12.8.25 New Jersey’s donor list subpoenas, the Dell family’s philanthropy, and the making of A Charlie Brown Christmas

Summary

The World and Everything In It – December 8, 2025

Episode Overview
This packed episode covers three major stories: New Jersey’s legal battle over donor privacy for crisis pregnancy centers, the Dell family’s landmark philanthropy shaping the “Trump accounts," and the unlikely making of the classic special A Charlie Brown Christmas. The hosts offer rich legal, cultural, and economic insights—all infused with the program’s biblically minded, news-driven tone.

---

1. Legal Docket: New Jersey’s Donor List Subpoenas

Theme: Can government officials demand nonprofit donor lists, potentially chilling free association and privacy rights?
Segment Starts: 06:35

Key Discussion Points

• The Case: First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin

  • New Jersey issued a wide-reaching subpoena to First Choice, a pro-life crisis pregnancy center, demanding up to 10 years of donor and communication records. (08:07)
  • The center’s director, Amy Huber, describes the demand as “completely overwhelming and daunting.” (08:43)
  • The case centers on First Amendment protections—association, privacy, compelled speech, and standing to challenge government action before enforcement.

• Legal Arguments:

  • Erin Hawley (Alliance Defending Freedom):

    • Argues First Choice’s associational interests were harmed immediately by the coercive subpoena.
    • “Some donors gave as little as $10. Those folks are going to be worried about a state attorney general demanding their names, phone numbers, addresses, places of employment so that he can contact them about a donor website.” (10:16)
    • Argues that the credible threat of enforcement means injury exists, regardless of whether the subpoena is enforced in court. (10:29)

  • New Jersey’s Argument (Lawyer Sundeep Iyer):

    • Claims nobody’s First Amendment rights have been chilled; the subpoena is not “self-executing” and sits dormant unless pursued in court.
    • “Petitioner’s factual allegations do not show that the issuance of this subpoena objectively chilled petitioner’s First Amendment rights.” (12:01)

• Supreme Court Justices’ Reactions:

  • Chief Justice John Roberts:
    • Skeptical of the state’s position:

      “You don’t think it might have an effect on future potential donors... to know that their name, phone number, address, etc., could be disclosed as a result of the subpoena?” (12:41)

  • Justice Elena Kagan:
    • Presses the real-world impact:

      “An ordinary person... presented with this subpoena and then told ‘but don’t worry, it has to be stamped by a court’ is not going to take that as very reassuring.” (13:14)

  • Justice Brett Kavanaugh:
    • Highlights ACLU support for donor privacy, regardless of position on pro-life/pro-choice, finding the chilling effect “kind of obvious.” (13:29)
  • Justice Clarence Thomas:
    • Notes the state had no actual complaints against First Choice to justify the probe:

      “So you had no basis to think that they were deceiving any of their contributors.” (14:15)

Takeaway

• The Court appeared skeptical of New Jersey’s defense, indicating a probable win for donor privacy and stricter scrutiny of governmental fishing expeditions targeting nonprofits.

---

2. Monday Money Beat: The Dell Philanthropy & Economic Headlines

Segment Starts: 18:36

Key Discussion Points

The Dell Family’s $6 Billion Gift and “Trump Accounts”

• Background: Michael and Susan Dell donated over $6 billion to expand the government-backed “Trump accounts,” giving seed money to children born 2025–2028.
• David Bonson (Economist):
  • Praises “extraordinary generosity” but prefers entirely private funding over government redistribution.
  • “The whole program would have been better if it were privately funded. And I do have a problem with the redistribution element of the government support.” (19:24)
  • Details: Each child gets $1,000, parents can add $5,000, employers $2,500. Not meant as a Social Security replacement and risks deficit spending.
• Insight:
  • Program is seen as forward-looking philanthropy, but government involvement and debt raise caution.

Netflix–Warner Bros. Merger Deal

• Details: Netflix aims to buy Warner Bros. for $70+ billion, gaining major franchises and content library, but also significant debt.
• Regulatory Uncertainty:
  • “There’s no question that there’s a gazillion competitors...so I don’t think the government has any reason to turn the deal down, but I’m not sure that the government will approve the deal.” (21:49)
  • Notes a large breakup fee if it fails, high political tensions, and competition from other bidders (e.g., Skydance).

Federal Reserve Leadership

• Kevin Hassett as Likely Nominee:
  • Bonson is concerned about potential loss of Fed independence as Hassett “is saying all the things the President wants to hear.” (24:13)
  • Describes Hassett as capable, but questions political alignment.

