What Comes Next? On Immigration and Parole Hearings

TOPICS DISCUSSED

  • Republican Governors in Texas, Arizona, and Florida send Asylum Seekers to “blue” cities

  • Parole Hearing for Heath High School Shooter

  • Outside Politics: Elvis

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do it without you. To become a financial supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, subscribe to our Premium content on Apple Podcasts Subscriptions, purchase a copy of our books, Now What? How to Move Forward When We’re Divided (About Basically Everything) and I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles.

Sign up for our newsletter to keep up with all our news. 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 store or visit our merchandise partners: TeePublic, Stealth Steel Designs, and Desert Studio Jewelry. Gift a personalized message from Sarah and Beth through Cameo. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website.

EPISODE RESOURCES

ASYLUM SEEKERS AND IMMIGRATION

MICHAEL CARNEAL PAROLE HEARING

ELVIS

Support Pantsuit Politics on Patreon or Apple Podcast Subscriptions and join us for our Live Ask Us Anything on Sept. 22

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.  

Beth [00:00:25] Thank you so much for joining us. Today, we're going to start with a conversation about Republican governors, sending people seeking asylum to Washington, D.C., Chicago and New York and Martha's Vineyard. Then Sarah is going to talk very personally about what's been unfolding in her community and her heart as a parole hearing begins related to the shooting that took place in her high school in 1997. There's a lot of heavy and important conversation. We promise to lighten it up at the end by talking about Sarah's son Felix and his obsession with Elvis Presley.  

Sarah [00:00:59] Before we get started, we're really excited about upcoming event, and we wanted to give you all the details. Now you know this, but Pantsuit Politics is an independent podcast. The two of us own it. There is no organization. There is no national news media behind it. There are no outside investors. It's just us with your support, and we're able to make this podcast twice a week for free for everyone because of listener support. And we're trying to make being a supporter very, very, fun. So in addition to our premium podcast, Good Morning and More to Say, we have a quarterly live, Ask Us Anything. And we will have another one of those coming up this Thursday, September 22nd. You can submit questions in advance and in real time. You can chat with other listeners. And we'll be with you on video talking and laughing and answering every question you have, whether it's about news or politics or hair care products or baking. I feel like there will most certainly be a discussion about the Snacking Book, which you guys went out and purchased in mass. I love it. So to participate, you just need to subscribe to our premium podcast through Patriot or on Apple Podcasts subscriptions. You can tap a link to both of these options and check them out by looking at the notes for today's episode in your podcast player, or by going to our website Pantsuitpoliticsshow.com and clicking get show notes and transcripts. And if you subscribe through Patreon, you'll see a post with instructions for the event. This is important, if you subscribe through Apple, please make sure that Alise has your email address and you can do that in the show notes as well.  

Beth [00:02:19] So the short version is we would love to see you and talk with you live on September 22nd. Go to the show notes for all the links that you need to make that happen. Next up, we are going to talk about immigration and specifically about the Republican governors strategy of highlighting what they see as immigration hypocrisy. Since April, you've probably heard Texas has sent more than 11,000 people to Washington, D.C., New York City and Chicago. Texas is sending people to these cities who arrive at the southern border without any coordination with state or local officials there, and is dropping people off at stunt locations like the vice president's residence, instead of putting them in places where they could quickly connect with local transportation or shelters or other social services. Lots of these people are asylum seekers, so there's a lot of discussion that calls them illegal immigrants. It's important to remember that it's legal to seek asylum in the United States. It's also a recognized human right under international law. Claims of asylum have to be heard and decided in courts, which are backlogged. But it is legal to seek asylum here.  

Sarah [00:03:36] And then some other states got in on the act. Arizona has followed suit and spent about $3 million transporting people to D.C. And you probably heard last week Florida chartered two planes to fly around 50 people from Texas to Martha's Vineyard where they were dropped off again with no communication with the authorities on the ground. And it got a lot of press attention.  

