S2 E6

 Season Two, Part 6

Hello! Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube! I’m your host, Bob Woodley. On this episode, we’ll examine an extreme level of paranoia over a fruit, the last time the postal service said, “No! That’s too much!” and how the jelly doughnut squirted it’s way into German/American history. But first...(not the headlines) 

United States Attorney General Merrick Garland made a surprise visit to Ukraine this week. Admittedly, this may be a headline to some, but to me, it’s the part of the story that flew under the radar, no pun intended, that makes this a “not the headlines” kind of story. You see, the AG went to Ukraine, not Kiev, where the government is, but the Ukraine/Polish border, to express his support for the people of Ukraine “amid an unprovoked and unjust Russian invasion. I’m here to continue our discussions … about the actions that the United States is taking to assist the Ukrainian authorities in holding accountable those responsible for the atrocities, for the war crimes that the entire world has seen,” Garland said. It was nice of him to cross the border and state the obvious. Just in case the billions of dollars of weapons we’ve sent didn’t do the trick. The United States Attorney General also said a few other things to cement the resolve of his office. “An unmistakable message,” he said, “There is no place to hide. We and our partners will pursue every avenue available to make sure that those who are responsible for these atrocities are held accountable.” Look, we’re all on the side of Ukraine. They were attacked, they’re the underdogs, Americans love an underdog, especially if they’re fighting the Russians. But other than this being just another taxpayer funded photo op for a guy who’s not even a politician, understanding that many of politicians junkets are unnecessary as well, I have to wonder why the American Attorney General is even thoroughly involved with the endeavor in the first place. There are other agencies, such as Ukrainian agencies, Multi-national agencies involving neighboring countries, the International Criminal Court, and more, already heavily involved in identifying, and documenting war crimes in Ukraine and establishing who is responsible for them. I support helping where we can, as a nation, but it seems like the United States should have very little to contribute other than weapons. What does our government know about atrocities in Ukraine? What war crimes have we witnessed? This issue seems to be beyond our pay grade, yet the United States is getting involved in prosecuting Russian war criminals. Merrick Garland justifies the US involvement by saying his department has a long history of helping to hold accountable those who perpetrate war crimes. That may be so, and we should contribute where we can, but in this case, I’m not sure we have anything to contribute but investigative assistance. If the suspected war criminal is in the United states, then we should turn him or her over to the Russian authorities. Now, you might be saying, “Wait a second, Bob. Don’t you mean Ukrainian authorities? Why would we turn Russian war criminals over to the Russians?” Well, I know it doesn’t make a lot of sense, but that’s the way the Geneva Convention says it should be done. The laws of war dictate that it is the obligation of States, aka Countries, “to search for persons alleged to have committed, or ordered to have committed, grave breaches and to try or extradite them.” Maybe it doesn’t explicitly say they have to be extradited to Russia, but it does kind of read that way. Either way, I don’t see us having Russian war criminals tried in US courts. The United States has no skin in the Russian war crimes game, and Merrick Garland has no business sticking his nose in it. But he did anyway, not just by going to the Polish/Ukraine border to profess our willingness to hunt down and prosecute Russian war criminals, but by also creating a new American taxpayer-funded War Crimes Accountability Team, headed by famous Nazi-hunter Eli Rosenbaum. No doubt Rosenbaum is qualified for the post, but the question is whether or not the post needs to exist. The Department of Justice press release announcing the formation of the Team says it’s to, “centralize and strengthen the Justice Department’s ongoing work to hold accountable those who have committed war crimes and other atrocities in Ukraine.” So this Team is focused only on war crimes committed in Ukraine. The press-release goes on to say, “This initiative will bring together the Department’s leading experts in investigations involving human rights abuses and war crimes and other atrocities; and provide wide-ranging technical assistance, including operational assistance and advice regarding criminal prosecutions, evidence collection, forensics, and relevant legal analysis.” So, we’re sending our foremost experts in the required fields on the road, well, also through the air, I suppose, to show other people how to collect evidence, how to examine the evidence, how to create a case against someone, and how to prosecute them. As far as I can tell, nobody asked us to do this. Our Attorney General flew near there and told them we were coming to help. The USA is on the way! Don’t worry, we’ll have our citizens pay for it. Our Department of Justice is going hunting for Russians in another country. We will use the most sophisticated technology known to track down and use the legal system to capture and possible execute Russian soldiers or others who commit war crimes in Ukraine. If you ask me, this is just a state-sponsored, US taxpayer-funded whitch hunt. The US has no business investigating criminality in the Ukrainian war. But just to make the whole War Crimes Accountability Team justified, while they’re over there, the team will also “play an integral role in the Department’s ongoing investigation of potential war crimes over which the U.S. possesses jurisdiction, such as the killing and wounding of U.S. journalists covering the unprovoked Russian aggression in Ukraine.” There have been American journalists killed and wounded covering the unprovoked war Russia started by invading Ukraine. And they should be investigated. Those responsible should be held accountable. Journalists are unarmed and have international protections. Like them or not, they’re doing their jobs, and they don’t deserve to get shot for it. But the press-release almost makes it sound as if the investigation of crimes against journalists was an afterthought. Yet while we have self-imposed limits on the types of weaponry we will provide to Ukraine in order to not cross some invisible line that might provoke the Russians, while we can’t directly give them fighter jets and other weapons that can be used on offense; while we can’t go so far as to actually give them what they would need to actually win the war against Russia, we take it upon ourselves to legally hunt and capture Russians who have never done anything directly toward the United States. We have no jurisdiction over anything that happened in Ukraine unless it happened to an American citizen. The United States has no business investigating war crimes committed in Ukraine. We won’t supply the Ukrainian military with certain weapons because it might provoke the Russians. We draw the line and say Ukraine isn’t a NATO country so we can’t go all-in. But if we start hunting Russian war criminals who haven’t entered the United States, or where the US has no jurisdiction, then people like Brittany Griner are going to be spending a long time behind bars in Russia. If the United States ever helps investigate, capture and prosecute a Russian soldier or even a Russian citizen for war crimes committed in Ukraine, don’t be surprised if the next new release from Russia is about an American citizen dieing in a Russian prison. 