Remote Work and Skilled Youth

• Recent Research: Young remote workers lose out on mentorship, skill-building, and advancement.
• Bonson:
  • “These young people are not getting the mentorship, the apprenticeship that was a significant part of their position historically...impacts the career trajectory of young people.” (25:54)

The “Real” U.S. Poverty Line

• Debate Around $140,000 Figure:
  • Free Press columnist argued for a $140,000 poverty line; Tyler Cowan countered.
  • Bonson calls it “obviously...a very different number than the poverty line,” and highlights the subjectivity/arbitrariness of governmental poverty thresholds:
    • “There are obviously a lot of Americans living between 60 and 140,000 that don’t believe that they are poor.” (28:05)

---

3. Feature: The Making of A Charlie Brown Christmas

Segment Starts: 31:01

Key Discussion Points

• Quick Turnaround and Doubts: 1965, Coca-Cola commissions show. Schulz, Melendez, and Mendelsohn forced to work quickly, fearing disaster.
  • “Sparky was an incredible creative...He just did these things. They came out of the woodwork.” — Bill Melendez (32:44)
• Unconventional Choices:
  • Used real children for voice actors, jazz soundtrack (Vince Guaraldi), and slow pacing.
  • The iconic “Linus reads the Nativity” scene was considered controversial:
    • “...if we don’t do it, who will?” — Charles Schulz, demanding scriptural inclusion (34:47)
    • Original broadcast: 15 million viewers.
• Network Executives’ Poor Predictions:
  • Considered the show amateurish and “too controversial,” but scheduling forced their hand.
  • “Everything the executives hated was everything that audiences loved.” (34:43)
• Lasting Significance & Quotes:
  • “As lots of Christmas media has come and gone...something with that much scripture in it has survived.” — Ted Kluck (35:26)
  • A Charlie Brown Christmas endures for its simple warmth, childlike humor, and its explicit Christian message.
• Reflection: The special’s lasting appeal comes from its honesty, imperfection, and reverence for the Christmas story.
  • “That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.” (36:09)

---

Notable Quotes and Timestamps

• On Donor Privacy:
  • “An ordinary person...presented with this subpoena and then told ‘but don’t worry, it has to be stamped by a court’ is not going to take that as very reassuring.” – Justice Kagan (13:14)
• On Philanthropy & Redistribution:
  • “The whole program would have been better if it were privately funded.” – David Bonson (19:24)
• On Remote Work:
  • “…these young people are not getting the mentorship, the apprenticeship that was a significant part of their position historically.” – David Bonson (25:54)
• On the Making of A Charlie Brown Christmas:
  • “If we don’t do it, who will?” – Charles Schulz, via Lee Mendelsohn (34:47)
  • “Everything the executives hated was everything that audiences loved.” (34:43)

---

Segment Timestamps

• 00:05 — Headlines: Military strike debate, Obamacare subsidies, online holiday spending, Israel–Hamas ceasefire, Netflix–Warner Bros. deal
• 06:35 — Legal Docket: Crisis pregnancy center subpoenas; Supreme Court arguments
• 18:36 — Monday Money Beat: Dell gift, Trump accounts, Netflix–Warner Bros., Federal Reserve, remote work, poverty line debate
• 31:01 — Feature: The making and legacy of A Charlie Brown Christmas

---

Conclusion

This episode exemplifies The World and Everything In It’s robust, faith-grounded journalism: probing legal threats to nonprofit privacy, critically examining major philanthropy and business news, and celebrating the improbable spiritual boldness of a Christmas TV classic. Rich quotes, on-point analysis, and memorable stories provide context and connection for listeners seeking news that informs and inspires.

Transcript

[Mary Reichert]

Good morning. A blue state subpoenas a crisis pregnancy center and then argues it's no big deal. Even a liberal on the Supreme Court seemed skeptical.

[Jeff Palomino]

An ordinary person presented with this subpoena and told don't worry, it has to be stamped by a court is not going to take that is very reassuring.

[Nick Eicher]

That's ahead today on Legal Docket. Also today, the Monday money beat the Trump accounts get a Dell infusion. Economist David Bonson is standing. And the world history book behind the scenes of a Christmas movie classic.

[Mary Reichert]

I'm all the Charlie Browns in the world. You're the Charlie Brownies.

It's Monday, December 8th. This is the world and everything in it.

[Kristin Flavin]

From listener supported World Radio, I'm Mary Reichert.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Iker. Good morning.

[Mary Reichert]

Up next, Kristin Flavin with today's news.

[Kristin Flavin]

Republicans and Democrats are clashing on Capitol Hill over a military strike in the Caribbean. Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees saw video footage last week of a follow up strike that took out two survivors of an operation against a boat identified as a cartel drug running vessel. Congressman Jim Himes is the top Democrat on the House intel panel. He told CBS's Face the Nation, I.