Beth [00:04:02] And Florida says it has a big budget and plans to do a lot more of this. And that's my first question. Like, if I'm a Florida citizen, do I want my tax dollars going to fund something like this? This program has been very opaque in Texas. We think it's cost more than $12 million so far, but we don't know the exact cost because Governor Abbott, for example, will not give news media copies of his contract with the busing services. But this is expensive to do. And I think it is so strange that Governor DeSantis believes the whole state is going to come along with spending millions of dollars on this.   

Sarah [00:05:20] If I'm giving an enormous amount of grace, I can at least feel the frustration of local officials on the border. I read a statistic today that one town has a population of 30,000 and they're seeing influxes of 50,000 refugees and asylum seekers. And I can't even begin to imagine the logistical challenge of dealing with that. And also, I think the idea that the entire country should be on some sort of equal footing when it comes to border crossings is nonsensical to me. I don't think I'm breaking any new ground when I say that New York City and Chicago and Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. have logistical challenges that these border towns neither understand nor want to. And so, I think there needs to be a level setting of-- well, depending on our geography in this very large nation of ours, we are all going to have very different problems that we're trying to solve.  

Beth [00:06:40] And I think that's one of the biggest challenges here, is kind of identifying whose problem is this to solve. I have legal questions about these flights and busses because immigration is a federal responsibility with this tremendous local impact. And so in some senses, the communities along the border have to take on a level of responsibility that they don't have complete authority over. Because immigration is a federal issue. I have a tremendous amount of concern for communities along the border that are managing this influx. My concern starts back in the home countries because it's such a dangerous journey that subjects people to so much exploitation just getting here. This to me is the issue that you have massive movements of people, which is going to continue to be. We can try to fight history and geography and science and say we just want people to stop making this journey, but they're not going to. So knowing that we're going to continue to have movements of large groups of people into this country of ours, we just need some coordination around it. And these governors injecting another layer of chaos feels like the opposite of the problem solving skills we need to bring to this challenge.  

Sarah [00:08:02] Well, and as a former resident of Washington, D.C., I do need to point out the irony in crowing about, "Oh, well, we have this enormous responsibility and not a lot of authority," in a place where they don't have federal representatives in a lot of areas, where they don't have authority, where they have to go to Congress as local officials to do damn near anything. Because we treat Washington, D.C., as this special island as if actual United States citizens don't live there. So coordination is required. And also coordination requires an acknowledgment that we are on the same team and trying to solve the same problem, which I think is completely lacking from the immigration debate. There is not an acknowledgment that we're on the same team and that we're trying to solve the same problem. And I think part of the reason for that is because it serves as such a political accelerant for the conservative side of the aisle. What is the motivation to solve the problem when it is such a source of energy on particularly the far right? And I just think that that's part of the reality we need to acknowledge. Like, this is horrifying to a certain segment of the United States and also has gained Governor DeSantis in particular an enormous amount of political credibility and energy in another segment  of the country. And I just think that that's hard to think about. That to some people, this doesn't seem cruel and manipulative, it seems smart and strategic. And this sense of, like, we're exposing your hypocrisy that you think that this isn't an issue until it shows up on your doorstep. Even though I think the people of D.C. and Chicago and New York and particularly Martha's Vineyard have done the exact opposite and shown no we are prepared to help these people. And some of these people are better off. They wanted to be in different geographic areas of the country. They were transported there for free. There's a beautiful portrait in The New York Times of a man that Venezuela that was transported to Washington, D.C. and is thrilled. He was treated with less criminality and more humanity, and was given opportunities that were not available in Texas and Florida. And so, I mean, I think that's another reality we just have to deal with.  