That can’t be right liner

President Biden this week signed an Executive Order forbidding a certain type of therapy for young people who question their sexuality. Basically, the most basic, readily available example of a persons sex is the one nobody’s allowed to teach. You know, the one that says, “Look between your legs, and tell me what you see.” If you see one thing, you’re a male, and if you see another thing, you’re a female. Now, I’m only referring to the most basic observational conclusions, here. I get that there are people who don’t feel like what they look like. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that the President of the United States just told us that we’re not allowed to help people understand the possibility that they have the correct body, but just don’t know it yet. Here’s a very plausible scenario: A sixth-grader walks in to the school guidance counselor’s office and tells them that they think they might be tapped in the wrong body. The prevailing wind would dictate that the guidance counselor assume the student is correct. The only reason a student would have such feelings is if it was true! Some Guidance Counselors are trained to ask follow-up questions to see just how convinced the student might be, but my guess is that most of the questions are written with the assumption that the answer supports the already arrived-at conclusion. If counselors aren’t allowed to suggest that the student is actually in the correct body, if that’s not even an option, then what should we expect? Every child who thinks they might have the body of the wrong sex is automatically told they’re right. At any age. The Executive Order on Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Individuals actually does three things: It prohibits what the Order even refuses to acknowledge. It says, “so-called conversion therapy.” So, “conversion therapy” isn’t even defined here, but it’s prohibited for reasons the Order makes explicit, yet without stating what it is. Section 3 is even called “Addressing Exposure to So-Called Conversion Therapy.” What I’d like to know is, what conversion is even being alleged here? How are you converting somebody by suggesting they have the body they were meant to have? Any necessary conversion will come later. But let’s err on the side of caution. Statistics tell us that there are point six percent of us who are transgender. That’s a little over 1 person for every two-hundred people in the United States. Yet some claim that up to 20 percent of America’s children are transexual. If that’s the case, that would mean there are more transexual people in America than Black people. That would mean there are more transexual people in America than gay people. I find that hard to believe. What I can believe is that it’s getting harder and harder to be unique in America, and perhaps the last bastion of setting yourself apart is to claim to be transexual. It’s the newest way to set yourself apart from everyone else. A fad. But in this case, may lead to permanent, irreversible damage to your body. I don’t doubt that there are legitimately some people in the world who are in a body that doesn’t agree with their mental state. I’m not transexual, and I’ll admit that I can’t understand what goes on to make somebody feel as though they should be the opposite sex, but how can you even know that before puberty? Let’s assume that those who are genuinely in need of a sexual transformation is about six-tenths of a percent of Americans. If twenty percent of kids are now claiming to be transexual, then there’s obviously some other factor at play. How much pressure is being put on America’s children to claim they were born in the wrong body? Who’s creating the pressure? And now, the President signs an executive order that prohibits telling children they may be wrong about feeling they’re the opposite sex. We can’t tell children that they were born in the right body! Transgender activists, many of whom are not transgender, insist that anyone who identifies as the opposite gender should begin hormone therapy and eventually have sex-change surgery. Why is it that the immediate assumption is that nature got it wrong? Shouldn’t we first assume nature got it right? There’s more to come from this Executive Order. It also instructs the Department of Health and Human Services to use its authority to override State and local laws that that are deemed to restrict access to mental health and medical procedures that promote sex transitions. So it’s okay to promote the idea that you’re not the sex your body is telling you you are, but it’s not okay to promote the idea that you are the sex your body is telling you you are! Plus, the order directs the Secretary of Education to "support LGBTQI+ students, their families, and other school personnel targeted by harmful State and local laws and practices." So, if you