[Nick Eicher]

Think it's really important that people see what it looks like when the full force of the United States military is.

[Jeff Palomino]

Turned on two guys who are clinging.

[Nick Eicher]

To a piece of wood and about to go under.

[Kristin Flavin]

But the Republican chairman of the Senate Intel Committee, Tom Cotton, says that's not what happened. He says the men were on top of the capsized vessel, not clinging to a floating plane.

[Nick Eicher]

They were not incapacitated in any way. It was entirely appropriate to strike the boat again to make sure that cargo was destroyed. It is in no way violation of.

[Jeff Palomino]

The law of war.

[Kristin Flavin]

Other Democrats called the follow up strike morally repugnant. But most Republicans say the strikes rightly targeted narco terrorists trafficking cargo that could have killed thousands of Americans.

Obamacare subsidies are set to expire this month and lawmakers are strung between extending them or taking up a new health care strategy backed by the White House. Extending those subsidies was the Democrats key demand during the recent government shutdown. Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz.

[Nick Eicher]

This is just a lack of will.

[Jeff Palomino]

The Republicans frankly have not had a health care plan since 2010 when we passed Obamacare. And so you know what's been taking them so long. The plan is still in the concept phase.

[Kristin Flavin]

The GOP chairman of the Senate Health, Education, labor and Pensions Committee, Bill Cassidy, fired back.

[Jeff Palomino]

I think the White House and Republicans are very much in favor of Americans having affordable health insurance. They want Americans to have access, and the president's given pretty clear guidelines. He wants money to go to patients.

[Legal Correspondent]

And not to insurance companies.

[Kristin Flavin]

If the subsidies are not extended or a new measure is not put in place, millions of Americans could see a spike in premium costs. Some Republicans say they back a temporary extension of the subsidies to allow more time to find a better solution.

With the holiday season here, many continue shopping with economic concerns looming, Democrats say Trump's policies are to blame, while Treasury Secretary Scott Besant claims the Biden administration created the current challenges. But he says the economy is on the right track.

[Jeff Palomino]

The economy has been better than we thought. We've had the 4 4% GDP growth in a couple of quarters. We're going to finish the year. Despite the schumer shutdown with 3% real.

[Kristin Flavin]

GDP growth, recent consumer and economic data has been mixed. Consumers reportedly spent a record $11.8 billion online for an increase of 9.1% from 2024, according to Adobe Analytics. But a Dec. 3 report showed private employers cut 32,000 jobs, defying expectations of job growth. A 76% of surveyed voters view the economy negatively, according to a November Fox News poll. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel and Hamas are nearing the completion of phase one of their ceasefire agreement and and will likely move on soon to the next step.

[Nick Eicher]

We have one more hostage, deceased, Hani Gvili, a hero of Israel, to return.

[Jeff Palomino]

Here and then we very shortly expect.

[Nick Eicher]

To move into the second phase, which.

[Kristin Flavin]

Is more difficult, netanyahu heard there speaking alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Jerusalem. The ceasefire's second phase involves disarming Hamas terrorists and demilitarizing Gaza. It also includes deploying an international force to secure Gaza and forming a temporary Palestinian government. Mertz says Germany will help implement the second phase by sending officers and diplomats to a U S led civilian and military coordination center in Israel.

Superman is just one of numerous storied properties that may soon have a new owner if a sale of one Warner Bros. Goes through. But Netflix is facing plenty of resistance from Hollywood unions, major filmmakers and others. They warn the merger would give the streaming giant too much control over content and jobs, and that it could shrink opportunities for creators and theatrical releases. They're urging federal regulators to halt the sale. Netflix argues the merger would preserve big budget storytelling and deliver more films and series to audiences by combining its global reach with Warner's deep library. Netflix is offering about $83 billion for Warner's film and TV assets, including HBO and the DC Comics Universe. That tops rival bids from Comcast and Skydance Paramount.

I'm Kristen Flavin. Straight ahead, legal docket plus, how a Charlie Brown Christmas came to be. This is the world and everything in it.

