foregone conclusion. This is not a law of nature that the powerful should be and are able to move about the world with very little repercussions. There is another way. There is another path. And I think that's why, for all the flaws and the strategy he took, the fact that Edward Snowden is a part of this long line of history where we get information that helps us see that is very important.

Beth [00:27:21] It is important. And I think you still have to look at it and wonder how we cannot do a better job creating a system where people are able to more effectively create change within it. Because I don't want the message of this conversation to be like a celebration of Edward Snowden. That's not how I feel about it. To me, when I think about Edward Snowden, it just calls me to think about what you stand up for and how you stand up for it and what consequences you're willing to accept in connection with taking that stand. And I think that the story of Edward Snowden is pretty tragic when I compare how his life has proceeded to the way that I would wish those questions to be answered.

Sarah [00:28:06] Yeah. There's a long history of people's nonviolent resistance and being arrested and saying, "I don't want to participate in this and this is how I choose not to." And if he felt that the stakes were that high and the moral foundation was so strong to say, "I'm willing to go to jail for this, I'm willing to go to jail because I think this is so wrong and it deserves to be exposed," is definitely a stronger foundation to stand on than "I think this is wrong, but I'm going to go live in Russia for the rest of my life." But, again, I wasn't there. It's easy to say that in the moment that, sure, I would go to jail. But the stories that Chelsea Manning tells about her time in military prison are heartbreaking and terrifying. And if I knew that was what was coming my way-- we're not talking about a few weekends in a county jail. We're talking about solitary confinement in a way that breaks your mental health. So, it's difficult. I don't want to sit in judgment because I have never been put in the position where I have to make that call. And I like to think I would, but I don't know. A decade later, either way, they're interesting questions. And I think this is an interesting moment, particularly considering the recent leaks from the intelligence community, to look at the legacy of Snowden and to think about the decisions he's made and the decisions we've all made regarding the information we learned from this leak since then. And we appreciate you joining us for that conversation. Next up, we're going to talk about what's on our mind Outside Politics. Beth, Axios has been having a really fun, ongoing conversation in some of their newsletters about family dialects, which I think they shortened to familects. It's like those fun shorthand you develop inside your home, inside your families. Like one family, their daughters wore Tweety Bird hoodies, and so all hoodies became Tweeties.

Beth [00:30:10] That's really fun.

Sarah [00:30:11] I think it's so fun. I love it so much. And the Holland family, like, we could just formulate an encyclopedia. Do you guys do that in your house?

Beth [00:30:19] I was trying to think about whether we do or not. What we definitely do is hang on to the adorable ways our kids pronounce things when they were tiny. So strawberries will always be "strawburties" and ornaments will always have a D in it because Jane for the longest time said "ordaments" instead of ornaments. So we do things like that. I don't think we have anything like Tweeties where we've like created a new category.

Sarah [00:30:45] Listen, I said once there is no violence like the violence you are willing to exact on someone who corrects your toddler's pronunciation, like, I will choke you out. Don't correct. Griffin one time called Hush Puppies quiet puppies.

Beth [00:31:01] Yeah, that's good.

Sarah [00:31:02] Gremlins became "diblins" which is what we still call that movie franchise. And somebody would be like, no, it's Gremlins. And I'll be like, you shut up right now. Because it's like the time where they believe it is so short and you just cannot-- do not disrupt that beautiful little environmental ecosystem.

Beth [00:31:21] Bless.

Sarah [00:31:21] We have a lot and they're not always like shorthand, but they are often Internet memes we just adopt. So we love the Internet video focus group from I Think You Should Leave with Tim Robertson. Please watch it. We will put the link. It's so funny. So we do a lot of quotes from that. Like, "I'm doing the best of this." So if you do something good in the Holland household, you will get a "I'm doing the best of this." We also taught our kids recently "Money please" from Parks and Rec and Mona Lisa Saperstein, who is a gift to humanity. So we do a lot of "Money please!" when we want something. Like when we're just being demanding, you just do the "Money please." We have three or four from focus group. Listen, we're a sharp elbowed group around here, so if you mispronounce something or act like a jerk, it could become a family meme. I'm just telling you right now, that's what could happen to you. So stay correct if you don't want to be turned into a family meme in the Holland household.

Beth [00:32:19] We are not sharp elbowed here at all. We are more like let's celebrate your adorableness. So Ellen has called Steak n Shake "steak and bacon" for a long time. And so, we love that. It will forever be steak and bacon. There is a Red Lobster that is very prominent when you turn off the interstate to come toward my house. And for years, the only letters that would light up in that sign were d-l-o-b-s. So we call it "d lobs" everywhere now. So you have little things like that, but they're all very good natured. Probably my favorite one-- and she will not be thrilled that I'm sharing this. But sometimes being a podcaster's kid comes with a price. When Jane was being potty trained, she never, ever wanted to go to the bathroom ever. She hated it. And she would stand in corners in our house, like very, very still when you could tell she was dying to go to the bathroom. And if we looked at her, she would wave at us and she would say, "Hi, how donin?" And it was the most precious thing. So we all pretty often will now say like, "Hi, how donin" when we think something is going on that isn't being said?