live in a State where you think your child is safe from transexual influences at school, you won’t be for long. Look, if you’re a transexual, I hope that you get the tools you need to become the person you genuinely believe you are. But it’s wrong for the federal government to use a Presidential Executive Order to promote transexualism in our schools. Protecting transexuals, or any minority group from harassment or discrimination is one thing. Actually promoting it is another. Just as our federal government is prohibited from promoting a specific religion, it should also be prohibited from promoting a lifestyle that requires drug therapy and surgery to anybody, let alone elementary school kids. What I find odd is that our federal government so confused about gender that they’ll create laws and orders to promote anything that’s different from what has historically been understood as normal. A person who was nominated for Supreme Court Justice in part because she’s a woman refused to define what a woman is in her confirmation hearings. Why? What consequences would there be if she said, “A woman is a person over age 18 with female body parts.”? Probably no consequences at all, but she still wouldn’t say it. In today’s society, it’s not okay to be a man or a woman. In order to get any respect, you have to be somewhere in between, which is most often what a transexual person is. I’ve met a number of transexual people over the years, and they all had one thing in common: They never completed the transition. It’s a lot easier to define a man or a woman than it is to define someone in between a man and a woman. But if nothing can be defined, like man, woman, conversion therapy, transexual, then there’s no solid way to either defend or condemn it. As long as we’re kept in a world of constant suspension, the undefined will win by default. You can’t eliminate conversion therapy if you can’t define it. You can’t make laws that are explicitly for men or women if you can’t define them. If you define a Black person by the strictest terms, you exclude most of who we refer to as Black people today. That’s why “person of color” has taken favor over Black. A person of color is entitled to the same protections and advantages that Black people are, even though they can’t be defined as Black in the most accurate sense. So the group keeps getting larger and larger until there’s no more room for the Black people. That must be how gay people feel. Homosexual people fought for the right to love each other. Finally, after some prodding, most other people came around and accepted the lifestyle. “It’s none of my business what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom.” heterosexuals finally said. Gay rights was a thing, and it didn’t hurt anybody. Then homosexual women said, “Well, we don’t really go by the title gay. We’re Lesbians.” Okay. Ladies before Gentlemen. Lesbian and Gay Rights. Done...now everybody’s happy. Anybody can have sex with whomever they want under the same laws as everybody else. And then Bisexuals chimed in, “Well, we don’t consider ourselves gay or lesbian, but we’ll have sex with both genders. Again, as long as it happens in privacy like it is for everybody else, go for it. So now we have LGB rights. Then the transgender people said, “Hey, we wanna join in, too!” and they were accepted by the homosexuals because, well, I don’t know. Transexuals and homosexuals are different in the respect that homosexuals just want to have sex with people of the same gender, and transgender want to change their bodies to match the gender with which they identify. It was probably about this time that the homosexuals should have said, “No, you guys create your own group. We’re making great progress.” Instead, the homosexuals said, “Yea! Hop on the train! We’ve already laid the tracks!” So now we have a demand for LGBT rights, even though the gay rights and the trans rights are very different. Then somehow Queer wanted in on the party. Isn’t queer somehow covered already? Why is queer a separate category? I’m not sure. But, okay, LGBTQ it is. That seems to cover it, even though we don’t exactly know why queer is in there. But then comes along Intersex. They want to be a part of the group, too. These are the people who deserve the most protection. These are people who were born with both male and female body parts. These people deserve to be in a class of their own, not just some hanger’s-on to another group. But they got included here, so now it’s LGBTQI+. The plus is jut in case somebody else comes up with a way to make themselves unique in a sexual or physical manner and want some kind of protection or promotion or in case they need to claim victimhood. In the meantime, homosexuals are worried that the backlash of trans activism may hurt the progress they’ve made, simply because they accepted trans people into the fold.