[Mary Reichert]

It's the world and everything in it for this 8th day of December, 2025. So glad you've joined us today. Good morning. I'm Mary Reinkert.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Eicher. Before we get started today, I do want to tell you about something that could become a great new habit for your family. It's called World watch. It's our 10 minute daily video news program for students. It's designed for teens, but parents tell us they watch right along at the breakfast table. Finally, some screen time the whole family can agree on. I love World Watch. It's a great team over there packing every episode with thoughtful fact based reporting that helps kids to build discernment and maybe even brightens their outlook on the world. Right now, we have set it up so you can try World Watch for free for 90 days. More than enough time to build a great new habit. Just visit Worldwatch News. Look for the purple button that says get 90 days free. And click on that. That's Worldwatch News, 10 minutes. We think the whole family will agree on. Well, time now for legal docket and we'll cover today two disputes pending before the Supreme Court. We begin with First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin. It was argued last week and poses a very simple question. Can government officials force nonprofits to reveal their donors to the state? The case is about the right to keep private information private, the right of association and the right not to speak.

[Mary Reichert]

The case arises from New Jersey and revolves around donors who financially support crisis pregnancy centers. First Choice is a pro life nonprofit serving women in crisis at five locations across New Jersey. Amy Huber is the executive director. When she spoke with me in August, she said she was blindsided two years ago by a subpoena from the New Jersey attorney general's office.

[Kristin Flavin]

It commanded us to produce up to.

[Mary Reichert]

10 years of documentation on our donor communications, our identities of our donors and advertising and basically everything you could think of. Just the thought of producing that much.

[Kristin Flavin]

Information for up to 10 years is completely overwhelming and daunting.

[Mary Reichert]

So every hour that we would be using to produce documentation would be an hour that would be taken away from serving our women.

[Nick Eicher]

State Attorney General Matt Platkin opened the investigation into First Choice, beginning with its website. Yes, it had true information about abortion, but Platkin argued it could mislead donors into believing it was not a pro life organization. But first choice says its position is clear and it's on every page of that website. It says the state is on a fishing expedition and ought to be stopped. Legal correspondent Jeff Palomino takes it from here.

[Legal Correspondent]

Not everyone can sue in federal court. A party must have standing to sue in federal court, and that means showing a direct personal injury caused by the defendant for which a federal court can provide a remedy. And that's the issue in first choice. Lawyer Erin Hawley of alliance defending freedom argued on behalf of the pregnancy center.

[Kristin Flavin]

The attorney general of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena commanding on pain of contempt, that first choice produce donor names, addresses and phone numbers so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association. First choice's associational interests were harmed the moment it received a coercive subpoena demanding donor names on pain of contempt.

[Legal Correspondent]

Hawley pointed to the chilling effect on donors.

[Kristin Flavin]

Some donors gave as little as $10. Those folks are going to be worried about a state attorney general demanding their names, phone numbers, addresses, places of employment so that he can contact them about a donor website.

[Legal Correspondent]

She noted that first choice faces a credible threat of the attorney general enforcing the subpoena regardless of whether a court orders compliance.

[Kristin Flavin]

The attorney general does not contest that.

[Mary Reichert]

There'S a credible threat of enforcement here.

[Kristin Flavin]

There are several injuries that flow simply from pre enforcement review. One of those is the burdens, the time and resources spent on litigation.

[Mary Reichert]

We think what first choice needs to.

[Kristin Flavin]

Show is that a reasonably objective donor or nonprofit as described as a person of ordinary firmness would have been chilled by the coercive subpoena. We think that's clear here.

[Legal Correspondent]

A lot of the argument centered on whether the subpoena was self executing. That means someone has to go to court to enforce it. It doesn't happen on its own. The state argued the subpoena was not self. Executing. It just lays there until a court enforces it. Therefore, any injury to first choice is hypothetical, at least for now. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Hawley about that.

[Nick Eicher]

I just wanted to give you an opportunity to address the state's argument that it's not self. Executing.

[Kristin Flavin]

Thank you, your honor. That the state says the subpoena is voluntary. That's not what the face of the subpoena says. That's not what the state law says. It says that if you fail to obey the subpoena, again not a lay to court order. If you fail to obey the subpoena, you could be subject to contempt. You could lose your business license. Those are the death knell for nonprofits like First Choice.

[Legal Correspondent]

On the other side, arguing for the attorney general lawyer Sundeep Iyer, he said nobody's First Amendment rights had been chilled.

[Jeff Palomino]

Petitioner's factual allegations do not show that the issuance of this subpoena objectively chilled petitioner's First Amendment rights. The state court has repeatedly declined to order production over two years of litigation. That helps explain why petitioner never alleged below that anyone actually has been or is objectively likely to be chilled by this subpoena. Instead, at most, the complaint alleges that the subpoena itself, itself, quote, may cause donors to stop contributing.

[Legal Correspondent]

Several justices pushed back Listen to this exchange with Chief Justice John Roberts.