Beth [00:10:48] Well, that's the problem with this whole scheme, too. What is the goal? It's only strategic if the goal is just trying to point out hypocrisy of liberals. What it actually does is take these people more and more out of the system that would adjudicate whether the asylum claims are valid or not. How are you supposed to make a court date in Texas if you've been shipped to Massachusetts? And how are we keeping track of the people who have been transported? And what happens after they get there? Who is responsible for knowing who's here and what they're doing? By connecting these folks to transportation to other places and folks in those locations who will help them with additional transportation, you're really moving people-- I think this is a good goal-- closer to the families and friends that they were trying to get here to anyway. If we were doing that in a coordinated fashion where we did have a system of saying, okay, now your court date is going to be in Kansas, you're going to Kansas to be with friends and family. Great. You're hearing has been assigned to an immigration judge there. It'll be on this date. Here's the person you need to see as soon as you get there. We could be doing this well, humanely, with a lot of dignity. Much cheaper than trying to deal with it as a matter of criminality as we do at the border. So it's like not a terrible plan. It's just been designed for the wrong reason and terribly designed because the goal is just the politics of it. Instead of thinking about the long term implications. But if you're a person who genuinely does not want more immigration, this is at odds with that goal. If you want fewer people to be here and stay here, then these governors are financing an awful lot of people coming into the country who are likely to stay. We will continue talking about immigration because it is a big subject and we have talked about it a lot. So if you'd like to hear some of our past conversations, we'll link a Spotify playlist of past episodes in today's show notes. We're going to move on, though, to talk about what are the goals. What are the goals around justice in the wake of a terrible act? So that will be up next. Every time a community finds itself on the national news because of a tragedy, we really try to think about what comes next. We're going to go way out in terms of what comes next today by talking about a terrible tragedy and a terrible act that took place on December 1st, 1997, at Heath High School, where you were a student, Sarah.  

Sarah [00:13:40] Yes. For those of you who don't know, my community experienced a school shooting way back in 1997. The shooter himself, Michael Carnell, was 14-years-old at the time. He pled guilty and was sentenced. But under the law at the time could only be sentenced if he had the right to a parole hearing after 25 years. Well, we are now 25 years out. The parole hearing is a two day hearing. It began today on Monday as we're recording, and has already concluded the first day where the victims and the victims families were allowed to speak. And then there will be a second hearing tomorrow on Tuesday, and then the parole board will announce its decision. Could be as soon as Tuesday as this episode comes out. So that is what is happening in my community right now.  

Beth [00:14:35] What's the conversation looking like around that?  

Sarah [00:14:41] Well, one of the victims, Missy Jenkins Smith, who was paralyzed as a result of the shooting, has very been very vocal. There's been a lot of national news coverage from the AP and The Washington Post, and she's been very vocal in saying she met with him several years ago and she has forgiven him, but she does not believe that he has a right to exit the criminal justice system and pursue a normal life. Holland Holm, who was another victim of the shooting, he was physically hit with one of the bullets, has said that he prefers Michael be transferred to a halfway house or a facility that can better address his mental health needs. He pled guilty but mentally ill, requiring him to receive some mental health care. Now, he has challenged that guilty plea since then. I mean, he's been arguing since about 2007 that he was too mentally ill to submit the plea and pushing for it to be withdrawn. But those efforts have been rejected. So I think there's sort of a complicated conversation happening around his mental illness. Victims who lost their lives, Nicole Hadley, Jessica James and Kayce Steger, their families, I think, have testified that they would like him to remain in prison. I have really struggled. The reporters for all these articles called me. I didn't return any of their calls. Because in some ways, I very purposely described myself as a victim of the school shooting in order to sort of articulate and claim and heal from the trauma I experienced that day, which I absolutely did. We all did. The emotional trauma. But in a way, I feel like the criminal justice system rightfully defines victims very differently. And sort of within the parameters of that, I don't feel comfortable describing myself as a victim since I was not physically affected. I don't know if that's the right perspective, but it makes me uncomfortable to sort of present my feelings about this on equal footing as Missy or Hollan or the victims families, because I don't feel like it is. And I absolutely understand their fear and concern that he would be out of prison walking around. But I think if I'm being honest, I do feel differently about that than they do.  

Beth [00:17:08] I want to hear how you feel about it. Before that, can I just note something about that idea of victimhood. I feel like we have two understandings of what victim means, that you are either a person who was directly touched by crime, meaning like you were physically assaulted, physically harmed, or you lost someone who was. So we understand that really close to victim connection. The other understanding we have is zoomed out all the way to all of society. The reason that prosecuting crime is a government job is because it is a crime against society that we are all harmed when someone breaks the rules that we have for living together in community. It's that place in between people with greater proximity than all of society, but less proximity than those direct victims that really gets lost. And that's why I think it has been really interesting to hear you talk about why you think of yourself as a victim and use that word and claim it as part of your own healing, when we really struggle with the degrees and there are people in a huge range of degrees between all of society and the direct victims.  