Let’s go back liner 

This week in 1820, the Tomato is proved to be nonpoisonous! People in America were initially afraid to eat tomatoes! Today, many of us grow them in our backyard gardens and enjoy them in salads and on sandwiches, among many other uses. One way Americans consume a lot of tomatoes is through sauces for spaghetti and lasagna and marinara’s. Many Americans today associate the tomato with Italian food, and it did arrive on American shores from Europe. But the tomato is actually native to South America, and can be found growing wild in Peru. For a time, Americans who grew tomatoes did so only as a decoration. The rise of the tomato was swift, though, as by 1924, Thomas Jefferson’s son-in-law, according to a story cited on planet natural dot com, mentioned in a speech that although tomatoes were hardly known in 1814, by 1824 everyone was growing and eating them. There’s also an account of a man in 1830 who told the townsfolk he was going to eat a basket of tomatoes on the steps of a local courthouse. A crowd gathered to watch the man eat himself into a poisonous death. When he didn’t die, the popularity of tomatoes took a giant leap, although they were mostly used in processed products that subjected them to heat and spices, similar to what we know as ketchup today. Fifty years after tomatoes were deemed safe, they began to appear in seed catalogues. When Campbell’s came out with their condensed tomato soup in a can in 1897, we never looked back. 

1862 Congress outlaws polygamy. It was already against the law in most states, but Utah held on the longest. The Church of Latter-day Saints let it be known 10 years earlier that plural marriage was a part of their doctrine. They finally gave it up, officially, in 1890. Some fundamentalist groups are said to still practice it, and it’s also legal in a few countries. Personally, I don’t know what I’d do with a second or third wife. The one I have keeps me plenty busy, and still makes me look lazy doing it. Polyandry, on the other hand, is when a woman has multiple husbands. You don’t hear about polyandry much, probably because, well, you know how men are! What woman in her right mind would want two husbands?