[Jeff Palomino]

So you don't think it might have an effect on future potential donors to the organization to know that their name, phone number, address, et cetera could be disclosed as a result of the subpoena?

[Legal Correspondent]

I or counter, there's just no evidence of that chilling speech. The chief justice wasn't having it.

[Jeff Palomino]

How do you connect that evidence? Somebody comes in and say I'm chilled.

[Nick Eicher]

I don't want to reveal my name.

[Jeff Palomino]

Address, phone number, etc, and here's my affidavit.

[Nick Eicher]

That's not going to work, is it?

[Legal Correspondent]

Justice Elena Kagan voiced the same concerns about subpoenas of this nature scaring off donors.

[Jeff Palomino]

An ordinary person, one of the funders for this organization or for any similar organization presented with this subpoena and then told but don't worry, worry it has to be stamped by a court is not going to take that is very reassuring.

[Legal Correspondent]

Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to the ACLU's friend of the court brief in support of First Choice. Not exactly an organization that's aligned with the pro life cause, but it was on this issue.

[Nick Eicher]

The broader common sense of the situation reflecting the ACLU's brief reflect in some of the questions would seem to say.

[Jeff Palomino]

You know, this is just kind of obvious that there's some kind of objective.

[Nick Eicher]

Chill from a subpoena on speech.

[Legal Correspondent]

Both Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas seem to get the bigger context first choice faced in a state like New Jersey. It's one other pregnancy centers face increasing animosity from some politicians. Justice Thomas got right to the point. Listen to this exchange with lawyer Eyre.

[Jeff Palomino]

Did you have complaints that formed the basis of your concern about the fundraising activities here? We certainly had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers that petitioned no about this crisis pregnancy center. So I think we've been clear from the outset that we haven't had complaints about this specific. So you had no basis to think that they were deceiving any of their contributors.

[Legal Correspondent]

I'm reading a pretty sound defeat for the attorney General and an opinion that continues to refine tests for First Amendment standing. Now onto our second case. Argued late last month, this case arises.

[Jeff Palomino]

Out of an enemy attack on US.

[Nick Eicher]

Military forces on a foreign battlefield in time of war.

[Legal Correspondent]

That's Mark Mosher, lawyer for the Fluor Corporation, a major government contractor. Here are the facts. Winston Hensley is a former US army specialist who was seriously injured by a suicide bombing on Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan back in 2016. The bomber was an Afghan employee who worked for Fluor and was providing support services on the base. Hensley says Fluor didn't properly supervise that employee, so he sued. But Fluor's lawyer says those claims can't proceed.

[Nick Eicher]

Petitioner sued Fluor under South Carolina tort law for failing to prevent that act of war. Those state law claims are preemptive because they conflict with uniquely federal interests petitioners claims interfere with the federal government's exclusive war making powers. The Constitution vests all war powers in the federal government and expressly withdraws from the states the power to engage in war. Applying tort law on a foreign battlefield would hinder the federal government's exercise of those powers powers.

[Legal Correspondent]

Justice Kavanaugh was sympathetic. Bagram Air Base was a combat zone and war fighting decisions fall under federal authority. Period.

[Jeff Palomino]

And so Congress looking at this area.

[Nick Eicher]

The idea that state tort law is.

[Jeff Palomino]

Going to regulate what goes on in Bagram, I think Congress be like sounds way out there.

[Legal Correspondent]

But other justices didn't seem as convinced. Some pointed a precedent that may allow Hensley's claims to proceed. Others cited Department of Defense regulations that told contractors they could be liable in certain circumstances. In the end, Justice Gorsuch summarized best what's at stake.

[Nick Eicher]

One might might think that it would help the military to immunize all contractors and there's some good arguments for that. But there's another good argument on the other side which is well, maybe the military benefit most from having a efficient contractors who are less likely to cause harm to military members. And I'm just suggesting to you there are really good arguments both sides of those which would advance war making function of the federal government. And I don't know.

[Legal Correspondent]

Today contractors work side by side with the US military just as much as they did back in 2016 and that's especially true when troops deploy overseas. It's hard to predict this ruling, but one thing is for Sure. A lot is riding on the outcome and that's this week's legal docket. I'm Jeff Palomino.

[Jeff Palomino]

Additional support comes from His Words Abiding.

[Nick Eicher]

In you, a podcast to help the body of Christ memorize the words of Christ.

[Jeff Palomino]

His words abiding in you.

[Nick Eicher]

Available on all podcast apps from Eyewitness.

[Jeff Palomino]

The Long Shore, a faith based audio drama that brings history to life.

[Nick Eicher]

Eyewitnesspod.com that's the letter I witnesspod.com and from Ridge Haven Camp in North Carolina and Iowa. Winter camp starts December 29th. Registration [e-mail].

