Season 10, Episode Eight December 22, 2024

SPEAKER_03 0:03

This is the Listening Tube.

SPEAKER_00 0:08

Well, hello. Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley. On this episode, we'll hear about Washington, not the city, New York, not the state, women, and we'll try to answer the question, who's running the United States right now?

SPEAKER_03 0:29

But first, not the headlines.

SPEAKER_00 0:33

A recent story in Forbes magazine lists the top 100 most influential women in the world. It claims these 100 women hold sway over 33 trillion dollars worth of our economy and have influence over more than a billion people. That's a lot of power for 100 people, regardless of gender. Some have longer resumes than others. For example, number four on the list jumped to that position from not being on the list at all when she was recently elected president of Mexico, the first woman to ever hold the office. At the top of the list is the president of the European Commission, which is the executive branch of the European Union. Next is the president of the European Central Bank, and third is the Prime Minister of Italy. The first American woman on the list is, surprisingly, a woman. She's the CEO of General Motors. A real car gal. She's also on the Walt Disney Board of Directors. She's the first of eight American women in a row, including leaders in philanthropy, business, technology, and finance. Unlike the European women at the top of the list, the American women include no politicians. In fact, only one American woman made the list as having influence in politics or policy. And it wasn't until number 72. Wanna take a guess at who it is? Kamala Harris? No. Nancy Pelosi? No. Ivanka Trump? Nope. Taylor Swift? Uh still no. It's Susie Wiles, co-chair of the Trump re-election campaign and recently named first female White House Chief of Staff in American history. But as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently pointed out, America has never had a woman president. It's not our fault, we've never been presented with one worthy of the position. So it's no wonder that female heads of state rank higher on the list than any American CEO. Now you might be thinking, well, Bob, that's because women are often politically oppressed in the United States. The old boy network still runs everything. The Equal Rights Amendment can't get put into the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is taking away women's rights. But this list would suggest otherwise. True, American women haven't lit the world on fire in the realm of politics, but you can't blame that on men. Women vote too. While money plays a huge role in American politics, it still comes down to whether or not the voters like you. So politics is still an area where American women have room to improve. But there are places where American women are popular with the voters, but in this case, we call the voters stockholders. Business and industry leaders in media, entertainment, technology, and more. CEOs of major banks, billion-dollar companies run by billionaire women. Taylor Swift came in at twenty three. After her, the CEO of General Dynamics, and then the president of SpaceX. And you thought it was Elon Musk. Thirty-one of the top fifty most powerful women in the world are American women. No other country in the world comes close to providing the environment that women need to succeed than the United States of America. Want to know how many women China has in the top fifty? One. And she's the CEO of a company, not a politician. Second to the United States was the United Kingdom, with four. So just because America hasn't elected a woman president doesn't mean sexism is keeping her out of office. American women have the opportunity to excel in the United States of America, despite what you might hear from fear-mongers about a conservative agenda. There's at least one thing all of these American women who have climbed the ladder to success have in common. They didn't get trapped in a dependence on social programs. Some of them may have grown up in families that relied on food stamps and free lunch programs when they were kids, but they didn't stay there. The liberal agenda encourages people to rely on the social programs. The conservative agenda encourages people to become successful. But that's part of the beauty of the United States of America. There's a social safety net if you need it, but there's also opportunity all around you. American women are the luckiest women in the world, and American men are just as lucky to have them here. Well, it seems that the UK is equally interested in American women. Neurosciencenews.com tells of a survey of American moms and dads. The survey was done by the University of Bath in the UK, but it did have some funding from other places, including the US and Australia. The survey wanted to find out how much each parent carried a percentage of the mental load of life. As it turns out, the survey doesn't know how to do math because it said women maintain 71% of mental tasks and men take on 45%. I believe that adds up to 116%. Anyway, it seems fathers are really skating along in this thing called the life of a parent, and the disproportionate responsibilities, or at least the amount of time thinking about them, is causing stress, burnout, and a strain on career women's objectives. The story went on to explain how mothers and fathers divvied up the chores, noting that while mothers focused on daily tasks, fathers were more likely to focus on episodic tasks. In other words, stuff that needed to be done at a semi-particular interval, like paying bills or getting the dog poop out of the yard. Women are more in tune with the here and now, always thinking ahead and spending a lot of time doing it. The story would indicate men don't think nearly as much as women. At least we don't think about the same things as women, which is what the survey was trying to determine. I'm guessing one of the key findings is that men don't think about the same things as women. So while women are thinking about the role of being a parent sixty percent more than men, what else are men thinking about? What could possibly be more impactful than your influence as a dad? Well, men think about sex about eight times a day compared to the average of six times a day for women, according to psychology today. That would close the gap a little bit. Now there are some notable variables in this survey. First of all, it focused on individual opinions of people, not partners. The survey also included gay and lesbian people, as well as single parents. But the conclusion is still that women think about parenting more often than men, regardless of the circumstance. This imbalance, according to Dr. Anna Weeks, who is a political scientist at Bath, is quoted in the story as saying, This kind of work is often unseen, but it matters. It can lead to stress, burnout, and even impact women's careers. In many cases, resentment can build, creating strain between couples. As I already pointed out, this survey didn't