Sarah [00:18:21] Well, and it was really interesting to me because when I was looking at the Kentucky Parole Board, when they talk about their mission, they articulate, they say it is a delicate balance of public safety, victim rights and the reintegration of the offender and recidivism. Because I think it was easy for me to put myself in this very black and white understanding and say, is Michael Carneal a risk to public safety? And I do not believe that he is. And I will be interested to hear if there is any sort of expert testimony from him articulating that his mental health is cared for in x,y,z and that there is no belief that he poses a risk to public safety. But I do think that's easy because it's a compartmentalization that's probably not honest or accurate. And I actually appreciate the parole board saying, like, that's not really our only consideration, that we are considering victims rights. And, again, I would never, ever want to say or do anything that would harm or increase the emotional burden of this moment for Missy or Holan or the Hadley's or the James or anybody involved. I could not bear that. I could not bear that. But I think the complicating factor for me personally is his age at which he committed the crime. I have a 13-year-old son and I cannot separate that. I cannot separate that from the fact that he was 14 years old when he did this. And that's just really difficult to hold. A few months after our shooting, there was a shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas, at a middle school, and the shooters were 11 and 13, and they were tried as juveniles, and they were released on their 21st birthdays. And I don't know if we know what we're doing when it comes to juvenile crimes. As much as I appreciate the sort of nuanced articulation from the parole board, I just don't know if we know what we're doing at all with the criminal justice system, whether the person is a juvenile offender or an adult offender. Is the idea to prevent any emotional hardship from the victims? Are we comfortable with that? Are we comfortable saying we will put someone in prison for the rest of their life to prevent any emotional harm for their victims? I mean, I don't think we do that. I think there are a lot of murderers and sexual offenders and people who exit prison when their victims are still alive. Adult offenders, much less juvenile offenders. And I just think that's really, really, difficult to parse apart.  

Beth [00:21:32] In my work on criminal justice reform, I have been very opposed to so-called victims rights laws like Marsy's law, which always pass because it sounds right to people. Victims rights sounds like a phrase that's really important. I don't know what it means, because rights always come with responsibilities. And when we're asking people who've been directly victimized by a crime to take any piece of responsibility for what happens to the offender, I believe that we are compounding their trauma. I think that's too much to ask people. It's not available to say we're going to prevent emotional harm from coming to you. That's just not on the table. After someone has been victimized, there's going to be emotional harm. The question is what forms it takes. So I don't think that should be a driving part of the equation, because if we say we're going to keep someone incarcerated forever to try to protect your feelings about it, then aren't we also just accepting that they have no feelings or there's no harm coming to them from having had a say in someone else's incarceration? I just think it's unfair. I think, again, this is a public function for a reason. And I really worry not that we discount the feelings of the victims, but I worry about how much responsibility we lay at their feet for what comes next.  