[Mary Reichert]

Coming up next on THE WORLD and everything in it, the Monday Money beat.

[Nick Eicher]

Time now to talk business markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bonson. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bonson Group and he is here now. Good morning to you, David.

[Jeff Palomino]

Well, good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, David, I'd like to start with that major gift from Michael and Susan dell, more than 6 billion. That's with a B billion, $6 billion to expand the new Trump accounts. This donation filling a gap in the program and giving millions of children some seed money invested broad index funds. So economically though, David, how do you evaluate the idea, the private philanthropy, the government design beneath it and what it all means?

[Jeff Palomino]

Well, it's sort of a mixed bag because I really love the idea of private citizens funding needs based support for various charitable endeavors. And I would like this whole program so much more if it was entirely private funded. And this extraordinary generosity over $6 billion from for Michael and Susan, if we had a whole lot of people doing some mechanism of funding needs based, you know, future oriented, opportunity driven charity philanthropy, I would love it. My problem with the piece of the big beautiful Bill act that creates the Trump accounts is that it is governmentally funded and so it essentially becomes another redistribution program. It is indeed borrowed money, obviously, because the government is running $1.8 trillion deficits and then they're putting $1,000 in an account for any kid born between 2025 and 2028. And then the parents can add up to $5,000 and the employer can add up to 2,500. And so then it kind of creates a sort of future growth situation. Now many have said, well, wouldn't this just be a lot cheaper than doing Social Security? Wouldn't this be a lot cheaper than some of the other forms of future support? The answer is generally yes. Actually. It's just the problem is that's not what this is for. It's not A replacement. In fact, the money is not for people to get when they're 65 in the form of a retirement payment and whatnot. So I certainly have nothing negative at all to say about the Dell's generosity, but I think the whole program would have been better if it were privately funded. And I do have a problem with the redistribution element of the government support to the program.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, David, let's talk about the big business story of the week. The Netflix move to try to acquire Warner Brothers. It's a deal said to be north of $70 billion. It would give Netflix, the Warner lot, massive franchises, a deep library of content, and also a deep library of debt. A lot of it. We're already seeing now some signs of pushback from the Trump administration. How do you evaluate this potential megadeal?

[Jeff Palomino]

Well, from an investment standpoint, there's no question that it's gonna be a lot more debt than Netflix plays with. They had always been a very significantly equity funded company, but it's gonna be a lot less debt than anybody else doing the deal would have been. And these media mergers and acquisitions, including involving some of the very companies involved what Warner Brothers did in buying Discovery or what Paramount and Viacom's deal was from years ago, the old Time Warner deal that created Warner Brothers, there's a history of these things where they created very leveraged companies. This will have less leverage pro forma than any of the other scenarios. I couldn't care less about this deal. From a matter of antitrust, there's no question that there's a gazillion competitors in streaming, in media content, in entertainment content. And, and so I don't think that the government has any reason to turn the deal down, but I'm not sure that the government will approve the deal. The Trump administration is not friendly with Netflix. Netflix is not friendly with them. They are more left leaning. And this FCC chair has shown he's willing to be pretty political in the way that they go about administering deals, approving deals. And so the White House has already come out and said that they don't really like this. So I'm not sure, but there's a very large breakup fee. I believe it was over 6 billion. If the deal doesn't get approved, that has to be paid. So the companies involved are certainly betting quite a bit that it will get done. And they did a bid much higher than the closest deal, which came from Skydance, which has recently bought Paramount, cbs, they hired Bari Weiss to run the CBS News division. And so there's a lot of interesting things at play here, but it's the largest merger we've seen in that entertainment media world in quite some time.

[Nick Eicher]

Yeah, well, David, lots of attention focused on the Federal Reserve and not simply because of the interest rate meeting coming up this week, but because the White House has canceled all of the final interviews for the potential successor to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. And now we hear, and no big surprise, I don't think that Kevin Hassett appears to be the President's choice. What do you make of the process here and what this might signal about the direction of the Fed?

[Jeff Palomino]

I think it's important for us to point out that the White House has not actually said it's Kevin Hacc going forward, but that is certainly the implication. And when the media asked President Trump, he smiled. And certainly all my sources are telling me the same thing. I think it's a very fair presumption they haven't technically confirmed that it is Hassett. But I am hearing that that's the case and that seems to be the expectation. These other interviewees, by the way, had interviewed several times. There was just supposed to be a quote, unquote, final round that, as you point out, they ended up canceling. And so look, if they've already made their mind up, I suppose it's better for everyone involved to have not wasted their time. More Kevin asset would not have been the choice that I would have wanted in this particular case. Kevin's been a friend of mine for a long time. I've known him a long time. I've spoken with him over 10 times over the years. I've hosted him in my offices for different events. But I really do believe that the independence of the Fed Chair is important. And I think that Kevin Hassett is getting this job because he's saying all the things the President wants to hear. And I think that's unfortunate. I really do believe that Kevin may be in the position where he goes and does the right things as the Fed Chair for the wrong reasons. And I'm more concerned about it long term than I am short term.