compare couples, so the doctor is inserting her own opinion into the equation. But regardless of gender of the couple, only one of them can be the mother. So, in the case of a lesbian couple, the survey would indicate that one woman, the mother, is impeding the success of the other woman. If it were a couple of gay men, there would be no liability on either partner because they both think about parenting at an equally low level as compared to women. There's no mother in the equation. But Dr. Weeks follows up with: going forward, the challenge for governments and employers who care about attracting the top talent is how to create policies that are supportive of both mothers and fathers sharing the unpaid work at home. One policy that comes to mind is well-paid gender-neutral parental leave, which both the UK and US are way behind on compared to the rest of Europe. I'm beginning to think Dr. Weeks was misled about the subject of the survey. The survey was all about how much thinking went into parenting, but the doctor was only quoted as talking about actual physical activity as opposed to only the thought process. Perhaps the authors of the story used her opinions about the shared workload of parents to boost their survey of how much parents think about it. Either way, the story seems to be peddling a narrative meant to challenge the dynamic of parenting in the United States. This is, after all, the British conclusion of data compiled from a wide open demographic about parenting and then made into a story about the roles of men and women who raise American children. It doesn't surprise me a bit that women, especially mothers, think about parenting and the daily responsibilities of it at a higher rate than men. That doesn't mean men don't think about it. Sure, we think about sex more than women do, but when we're not thinking about sex, we're often thinking about how much more confident we are when we're with a woman who we know is thinking about those things about parenting. We don't make you do it, but we love that you do. If it will make women feel better, I suggest more men begin thinking about all the same stuff women think about. Then, when all of our heads explode, women will be in charge of all the thinking. Is that really what we want? Look, just because women think about it more doesn't mean they care about it more. It doesn't mean they're any better at it. It only means they think about it more. That's all the news in the survey. Women think about parenting more than men. Wow. Groundbreaking. The next survey will assure us that florists who are moms experience more unpleasant fragrances than florists who aren't moms. Speaking of obvious, a new study by the Media Research Center discovered that the three legacy television networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS, have reported on the incoming president's cabinet choices in a negative way more than a positive way. But we're not talking about a 52 to 48 split here. None of the networks have said a single positive thing about those they consider the most controversial nominees, like Pete Hegseth for Defense, Cash Patel for FBI, and Tulsi Gabbard for National Intelligence. Robert Kennedy Jr. has been mostly ignored by the networks, but dominates the social media landscape. From the 1st of December to the 14th, the group kept track of how much time was spent talking about the nominees and whether the reporting was negative or positive. I guess neutral wasn't even considered, and as it turns out, there was no need for the neutral category. There almost wasn't even a need for the positive category either. The only positive thing any of the network newscasts said about any of the nominees they covered were quotes from Pete Hegseth's mother. Over the two weeks of observations, the MRC says CBS spent about 25 talking about the nominees, 14 of which were about Pete Hegseth, including stuff his mom said about him. NBC spent just over 21 minutes on the subject of nominees, 94.7% of which was negative. But it wasn't Pete Hegseth's mom who prevented a 100% negative report. CBS was the only network to report negatively on Hegeseth 100% of the time. ABC was the least interested, using only about 19.5 minutes of coverage over two weeks, but only 90% of it was negative. It seems like the legacy media hasn't learned a thing from the recent election. They're still sticking to their guns of negativity and progressivism, alienating themselves from the majority of Americans. Look, I know it's the role of the media to be a watchdog of the government, but based on the complete failure of the Fourth Estate during the Biden administration, Americans have no reason to believe that our legacy media is objective or even truthful. When nearly all of your reporting about a war veteran who's written about the state of our military and how to make it better is negative, the reporting is the problem. There's plenty of positives about the president-elect's choices for important positions, many of which need congressional approval. But if the three liberal networks can only find negative things to say unless they're quoting a nominee's mother, then it doesn't sound like the reporters are doing their jobs. Or the editors are hiding what the reporters are writing. In any case, the legacy media still doesn't understand their role in American society. It's no wonder liberal media is suffering catastrophic declines in viewership. Not to mention ABC News just agreed to a $16 million settlement in a lawsuit brought by Donald Trump for George Stephanopoulos, calling him a rapist multiple times. There's also a lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and a nationally known polster for manipulating and publishing misleading results in an attempt to influence voters. Or maybe they just found out they can be held accountable for what they write and say. This week in 1783, George Washington resigns as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army. Six years later, he would become the first president of the United States. Wait. Who was in charge of the country between 1776 and 1789? That would be the Continental Congress. It was actually the second Continental Congress that created the Declaration of Independence. In 1781, we got the Articles of Confederation, which ruled the land until the Constitution of the United States came along in 1789. As you know, that Constitution has been doing a very good job of maintaining the vision of our founding fathers. George Washington doesn't get a lot of recognition as a founding father of the U.S. because he didn't sign the Declaration of Independence. But those who did were sure lucky to have a guy like George Washington around. This week in 1970, the North Tower of the World Trade Center in Manhattan is topped out at 1,368 feet, or 417 meters, making it the tallest building in the world. Well, if the North Tower was one of two so-called Twin Towers, why was it the tallest building in the world and not tied for the tallest building in the world? I'm going to look that up.