This week in 1914, Austrian Archduke Ferdinand and his wife Sofia are assassinated, triggering World War One. Now, you might be thinking, “Gee-wiz, Bob. They must have been very important people.” Well, they were. They were royalty, after all. But this part of the world has know war many times in just the last century. According to Heroinewarrior dot com, The Archduke and his wife were killed in Sarajevo, capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which at that time, was a province of Austro-Hungary. Serbia wanted control of the area, and a Serbian assasinated the two. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and because of treaties and other affiliations, multiple countries were dragged into the conflict, especially when Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary. Germany saw Russia’s mobilization as a threat, and France was ready to join in. Some say that without World War One, there might not have been a World War Two because Europe would have been able to use its resources for economic purposes, allowing Germany to become an economic powerhouse. I say that without World War One there wouldn’t be a World War Two because then the second world war would have actually been the first one. IF it happened. Russia’s current attack on Ukraine is a reminder that the borders of European countries have been changing since the beginning of time, and there’s no reason to believe that trend will end any time soon. 

Five years after it began, World War One ended in 1919. Treaty of Versailles was signed. Some say the Treaty of Versailles was the reason World War Two happened. Germany was severely punished by the Allies, and were forced to take blame for starting the war and pay reparations that were so high nobody expected them to actually pay it. The poor economic conditions in Germany because of the treaty would lead to the rise of Adolf Hitler. So the assassination of a man and his wife by a Serbian in Sarajevo eventually led to two world wars. Many of us are worried that the current situation in Ukraine may lead to a third world war. That’s why the United States is hesitant to join this one, just as we were hesitant to join World Wars One and Two. The difference here is that the aggressor Russia had every opportunity to build a working economy and government after World War Two. They kept all of their land, they got half of Europe to create a boundary around themselves, and would be welcomed to join democratic countries in a prosperous world. Instead, they opted for Communism, created the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and tried to prove that democracy was a failure. As it turned out, Soviet Communism was a failure, and Russia is now trying to re-invent itself again. Without regard to anyone else’s feelings. And why should they care? Historically speaking, Russia has always got what they want from the west. We’ll see what happens this time.

Have you sent a letter lately? It was this week in 1919, the year my maternal grandmother was born, that the cost of a 1st class postage dropped from three cents to two cents! I don’t know why the price dropped. Maybe they didn’t need to buy new horses that year. Surprisingly, that wasn’t the last time the post office dropped the price of a letter. As recently as 2016, the price dropped from 49 cents to 47 cents. And then back up to 49 cents the next year. 

This week in 1930, the 1st round-the-world radio broadcast originated in Schenectady, New York. I love radio. Especially radio stations with live local announcers. I don’t care who you are, you can find at least one radio station that was designed just for you. The program to which you’re currently listening was originally designed to be a radio program. Instead, it became a podcast. Thanks for listening.

This week in 1936, the 40-hour work-week law was approved for federal workers and two years later, in 1938, the federal minimum wage law guarantees workers 40 cents an hour. What was the minimum wage when you got your first job? For me, it was two dollars and 64 cents per hour. I was just a kid, so I was happy to have it. I never gave a second thought, or first thought, about how a family might or might not survive on two dollars and 64 cents an hour. Back then, many households were single-income households, with the man of the house bringing home the bacon, so to speak, while the woman kept house and tended to the kids. The tides had been turning for awhile, though, as World War Two gave many women opportunities to contribute outside the home, and didn’t want to relinquish those responsibilities after the war. Eventually, industry accepted the woman worker, and wages stagnated as the workforce nearly doubled. Today, most households are two-income households, and current inflation may dictate three incomes or more will be needed to keep up with rising prices. 

This week in 1940, the USSR ended the use of its experimental calendar. It’s not as interesting as it sounds.

In 1962, the Supreme Court rules New York school prayer unconstitutional. This is obviously an important week in history for Supreme Court decisions. Another prayer issue is before the court now, involving a Washington State football coach being fired for praying on the field after each game. I don’t know what the exact parameters of the case are, but I suspect the ruling may have an impact on the 1962 ruling. 

