Let's Go Back Through the Listening Tube June 30-July4

SPEAKER_01 0:04

Let's go back through the listening tube for this week in history.

SPEAKER_00 0:10

I'm Bob Woodley from the Listening Tube. This week in 1559, King Henry II of France is mortally wounded in a jousting match against Gabriel de Montgomery. Wait a second. Why was a king taking part in a jousting match? Was this some kind of duel or gentleman's challenge? I'm going to look that up.

SPEAKER_01 0:40

He's gonna look it up. He's really gonna do it.

SPEAKER_00 0:45

You can't handle the truth. As it turns out, the last joust of King Henry II of France was the culmination of a very jubilant day that included not one but two weddings of the king's relatives. His daughter and his sister were both being married to noblemen, one from Spain and the other from England. It would not only be a night of socially acceptable sex, but also a new era in peace. There had already been much fanfare and jousting throughout the day, but none of the drama that the audience desired. Not a single lance had been broken, according to Normandy Then and Now.com. So the King of France decided to give those in attendance one more joust. It would be between he and the Gabrielle de Montgomery. Montgomery's joust pierced the king's helmet and severely damaged his right eye. Surgery would be required in 1559. In other words, this is gonna hurt. The king died ten days later. He may have welcomed the relief. So what happened to the guy who killed the king of France? You would think that if you killed the king of any country, even by accident, in the fifteen hundreds, there would be hell to pay. Luckily, the king didn't blame Gabriel, saying, Do not worry, you do not need forgiveness, having obeyed your king and performed acts of good and valiant knight of arms. Phew Gabriel still hauled ass out of town and eventually ended up in England. It's interesting to ponder which of today's leaders would take it upon themselves to entertain their guests by risking their own life. This week in 1837, a system of the civil registration of births, marriages, and deaths is established in England and Wales. This may not seem like a big deal compared with the way we keep track of everything now, but until 1837, only the church kept track of any of that stuff. As far back as human history goes, it's always been the church that kept the most accurate records of people. From the who begat who part of the Old Testament, it's been the church who kept track of everything. Even pre-Christianity, the Romans and the Greeks kept track of occasions through worship. Births, deaths, marriages, all sorts of categories were tracked by or through religion. But there was no organized way to keep track. Too many different variables and methods. For the government to begin keeping track was a very revolutionary idea. The church had sacraments that needed to be fulfilled and kept track of, while the government had no recognized need to keep track of anything other than who may or may not have killed a king. But the Birth and Deaths Registration Act of 1836 and the Marriage Act established what we now know as bureaucracy. But yes, we should keep track of all this stuff, and there should be an organized way in which we do. The main issue today is that the information about who we are and where we live and what we do is now more readily available to advertisers than it is to the people charged with keeping track. Take, for example, the Save America Act. The courts are keeping in check the president's plan to implement proof of citizenship in order to vote. Multiple states are fighting to keep voter rolls away from the federal government. The ironic part is that with today's information access, the rest of the world has access to data the federal government isn't allowed to have. With today's algorithms and data mining and artificial intelligence, we can easily figure out who is who and everything else about them. Even the absence of data tells a story. The good news is that the churches are still keeping track. And if the political apparatus ever crumbles, as has happened before, the records kept by the religions of the world may be where history begins again.

SPEAKER_01 5:38

Send email to thelisingtube at outlook.com.

SPEAKER_00 5:45

This week in 1966, the National Organization for Women, the United States' largest feminist organization, is founded. Haven't heard much from them lately? Is it because they were a liberal feminist movement and now the liberals won't define a woman? Is it because the left supports men pretending to be women in sporting events and they don't know how to come down on the issue? Do they support only biological women or do they support anybody who claims to be a woman? It doesn't seem like a very complicated issue to me for an organization that claims to be an advocate for women. The absence of a strong advocacy for women by the National Organization for Women, demonstrated by the roaring silence from them, is a clear signal that there's money at play. Leftist donors have always been the lifeblood of feminist organizations, but now the left has abandoned feminists in favor of people with unidentifiable genders and sexual preferences. Meanwhile, President Trump has made Susie Wiles the most powerful woman in the world by appointing her to be the first female White House chief of staff in American history. This week in 1990, German reunification begins after the Berlin Wall came down. East Germany accepts the Deutschmark as its currency, thus uniting the economies of East and West Germany. On my first trip into East Berlin, I had to exchange Deutsche Marks for Ostmarks or Eastmarks because that was the only kind of money you could spend there. I think I traded in about a hundred dollars worth, and the pile of money I got in return was like a brick of bills. The eastern currency had so little value. The only thing I bought in East Berlin was a wallet to keep all the money in, and a flag of the former Soviet Union. I still have the flag. And this week in 1997, the United Kingdom transfers sovereignty over Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China. It's not that they wanted to, but they had agreed to give the territory back to China ninety-nine years earlier. During those ninety-nine years, Hong Kong grew into a beacon of Western-style capitalism and a financial hub. Now, many of the freedoms that the people of Hong Kong came to enjoy have been stripped away by the Chinese communist rule.

SPEAKER_01 8:38

Similar, but different.

SPEAKER_00 8:41

It wasn't the first time Great Britain had to relinquish territory in the month of July. No, that would have been 1776, when the newly formed United States of America declared independence from England, leading to the American Revolutionary War. A war the United States would win with help from France. Happy 250th birthday to the United States of America on July 4th. The occasion is being observed with great fanfare, including a national state fair in our nation's capital. Unfortunately, not every state is participating, including my home state of Pennsylvania. On behalf of many of my fellow Pennsylvanians, I just want to say shame on Governor Shapiro for not including Pennsylvania in the festivities. Follow the listening tube at thelisteningtube.com. From the listening tube, I'm Bob Woodley for Thou at Infinitum.