Sarah [00:23:02] I think the other difficult part of this is in our community and the national media and otherwise, there is a real narrative around forgiveness in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. And around this, I feel a certain amount of responsibility. There's all this quoting of the signs that were in the school windows. We forgive you. We forgive you, Mike. We forgive you because Christ, forgive us. And I made some of those signs. We went to school the day after, and I went to the library and I made those signs. I wanted to do something. And at the time I was very religious. I did an interview with ABC News with my Bible in my lap with two of my classmates, where we talked a lot about the role of religion and dealing with this and the importance of forgiveness. And I think that gets really tied up in this. And I think that the criminal justice system is a truly terrible institution to deal with forgiveness. And it feels like to me that that's- you're right-- when we place this responsibility at the victim's feet and we say, basically, should we let them out? Are you ready to forgive them? That it's such a truncated understanding of that. It's this interpretation of forgiveness that says everything is tied up with the perpetrator. The perpetrator, the shooter, Michael Carneal, is the center point of this. And I hadn't really thought about this until I was reading Richard Rohr's Center for Contemplation newsletter, and they shared the perspective on [Inaudible] around South Africa's truth and reconciliation process. And they were saying that, "I am sorry, forgive me" were the English words. And that it's this taking of responsibility for what I did, what was done at my command and my name. But what the victims heard was this this individuality. What I have done was done only by me and therefore is only my responsibility. And I am sorry and forgive me, it's all about me. It's all tied up in the perpetrator. And I think that's what I'm hearing. What I feel like I'm hearing is because this is your individual parole hearing, if you are let out, it's sane. What I did is absolved. What I have done is in the past.  And this individual forgiveness of me that allows me to leave the criminal justice system, it's so one sided. And I think you can hear the victims saying, like, but what about me? What about my child's life that was lost? What about my child that cannot go out at 39 years old and and have a "normal life." What about the ways I was changed forever? There's only two options, right? I mean, maybe a halfway house. Let them out or keep them in. And there's no making whole of the victims because in some ways, that is not available. And that's what this newsletter talks about. Like, in Ubuntu It's not I am sorry; forgive me. It is, I ask for peace. Because this is a community, we are interconnected forever. Forever. And so what do I want? What can you give me and what can I give? And there's just no acknowledgment of that in this process. It's just everything gets shrunk down into two options, wrapped up completely and totally on one side. And it just feels so broken and it doesn't feel like forgiveness or peace is available to anyone in this process. And I think that's what's really breaking my heart about the whole thing.  

Beth [00:27:24] I want to go back and ask you about the interview where you had your Bible in your lap. I wonder how media then and now have an opportunity to facilitate healing and to exacerbate harm. Where has it been empowering to be asked about this and where has it been harmful?  

Sarah [00:27:45]  I truly hope that the coverage has been empowering for Missy and Hollan and Christina Hadley. I thought the coverage was well done. I thought the Post article was really well done.  

Beth [00:28:01] About the parole hearing.The coverage now.   

Sarah [00:28:04] Around the parole hearing. Yeah. But ,for me, at the end of the day, it's just like it has to be a quote.  And I cannot sum up how I feel about this in a quote. And I knew it just wasn't going to be available to me. And I am very privileged and lucky to have this platform where I can more fully express the complicated feelings I feel about this. And so I think as much as it can give voice to victims, I think the way it exasperates it is it's still that framework. We're still talking about yes he gets out, no he stays in. It still reduces down in this very two dimensional way this moment where our community, where the people affected are really thinking about-- like I said, that I asked for peace. That's different versus can I get out of prison? And in some ways, like, there's just no way. That's what's missing. I wish we had some sort of truth and reconciliation process as opposed to just this very truncated hearing where we're asking a very reductive question about things as complicated as a crime someone commits when they're 14. How we feel about victims families when you lose a child. I mean, I'm talking about his age, but they lost children at the same age, if not younger, like they're gone forever. In the same way that my mind won't let me comprehend Griffin doing something like this. I cannot comprehend losing my child in this way. Although I guess that's a lie. That's a lie. I do comprehend it. I think about it all the time. I think about it every day he goes to school. So all that pain and impact and permanent, life altering situations cannot be contained, cannot be worked out in a question of should he be paroled or not? And I think we're asking it to hold that. And the media coverage is asking it to hold that. And it's like I think it's unfair to the victims to ask it to hold that. Because whatever is decided, the impact on their life will continue until the next parole hearing, or not until the day they die. It feels like a process that only breaks open wounds and ask more questions and does not give any peace.  