A year later, in 1963, United States President John F. Kennedy visits West Berlin. He delivers his now famous `Ich bin ein Berliner” speech. What he was saying is now the subject of some folklore that I learned when I lived there. Apparently, the name “Berliner” is also the name of a type of jelly-filled doughnut sold in certain parts of Germany. So when President Kennedy said, “Ich bin ein Berliner!”, one could interpret it as “I am a jelly doughnut!” The actual speech was delivered in West Berlin less than two years after the Berlin Wall was completed, and is considered to be one of his finest. Speaking near the wall, he borrowed a phrase he had used a year earlier in New Orleans about the proudest thing anyone could say during the Roman Empire was, “I am a Roman citizen ( or civis romanus sum)” and compared America to the Roman Empire. In West Berlin, he said, “Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was civis romanus sum. Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein Berliner!"... All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner!" Kennedy would never live to see the wall come down, but he remained an inspiration to Berliners for decades.

This week in 1972, scientists added one second to the calendar, marking the 1st leap second-day. Now, I’m not into time, man, but I remember that extra second seemed like it took foreeeeever. When it began, I wasn’t sure I was gonna make to the other end! Yet here I am, 50 years later. And so are you!

This week in 1977, in a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court decides to let lawyers advertise! The yellow pages would never be the same. Attorneys battled to get the front and back covers, the largest ads, the most listings under different catagories. Lawyers practically supported the yellow pages on their own. If you’re wonder what yellow pages are, I’ll refer you to the second half of the phone book. If you’re wondering what the phone book is, ask your mom, she may have sat on one to see over the steering wheel.

Another Supreme Court decision in 1978. In Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, quota systems in college admissions are banned. There was an effort to combat what was thought to be a race-based admissions system in place at the country’s colleges and universities. To fix the problem, the federal government mandated that a certain percentage of minority groups be admitted regardless of qualifications. As it turns out, you can’t use race as a factor in determining who gets admitted to your school. However, in 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that male-only draft registration was constitutional. So although we couldn’t be discriminated against because of our race, we could be discriminated because of our gender. And we wonder why people are hesitant to commit to one.

This week in 1997, The United Kingdom transfers sovereignty over Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China. So, why did England give Hong Kong to the Chinese? How did they get it in the first place?

Look that up liner

I only get to use that once an episode. I actually look up almost all of the stuff I talk about on the Listening Tube. Anyway, according to history dot com, Great Britain leased the land that is Hong Kong from China for 99 years back in 1898. At the time, it was a sparsley occupied area, but would be built into a major hub of trade and business, flourishing under the capitalist system. But when the lease expired, China was more than happy to take control of the territory. They promised that Hong Kong would continue to be administered by the current form of government for another 50 years, but that promise was quickly abandoned by the Chinese Communist Party. Six years later, in 2003, over half-a-million people protested against efforts to pass anti-sedition legislation. The protests failed, and Hong Kong has since fallen under more communist control. The media has been severely curtailed, freedoms revoked, capitalism reformed. Despite the aggression of Russia in Ukraine right now, the real, long-term threat is still the Chinese Communist Party. Just because we’re not hearing about them right now doesn’t mean they aren’t planning to control the planet. If you’re a tic-toc user, you’re helping them compile information.

Before I end the episode, I’d like to address the elephant in the room. The US Supreme Court has overturned the 1973 landmark Roe vs. Wade decision, ending federal abortion rights. The Listening Tube addressed this possibility when the leaked document suggested this might happen. Well, it has. Welcome to the world of abortion tourism. Those states that continue to allow women to choose to abort a pregnancy will now be faced with the possibility of having to travel to another state, if the state in which they live prohibits abortions, to follow through with their decision. Currently, those women in Louisiana have the furthest to travel if an abortion is what they seek. However, nearly half of aborted pregnancies are now done with drugs, not in a doctor’s office. How states that prohibit doctors from performing abortions will deal with the availability of abortion-inducing drugs will be the next level of the fight for both parties, pro and against. The argument for overturning abortion rights is shaky, at best. I haven’t had the time to read the entire thing, but from the interpretations I’ve read, it revolves around patient privacy. I have yet to hear a Supreme Court decision on whether or not the rights of a fetus outweigh the rights of a person who has already been born. Why don’t we figure that out first?

The Listening Tube is written and produced by yours truly. Copyright 2022. Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube. I’m your host, Bob Woodley for thou ad infinitum.