Sarah [00:33:31] Oh, that is funny. And we have nicknames. You guys have nicknames for each other? Like I call Belix-- look, I just did it. I call Felix Belix. I don't remember where the Belix come from. I also call him Flex because my mother can't spell for shit. And so, one time she spelled Felix very early in his life f-l-e-x. And so now he's Flex. "Tetifin" I think actually came from another-- like his friends gave him the name and we just went with it. And I don't think actually Amos has a nickname, but Flex and "Tetifin" are commonly used.

Beth [00:34:04] We just have a lot around Ellen because Jane does it. So we've always called them both Janie Bear and Allie Bear. But Jane loves to call Ellen Ellsbury. Ellen's middle name is Charleston. Jane loves to call her Charlestine. That seems to be the favorite around here right now.

Sarah [00:34:24] Listen, I think they got to have some ribbing and there's needs to be a little fun poking. I love it. I think we leaned into it hard here, one, because Nicholas's family (my husband) is one of five. And so they have a lot of those, like, they have all these nicknames for each other that they still use as adults. And I'm an only child and I was always like super jealous of that. So now to have my own little in-group that I get to exercise all these family inside jokes with, I love it. Because I don't think my mom and my stepdad and I really had that. We didn't have a lot of inside jokes like that, for sure.

Beth [00:34:59] That's probably why we're kind of weak on it because I was practically an only child and Chad was an only child, so neither of us had that sibling back and forth. They really do have their own language, Jane and Ellen. And it's fun to watch and sometimes it's disturbing. And you think, do I need to step into this or not or just let it flow? But it is really fun when something adorable like Charlestine comes out of it.

Sarah [00:35:25] Well, Nicholas and I did that. I mean, we do that. We have our own inside jokes and sort of dialect between the two of us because I've been with him since I was 19 years old. So there is that very long history that has just built up a language between us. And so, I think when the kids came along, especially when they got old enough to like really participate in that witty way, is just so much fun when they can just sort of get in there and throw a Barbara too. I mean, we're not like Roy family level. We're not telling each other to screw off, but we we'll just get at you just a little bit. And they'll do it to each other, and we love to participate. And also I just think there's four boys, there's just a constant-- my husband is not an adult child, he is an adult adult, but he picks that up with the boys. There's this constant comedic energy between the four of them, especially around farts and burps. It just is true. It is a thing.

Beth [00:36:31] Girls like it too. They’re into it here too.

Sarah [00:36:34] So we just do that. And I just I think that sort of the energy behind a lot of this too, and I love it, I think it's fun. My people crack me up. I love our inside jokes. I'm so happy that so many of you are going to watch Focus Group and enjoy the skit because it is the best. And if you don't know who Mona Lisa Saperstein is, lord in heaven, you are living half a life right now. Go correct that immediately. And, of course, we want to hear from you. We want to hear what your little family shortcuts are. We want to hear all the toddler pronunciations. Possibly the only good part about having a toddler-- I think personally. Y'all know how I feel about toddlers. We want to hear all your family dialects. It'll be so much fun to share. We'll put a post on Instagram so everybody can share. Thank you for joining us for another episode of Pantsuit Politics. We will be back in your ears on Tuesday. And until then, keep it nuanced y'all.

Beth [00:37:50] Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. Alise Napp is our managing director.

Sarah [00:37:56] Maggie Penton is our community engagement manager. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music.

Beth [00:38:02] Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers.

Executive Producers Martha Bronitsky. Ali Edwards. Janice Elliott. Sarah Greenup. Julie Haller. Helen Handley. Tiffany Hasler. Emily Holladay. Katie Johnson. Katina Zuganelis Kasling. Barry Kaufman. Molly Kohrs. Katherine Vollmer. Laurie LaDow. Lily McClure. Linda Daniel. Emily Neesley. Tawni Peterson. Tracey Puthoff. Sarah Ralph. Jeremy Sequoia. Katie Stigers. Karin True. Onica Ulveling. Nick and Alysa Villeli. Amy Whited. Emily Helen Olson. Lee Chaix McDonough. Morgan McHugh. Danny Ozment. Jen Ross. Sabrina Drago.

Beth Jeff Davis. Melinda Johnston. Michelle Wood. Joshua Allen. Nichole Berklas. Paula Bremer and Tim Miller.

Alise NappComment