Beth [00:31:04] I think it's interesting that you said that there is a sense of forgiveness attached to parole. And that connects with me to something that really troubles me about our criminal system, that we are fixated on guilt or innocence in a complete binary instead of a level of responsibility. We try to work out that level of responsibility through the sentence, and then we try to be done. That those are two questions. And like you're saying, there's just so much more to it than just those two questions. I don't know how to envision a system that asks for peace. And that says from the beginning, what does peace look like in the situation? What is your level of culpability at this time in your life versus at five years out from it? At 10 years out, what is the level of suffering you've created and how can you alleviate some of that suffering? I really want us to ask more of those questions, though, because everything that you've said today about this process and everything that I've read about it, I just keep going back to how unfair it is to a person who's incarcerated and to a community that their terrible, terrible, judgment and behavior have forever impacted.  It's almost like-- this is a terrible comparison, but it's all I can think of. I used to do divorce work, which is totally different when you have two people who have children together, than when you just have two people who were married and there are no children. And it's almost like the criminal system tries to do a divorce without the children involved. We're just figuring out what to divide up between you two instead of recognizing that you don't ever get to be free of this ever. No one ever gets to be free of it. And the impact that you have on each other is going to shift and change dramatically throughout your lifetimes, for reasons that you are in control of and for reasons that you have no control over whatsoever. What do we do with that? And, man, parole is just a really blunt instrument to bring to something so delicate.  

Sarah [00:33:35] Yeah. And I think that's what bothers me, is the implication that should he be paroled, the impact stops. Because what we're taught is the only way to impact that person's life is to put them in prison. Which I think is a really, really, messed up way to understand crime and the impact of crime in a way that impacts both the perpetrator and the victim. I don't think the parole board is going to release Michael Carneal. But should they decide otherwise, the idea that he'll go and live a "normal life" without any impact from the decisions he made and the damage he caused, I think is a really messed up way to understand what happens when you take a life. And I think that's what we're trying to get at. When we're trying to empower victims, we're saying the impact is so much bigger, it just spills and spills. And the grief and the trauma and the tragedy just continues to ripple and ripple and ripple and ripple. And the idea that prison is some sort of dam on that consequence, the idea that putting a person behind bars for the rest of their life in some way, dams that impact, in some way stops that ripple effect, to me is so messed up. Is so messed up. Or adequately putting to words what happens when someone kill someone else? What happens when one child kills three other children? That is massive. That is generational. And the idea that we can write that the best we can, or we have some sort of impact on that tragedy and that trauma by keeping someone in prison, it doesn't ring true to me. It doesn't ring true to me. And I think it's just such a tiny part of the puzzle. And it's taken this outside role I do not envy. The members of the parole board, I do not envy. I read on their website they may like 20,000 of these decisions a year. I cannot fathom that. I just think it's just indicative of the fact that we've decided punishment is how we will deal with the fallout of violence. And I don't think it's serving us. I don't think it's serving the victims, which is why they push and push and push, rightfully so, for a voice, for some sort of sense that they are present inside the system. I think it's why we continue to have really hard, difficult conversations about human beings incarcerated. But I just think that we're continuing to miss it and harm each other with this idea that that punishment is the only way to make this right.  

Beth [00:37:03] The thing I think a lot about is that incarceration can be a time of healing for people, but that's maybe an atypical experience. That incarceration often takes a person who is traumatized from having done a terrible thing and probably was traumatized in a path that led to doing the terrible thing, and cuts off access to what we know people need to be well. Community, purpose, relationships. So a process where your decision point is should this person be incarcerated or not, while I recognize there are some conditions attached to the or not, someone being released from being in prison needs an awful lot to be able, from a societal standpoint, to come out and and integrate in a whole way that keeps others safe and keeps them safe. From a victim perspective, I think they need a whole lot in terms of some version of that truth and reconciliation, some version of making amends, whatever that's going to look like. And we just have not invested the resources needed to figure out what that could look like. It's almost like our goal is really to keep it in that very limited you're in or out, and that's all when if we were approaching this from a bigger picture perspective. And maybe it would be meaningful to victims to know that there's a bigger perspective around this. It's not just in or out, and that's all, but it's where are we in this overall process?  

