What’s on MPR News – 11/20/18

Tuesday November 20, 2018
(Subject to change as events dictate)

9 a.m. – MPR News with Kerri Miller
We continue our series, “This American Moment” with a retired Republican congressman from South Carolina.

Guest: Bob Inglis.

10 a.m.- 1A with Joshua Johnson
This summer, the U.S. Department of Agriculture put out its farm income forecast. It is estimated that profits for American farms would drop 13 percent, coming in nearly $10 billion under 2017’s totals. 2019 isn’t looking much better, and the blame is falling on President Trump’s trade policy. Tariffs and worries over a trade war have driven up the cost of supplies and blocked farmers from foreign markets.

And while farmers are feeling the pain, President Trump is feeling the love. Support for the president has risen or remained steady in major farming states. Will farmers stick with the president after the harvest, if the breadbasket only gets crumbs?

Guests: Lynn Rohrscheib, vice chairperson, Illinois Soybean Association; Pete Kappelman, member, National Milk Producers Federation Board and co-owner, Meadow Brook Dairy Farms in Two Rivers, Wis.; Alan Rappeport, economic policy reporter, The New York Times; Ted McKinney, undersecretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs, United States Department of Agriculture.

11 a.m. – MPR News at 11
New Physical Activity Guidelines says that Americans need get off their chairs and move around more. How can you apply the new guidelines into your busy life?

Guests: Adam Perlman, chief medical officer and co-founder of meQuilibrium; Kathleen Janz, professor of Health and Human Physiology at the University of Iowa.

12 p.m. – MPR News Presents
The chief of staff to former President Barack Obama, Minnesota native Denis McDonough returned to his alma mater this fall for the annual Eugene McCarthy Lecture at St. John’s University in Collegeville. McDonough said the country can get back on the right path if we keep in mind the things taught at St. Johns: “a commitment to books, and learning, and facts, and decency, and openness.”

1 p.m. – The Takeaway
Where is the anti-migrant resentment in Mexico emerging from, how widespread is it across Central America, and how does it compares to other parts of the world?

In the aftermath of California’s Camp fire, officials and journalists are now looking into the cause of the fire, and whether it was sparked by power lines; it’s the second week for testimony in the trial for Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, and much of what’s been revealed so far is the extent of bribery within the Mexican government; after passing in the Ohio House, a bill is headed to the Senate that would penalize doctors for performing an abortion when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks into a pregnancy; and in a new book, anthropologist Ieva Jusionyte reflects on her time working as an emergency responder on the US-Mexico border, describing to The Takeaway what that work entails and how immigration policies impact what responders do and how.

2 p.m. – BBC NewsHour
At least 40 people have been killed in a bomb attack in the Afghan capital, Kabul; Ivanka Trump’s emails – how exercised should we be? And: a Chilean minister on cultural imperialism London-style.

3 p.m. – All Things Considered
The life of a red-state Democrat; the migrants in Tijuana; an interview with Kate DiCamillo.

6:00 p.m. – Marketplace
The latest product being pushed by social media influencers has high demand, a high price tag, and is something you see every day on Instagram. It’s the world of custom image filters.

6:30 p.m. – The Daily
The killing of Jamal Khashoggi has renewed criticism of Saudi Arabia more broadly, including the kingdom’s role in the war in Yemen. It’s a war that has created what has been called the worst humanitarian crisis in the world — and one that the United States has backed from the beginning.

Guest: Robert F. Worth, a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine

7 p.m. – The World
The president backs Saudi Arabia in the murder of a journalist.

Also today, we find out what the US could learn from the Dutch model of dealing with natural disasters. The Netherlands has long pioneered an approach that emphasizes living with – and managing – the risk from floods or forest fires, rather than just fighting them after they take place. Marco learns more from Crystal Kolden, who teaches fire science at the University of Idaho.

Plus, the story of Kentucky shaman Steve Hupp. He appears in a new documentary series on the Viceland Channel. We’ll hear how Hupp administers the powerful hallucinigenic drug ayahuasca to people who suffer from psychological trauma.

8 p.m. – Fresh Air
Imagine climbing a sheer vertical rock, thousands of feet high, using little cracks and edges of the wall on which to balance your body weight. Dave talks with Tommy Caldwell & Kevin Jorgerson about their historic free climb on El Capitan’s notorious Dawn Wall in Yosemite. It’s the subject of a new documentary, which is on I-tunes.

  • MrE85

    “Will farmers stick with the president after the harvest, if the breadbasket only gets crumbs?”

    As you sow, so shall you reap.

    “The life of a red-state Democrat; the migrants in Tijuana; an interview with Kate DiCamillo.”

    I’m ALWAYS ready to listen to Kate DiCamillo.

    • Rob

      My understanding is that farmers are reaping very little of T.Rump’s promised tariff offset subsidies; according to reports, less than a billion of the promised $12b has been distributed at this point.