[Nick Eicher]

All right, David. Well, an eye catching piece in the New York Times over the weekend arguing that remote work is hurting young employees in measurable areas, too. Skill development, mentoring, opportunity. What do you see in that research, David? And you know, who could have seen this coming?

[Jeff Palomino]

Well, they cite a really, really good research paper that came from some economists at Virginia, Harvard and the Federal Reserve. The University of Chicago had done a really, really constructive podcast on this subject over a year ago. So it is very much in line with things I wr in the appendix to my book on work several years before that. So I guess I'll take credit for being ahead of even all these other great researchers. The data is pretty clear though. And you notice the argument they make is not emotional, it's not preferential, it's not nostalgic. It's not, you know, a get your tail back to work kind of a thing. It's these young people are not getting the mentorship, the apprenticeship that was a significant part of their position historically. And it's done in the context of very, very particular types of jobs. And I believe it is painfully obvious. And so I agree with you. It's nice to see that validation. But it's very well documented and explained how the benefits of young people receiving mentorship from folks in office face to face in real time and place, circumstances being diminished with remote work, impacts the career trajectory of young people. So I found it to be a wonderful paper and I think a message I very much agree with.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, David, just one more thing thing before we go. You mentioned Bari Weiss just a few moments ago and you know, she runs a number of things, not the least of which is CBS News, but an outfit called the Free Press. And this is something that got a ton of attention. The Free Press ran a couple of columns debating where the real poverty line is. The provocative column that kicked off the debate was an argument that $140,000 a year, 140,000 for a family of four, ought to be the new poverty line. And then a piece by economist Tyler Cowan just took the idea apart. I'm curious, David. I know you've heard about this, but I'm curious where you come down on the question what is the right way to think about the actual cost of living?

[Jeff Palomino]

Well, first of all, the poverty line being written as a sort of governmental policy number, is obviously going to have a certain arbitrariness or subjectivity to it. It's used to kind of set various polic policy for where means based support is going to have to come in. And the piece you referred to by Michael Green stating that the number was 140,000, whereby a family of four could actually make a living and be able to afford their basic needs, which he includes as housing, childcare, food and healthcare. And I think most people know just intuitively that there are a heck of a lot of people supporting those four things for a family of four with less than 140,000. But to state it as the poverty line rightly incurred a great deal of ire from folks. And there were a lot of really good economists, including some of the folks you refer to at the Free Press that hammered it. I'm less concerned with where we set the actual policy line as to where we talk about just the basic cost of living for where a family can have the kind of life that people want to have. And I certainly understand that that is going to be a very different number than the poverty line. I think that the poverty line at 32,000 right now for a family of four is much too low. But I will say that the problem here is that where we set this number becomes a basis for facilitating greater healthcare support and transfer payments from a federal treasury that doesn't have the money to do it. So all at once, Nick, embedded in this conversation is a need for men and women of faith to better take on and understand what our responsibilities are in charity and philanthropy for families to understand their responsibility as providers and what the realities are of cost of living. Employers to understand what support is needed and where they want to think about their payroll. But unfortunately, this conversation can't be real. Seriously had when people referring to $140,000 as a poverty line. And there are obviously a lot of Americans living between 60 and 140,000 that don't believe that they are poor.

[Nick Eicher]

All right. David Bonson, founder, managing partner and chief investment officer at the Bonson Group. He writes regularly for World Opinions. He writes each [e-mail] David Hay, thank you. We'll see you next time.

[Jeff Palomino]

Thanks so much, Nick. Good to be with you.

[Mary Reichert]

Good morning. This is the world and everything in it from listener supported World Radio. I'm Mary Reichard.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Iker. Next up, Christmas time. Christmas time is here. Sixty years ago, the world of the Charlie Brown comic strip sprang to life for the first time as an animated TV special. It became an instant classic Christmas flick. Today, critics praise the heartwarming Peanuts gang, but the special almost never made it to because the original cartoonist and his co creators made some rather unconventional choices and TV executives fought them every step of the way.

[Mary Reichert]

Well, good grief, here's World's Emma Iker with the story.