Sarah [00:38:45] Well, that's what bothers me. Look, I resent that the fact that 25 years after this happened to my community, this entire conversation is centered on Michael. I think so often it becomes about the shooter. I mean, several years ago, in a fit of rage, I got on and edited the entire Wikipedia page for a shooting because all it did was talk about him. And I thought, this is absurd. Like, this makes me so mad that the victims are listed very quickly and the whole orientation is around the perpetrator. But, again, what's the other option inside the system? And I just think trying to shoehorn victims into this process that is oriented completely around the perpetrator, because it is the only process available that we describe as justice in so many ways in our society, in our culture, in our communities, is what's so messed up about this. And it's what they're crying out about. Again, for all the limitations of the media coverage, I do think that they've done a good job of naming that. And I'm so thankful that the the victims in our community have been given voice to the national media. And I hope that it helped. And I hope that it was empowering. And I hope it's empowering inside the parole hearings themselves to be able to articulate and just to be able to give voice to say, like, please hear the ongoing harm that this has done to me and the harm will not stop. I used the word just a minute ago "making right" as if that's available. As if there is some way to make right the loss of a child. I just think we're so far behind and messed up and just broken when it comes to the system and how we try to deal with any violent crime, but particularly mass shootings and juvenile crime. To me, it's so painful because it exposes all the ways that the process doesn't serve really anyone.  

Beth [00:41:04] There is no neat and tidy way to wrap something like this up. Sarah, is there something that you really want to leave people with?  

Sarah [00:41:11] The way we started it was saying how important it is to remember that the fallout from these national events just continue and continue and continue. When we're talking about 25 years later, where hearts are still broken and people are still traumatized and children are still gone. And holding that heartbreak is really difficult. But I hope that in articulating the heartbreak as best we can and continuing to pay attention to how stories aren't just stories, they're communities that we illuminate the impact and in illuminating the impact we remember how important prevention is and how important it is to stay connected and listen to each other, and keep guns out of the hands of young children. And to remember that these moments, seconds in each other's lives, can just change everything and it can change everything forever.  

Beth [00:42:33] Well, that was a lot. Thank you for sharing it. I know you've been really conflicted about when and how and whether to say anything about this. I really appreciate you showing up here and sharing so vulnerably. And so let's give you a chance to talk about something happy before we go. Outside of Politics, Sarah is going to tell us why she's newly obsessed with Elvis Presley.  

Sarah [00:43:04] Well, I don't know if I'm obsessed. I am on a journey, is what I'm on. My child Felix is obsessed. My mother saw the movie. He came over to her house, she just told him about the movie. And then that sparked a real obsession from Felix. I mean, I'm sure you've experienced this with your girls. Like, it's just a little thing, and then all of a sudden it's all they can talk and think about.  

Beth [00:43:28] What is it that you think really connected with Felix about all this?   

Sarah [00:43:32] Well, I've talked to a lot of people who were obsessed with Elvis as a kid. First of all, his songs are very short, except for my favorite Suspicious Minds, which is as long a song. But his songs that I think are the entry point are short. I mean, they're all like two and a half minutes. They are catchy and they're sort of, I don't want to say childlike, but a song called Hound Dog is accessible for a kid, you know what I'm saying? Or even Jailhouse Rock, like jails, dogs. These are things that kids have a loose understanding of. So I think that's part of it. And I think there's like some fun rebellion at the core of Elvis's narrative. And also, again, listen. No shade. They're Bops. They're catchy. They're fun to sing. They're fun to dance to. So I think all of that plays a part.  

Beth [00:44:25] Do you think the costumes are part of it?  

Sarah [00:44:28] For sure. I mean, who doesn't love a jumpsuit with a cape? He wore the capes because he was obsessed with superheroes as a kid. So there's a real throughline here. You know what I'm saying with the capes.  

Beth [00:44:38] So how has this manifested for Felix? What all is he into? You all went to Graceland.  