      • Sonny T

        Let’s put the trade war into perspective. Trump initiated tariffs on the specific products China unfairly prices, like steel. Instead of making an ethical or reasonable stance, instead of defending their policies (which, to be fair, cannot be defended) China attacked the American farmer. China’s response has nothing to do with the issues.

        China is not the good guy. The Left, however, is on their side. This bizarre alliance can only be knee-jerk hatred of Trump. He must never be supported. Regardless of the issue.

        The experts have us winning the trade war with China. When this happens I hope no one forgets who’s side the Left was on. It wasn’t ours.

        • This is the part where you remind us you’re non-partisan, right?

          • Sonny T

            Calling it as I see it. I have no problem going after the Right on a variety of issues, and have.

          • They’re terms that are thrown around without anyone really knowing what they mean. There is right, left, radical right, militant left and a bunch of stuff in the middle, but nobody seems able to define where one begins and the other ends. That would require thoughtful discussion.

          • Sonny T

            Yes, I didn’t mean to accuse all the Left. Unions are generally supportive. IN GENERAL, the Left opposes Trump’s trade war with China. Just as, IN GENERAL, the Right supports Trump’s relaxing environmental standards. Etc. etc.

            “…nobody seems able to define where one begins and the other ends.” I would say let people define themselves. Those on the right, the far right, the left, the far left, know who they are.

          • Jerry

            Actually most people think they are moderates and it’s the other people who are extremists.

          • Sonny T

            Can’t argue that.

        • Jerry

          Nobody on the “left” thinks China is the “good guy”. It’s only about calling out the idiot (Trump) who got conned into thinking you can win a trade war.

          • Sonny T

            I’m glad you think Trump is in the right, and simply going about it the wrong way. We are making progress.

          • Jerry

            I, in no way, think Trump is in the right. I think he is a neo-fascist who plays on white resentment and racism to enrich himself and his cronies, and doesn’t care about the damage he is doing to this country and it’s institutions. I believe those who support him are either evil or gullible, if not both. That is what I think.

          • Sonny T

            This is my point. Trump must never be supported. He’s evil and mean and I hate him.

            Makes for some odd bedfellows, however.

          • Jerry

            Gullible or evil.

            I can despise Trump, while not supporting China.

          • Sonny T

            You are evading the issue. Either Trump is correct, moral, and in the right regarding trade, or not.

          • Jerry

            He’s incorrect, immoral, and wrong. Which is not the same as saying China is right. It’s not an either/or question. The only way to win a trade war is to get other people to fight them. Protective tariffs are a great way to stifle your own industry.

          • Sonny T

            I’m not arguing HOW he’s going about it (although I’d love to. It worked with Europe and North America). I’m saying who is in the right, Jinping or Trump?

            Yes, it’s an either/or question. There’s no getting away from it.

          • Jerry

            There are no good people, only bad people and their victims (even if the victims initially welcomed it).

          • Sonny T

            “It’s not an either/or question.”

            Yes, it is. We’re talking about right and wrong. Either Trump has the moral high ground, or he doesn’t. It doesn’t get more either/or than that.

          • Jerry

            There is no moral high ground.

          • Sonny T

            You might want to check that statement out. There is no one I know of, and nothing you’ll ever find in a search, that says China has been anything but manipulative, underhanded, unfair.

          • Jerry

            And so are we.

            But I get it you like Trump. And you will support him because you think he metaphorically “makes the trains run on time”.

          • Sonny T

            Nope. There is no comparison, look it up, offer something to me. Otherwise we can’t continue.

            Just pointing down and saying up doesn’t cut it.

            As for Trump, I “support” policies, not the man. I am against his immigration, Middle East, and environmental policies. I am for his ban on lobbyists, his tax cut, his proposed infrastructure spending.

            I am not rendered irrational by his admittedly obnoxious, goofy, weird, clumsy, oafish, daffy, even bizarre personality. After a lifetime of slick, two-faced insiders, I kind of like it.

          • People aren’t irrational . They simply have distaste for, say, blatant racism and corruption.

            But some people like it. That’s more than clear at this point.

          • Sonny T

            How dull Bob. How silly to drag the conversation down to this. I’m a racist. I like corruption. Sigh.

          • Read it again. You’re saying Trump’s opponents are irrational and you seem to suggest its the trivial entertainment that you say you like that makes them so.

            I’m saying what makes them angry and concerned as citizens are many substantive issues including his racism and corruption. And many of Trump’;s biggest fans are more than willing to overlook that — and occasionally embrace that.

            Does that make YOU a racist. I don’t know. I don’t know you. Are you overlooking his racism? If you are, then yes. If you’re not, then no.

            It doesn’t get much simpler than that, Sonny. And that’s not trivial. And to be vehemently opposed to racism isn’t irrational.

            It’s an odd choice of words you’ve selected.

          • Sonny T

            You say he’s racist because of ABC, I say he’s not because of EFG. Don’t you see how dull this is?

          • I don’t find racism to be dull. I find it to be abhorent, actually.