Charlie Brown. You're the only person I know who can take a wonderful season like Christmas and turn it into a problem. Of all the Charlie Browns in the world, you're the Charlie Brown Brownies. In the days before a Charlie Brown Christmas hit CBS airwaves, many thought it would be a disaster. Even the Peanuts creator, Charles Schulz had his doubts. Oh, no. We're doomed. In June 1965, the Coca Cola Company commissioned the Christmas special, and animator Bill Melendez and TV producer Lee Mendelsohn took the lead on it. But the problem was Coca Cola wanted the project to get going as fast as possible. So Melendez and Mendelsohn sat down with Schulz, or Sparky, as everyone called him, at his California home. The pressure mounted as they all stared at each other, unsure of how to put the project together so close to the wire. Bill Melendez recollected the moment in the Making of Charlie Brown Christmas documentary.

[Nick Eicher]

Sparky was an incredible creative, not just a cartoonist, he was a storyteller. And he just did these things. They came out of the woodwork. Sometimes I would just sit back and say, holy Toledo, this guy comes up with great ideas.

[Mary Reichert]

Thanks to Sparky, the outline came together in less than a day. Here's producer Lee Mendelsohn.

[Jeff Palomino]

And that's how the whole show came together. On a Thursday afternoon in Sebastopol, California, we sent the outline to Coca Cola.

[Nick Eicher]

And they got it on Monday, and.

[Jeff Palomino]

On Tuesday, they called up and said, let's do it.

[Mary Reichert]

Six months later, Mendelsohn rushed the special to final production. But TV executives heavily criticized the show after a private screening. Mark Evanier is a cartoonist and historian.

[Jeff Palomino]

The networks were against it.

[Legal Correspondent]

It went against the conventional thinking at the time of what a children's special, what a Christmas special had to be.

[Mary Reichert]

Executives called the voice acting amateurish, the jazz music out of place, and the pacing too slow. And they said the scene where Linus reads the Nativity story from the book of Luke was too controversial. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them. And they were sore, afraid. But CBS had already scheduled the special for December 9, so it had to run. Let's face it, we all know that Christmas is a big commercial racket. It's run by a big eastern syndicate, you know. A Charlie Brown Christmas aired at 7:30pm and the next day reviews began pouring in. Turns out everything the executives hated was everything that audiences loved. Isn't there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about? In the outline, Sparky insisted that there had to be a scene from the Bible. At the time, hardly any TV shows referenced Scripture, and the move was risky. Here's producer Mendelssohn again.

[Jeff Palomino]

And Bill and I looked at each other and he said, oh, gee, we.

[Nick Eicher]

Don'T know if you can animate from the Bible.

[Jeff Palomino]

You know, it's never been done before. And he said, well, if we don't do it, who will?

[Mary Reichert]

Despite the opposition, Linus soft spoken delivery aired to 15 million people that night. For unto you was born this day in the city of David, a savior, Jesus Christ, the Lord. In the weeks following, audiences praised the special for its warmth, charm and humor, which was quite the surprise for the CBS executives who had predicted its failure.

[Nick Eicher]

Critics don't always know what they're talking about, and in fact, they often don't.

[Mary Reichert]

Ted Kluck is an assistant professor of journalism at Union University in Tennessee and World Opinions contributor.

[Nick Eicher]

As lots of Christmas media has come and gone, and I think it's significant that something with that much scripture in.

[Mary Reichert]

It has survived, a Charlie Brown Christmas still captivates families today. Some love it for nostalgic reasons.

[Nick Eicher]

The animation is really sort of charmingly primitive and analog, but the storytelling is really good.

[Mary Reichert]

And others find comfort amid the same problems Charlie Brown faced, like the overwhelming commercialism of the holiday.

[Nick Eicher]

I imagine there was something prophetic in him about if we don't caution people about this, if we don't point them back to the real meaning of Christmas, then maybe they'll lose it.

[Mary Reichert]

This year marks the 75th anniversary of the Peanuts comic strip, and a Charlie Brown Christmas remains one of the most beloved American Christmas traditions, despite the humbugs. That's what Christmas is all about. Charlie Brown. That's this week's world history book. I'm Emma Eicher.

Tomorrow, the debate continues over each US Strikes on drug boats. We'll talk military law and the ethics of warfare. And a recent cyber attack raises concerns about artificial intelligence. That and more tomorrow. I'm Mary Reichardt.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Eicher. The world and everything in it comes to you from World Radio. World's mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates and inspires. The Bible says, blessed is everyone who fears the the Lord who walks in his ways. Verse 1 of Psalm 128. Go now in grace and peace.