Sarah [00:44:44] We went to Graceland. He watches all the movies. He watches the Elvis movie. He watches the comeback special which has Elvis on. Either. He has a cell phone because of his continuous glucose monitor after his type one diagnosis. So he has the ability to listen to Elvis at all times. And just the interest in his life just continues to grow and grow and grow. And I think, for me, it was his passion. And listening to the song is going to be like, man, they are a bop. Like, that's all right is a bop. It just is. Suspicious Minds is so good and so many like double meanings. Just to such a strong start. I'm caught in a trap. Oh, it's so good. And also major, major, shout out to Margaret Hall, who's a music historian on Twitter who did this thread. They need a bigger word. When it is long enough to be a book, this thread went on for weeks. She did scene by scene through the new Elvis, the Baz Luhrmann movie. And like everything you've ever wanted someone to do in a biopic, just tell me what's real. Tell me what's fake. Tell me what's crazy. But they couldn't include in the movie. You know what I'm saying? Like how you always go to Google right off to see a biopic. This was just this, only so much better. And she walked through all the stuff. And by the end, man, she just share so much about his life. I think I'd really adopted the narrative that he had stolen black music. And  Baz Luhrmann, I think, is making a very different argument that he was influenced by it, and that leaning into those influences was arguably a risk for him at that particular time in American history. I don't know if I buy that completely, but Margaret Hall just shares that he donated a ton to the civil rights movement to the point where he was one of Mississippi's State enemies. He was devastated when Martin Luther King was assassinated and just all this other stuff. It just put a lot of nuance and complexity around him. He lived a sad life, there's no doubt about that. I'm endlessly curious about the impact of fame on people's lives. And he was really like this first celebrity. All of this she just shared. I'm telling you, my friend she said it took her three hours to read the thread from beginning to end. That's the depth of this thread. It's just so interesting, and I think I developed a much deeper appreciation for both his talent and his suffering, to be honest. And so, I don't know. It went from being something I barely ever thought about or sort of rolled my eyes around, to being something that I have just a real deep appreciation for now. Elvis, I'm telling you, if nothing else, just go give Suspicious Minds a listen. It's a hell of a song.  

Beth [00:47:18] I think it's fun that one of your kids has stumbled into something that you also find interesting. That's a gift when it happens. Doesn't always align that way.  

Sarah [00:47:24] So true. It's so true. It's so true.  I think Baz Luhrmann and the Elvis estate, we're trying to recreate some interest and some renewed energy around him, and they have succeeded magnificently. That's all I will say.  

Beth [00:47:38] For what it's worth, I like all these movies about music. Like, I loved the Queen movie. I love the Elton John movie. I'm in for more of these.  

Sarah [00:47:47] You know they're making a Whitney Houston one that I feel very conflicted about, but that's the next one down the pike.  

Beth [00:47:52] I do trust that Bohemian Rhapsody people. I think they did such a nice job with Queen. We'll see.  

Sarah [00:47:57] We'll see.  

Beth [00:47:57] Whitney is a whole different realm, though, so we'll see. I'm sure we'll talk about that when it comes out.  

Sarah [00:48:02] Oh, you know I have so many feelings about Whitney.  

Beth [00:48:04] Well, thank you all so much for being here. Please do not forget to check out our shownotes in your podcast player or by visiting Pantsuitpoliticsshow.com. You can click get notes and transcripts for all the links that you need for Thursday's Ask Us Anything or for anything else we mentioned here. We'll be back with you on Friday. We're going to talk on Friday about the fallout from the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe V. Wade. Until then, you can keep thinking with us about all these topics by sending an email to Hello@Pantsuitpoliticsshow.com or listening to the episode playlist that you'll find in the notes. Thank you again so much for spending time with us.  

[00:48:47] Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. Alise Napp is our managing director.  

Sarah [00:48:52] Maggie Patton is our community engagement manager. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music.  

Beth [00:48:58] Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers.  

Executive Producers (Read their own names) [00:49:03] Martha Bronitsky. Linda Daniel. Allie Edwards. Janice Elliott. Sara Greenup. Julie Haller. Helen Handley. Tiffany Hasler. Emily Holliday. Katie Johnson, Katina Zuganelis Kasling. Barry Kaufman. Molly Kohrs. The Kriebs. Lori LaDow. Lilly McClure. Emily Neesley. The Pentons. Tawni Peterson. Tracey Puthoff. Sarah Ralph. Jeremy Sequoia. Katie Stigers. Karen True. Onica Ulveling. Nick and Alysa Vilelli. Katherine Volmer. Amy Whited.  

[00:49:39] Jeff Davis. Melinda Johnston. Ashley Thompson. Michelle Wood. Joshua Allen. Morgan McHugh. Nichole Berklas. Paula Bremer and Tim Miller.  


Maggie PentonComment