            Again, I realize not everyone does.

          • Sonny T

            Bob, don’t you see this is your opinion? “Trump is a racist” is not a fact. It is an OPINION.

            And again, stop inferring I’m a racist. Of all the nasty things the left engages in, this is the nastiest.

          • At the least, it is an informed opinion. At best, it is fact as stated by people in Trump’s past who worked closely with him who recount his racism.

            Informed opinion or fact, it is shared, incidentally, by the racists institutions and organizations who have embraced him.

            As eloquently put in the recent Florida debate, “I’m not saying you’re a racist; I’m saying the racists say you’re a racist.”

          • Sonny T

            You’re spraying fallacies all over the place. I’m not dumb, Bob. Let’s quit. When it drops this far I’m out.

          • Morality and this president should never be in the same sentence. If he ever stakes out a moral high ground, it’s only by mere coincidence.

            I know you’ve tried to separate how he’s approaching this from the need to approach it, but I don’t think you can do that when evaluating presidential leadership.

            What we’re essentially focused on his actions and consequences. Was a trade war the ONLY way to address the problem of China dumping steel? I don’t know.

            But I’m reminded of a bumper sticker that was popular among the Nixonistas during Vietnam. His supporters, too, were incapable of understanding, or being willing to understand, certain complexities.


            That’s pretty much the president’s trade policy.

          • Sonny T

            Europe and North America now have settled, fair, comfortable relationships with us. This is exactly what Trump seeks with China.

            “Morality and this president…” This could be said about any leader, and has.

            My point is not whether Trump’s trade policy is right “only by mere coincidence.” My point is whether Trump’s trade policy is right, period. It is.

          • Well a little while ago you said you weren’t referring to HOW he’s going about it. You know that IS his trade policy, right?

            So which is it?

          • Sonny T

            I have never argued HOW. I will if you want.

            I am saying, very clearly, that Trump is in the right. Whether Trump initiated the trade war imprudently, that’s another question. But he is morally in the right, and has always insisted trade with China is an ethical issue.

          • You are interchanging policy with philosophy. What you say you agree with is his policy while saying you’re not arguing the “hows.”

            What you really agree with is his philosophy, which different from policy.

          • Sonny T

            I’m lost. No one will stay on point.

            China is the bad guy in this, but my lefty friends are all defending them. Their contortions are endless. They just can’t concede one bit of good in anything Trump does Ever ever ever…

          • // Europe and North America now have settled, fair, comfortable relationships with us.

            This is patently false.


          • Sonny T

            This is an op-ed piece. I could find one to counter it.

            What I should have said is it’s over. You can argue who got what, but both sides agreed.

          • This is the relevant text:

            The rewrite of NAFTA has not even been signed yet. There are still questions of whether the three countries can work out some ambiguous points (like how cheap a shipment can be to avoid tariffs – the de minimisrule) and what will happen with U.S. protection against steel and aluminum imports. Even if the signing works out, the Trump administration did not seem to coordinate particularly well with Congress, which would need to pass the deal next year. It is now facing congressional objections from both Republicans and Democrats to provisions of the new agreement.

            And though the Trump administration notified Congress that it intended to pursue trade deals with Europe, Japan, and the United Kingdom, none of those negotiations have even formally launched, much less concluded.

            If you can find an op-ed that says there has been negotiations and a deal with Europe and that the deal with NAFTA is settled and approved an in place, then I’d be happy to look at it.

            It shouldn’t be hard since you stated declaratively that both are so.

          • Sonny T

            Maybe. I really didn’t want to discuss the HOWS. It’s the whys. Unfairness is unfairness.

            Maybe he shouldn’t have begun this process of renegotiation. We can re-meet on specifics when the dust clears. My point (endlessly stated) is whether Trump has the high ground. If he does, let’s acknowledge it.

          • The idea of an absolute on economic policy flies in the face of what economics is. It’s exceedingly complex. Even the most starry-eyed Trump supporter has to acknowledge that understanding complexity isn’t his thing.

          • Sonny T

            I’d love an anti-Trump person to say, “Yes, on this single issue, on the basic issue of fairness, Trump is correct. I still hate him. But on this single, narrow issue, I concede this much.”

            They can’t do it.

          • Jerry

            Because he is not right.

          • Sonny T

            If you don’t support China you support Trump. It’s that simple.

            We don’t have to continue. I appreciate your input. My point is the visceral hatred for the man is preventing productive discussion.

          • // . It’s that simple.

            It’s really not, but god bless you for fighting the lonely fight for your guy.

          • Sonny T

            Not my guy. Don’t know why you keep saying that. Wait, yes I do. The anti-Trump mob insists on absolute loyalty. Trump must never be right. Ever. To concede a single point means banishment. Evidently.

          • You kind of answered your own question there.

          • Jerry

            Not everything is binary. Certainly not this issue.

  • boB from WA

    Is the “sound lock” anything like an airlock? And is it 100% effective?