SPEAKER_03 19:11

He's gonna look it up. He's really gonna do it. I want the truth!

SPEAKER_02 19:15

You can't handle the truth.

SPEAKER_00 19:20

The North Tower was a scant six feet taller than the South Tower, making it the tallest building in the world. I remember taking a trip to the Empire State Building when I was a Boy Scout and looking at the twin towers from the observation deck. I thought that they looked taller than the Empire State Building. The World Trade Center was new at that time, and I thought the Empire State Building was still the tallest building in the world, and I was as high up in it as I was allowed to go. But no. I get there and find not one, but two other buildings taller than the one I came to see. I also climbed up to the crown of the Statue of Liberty that day. Couldn't go up into the torch at that time because of maintenance issues. That may be symbolic of New York. You go there with the hopes of reaching new heights, but somehow you never get to the top. Speaking of the Statue of Liberty, it was this week in 1971 that a group of Vietnam veterans seized control of the iconic statue. They were protesting the war. They entered the Statue of Liberty just as any visitors would, but then hid in the basement until it closed. There was a night watchman on duty who was promptly expelled from the interior by the band of war vets. They barricaded themselves inside and then notified the media. The story in the Chronicle of the 20th century notes that the National Park Service was sympathetic to their cause, allowing them to spend the night without provocation. They spent a total of forty-two hours locked inside and freely walked out after lawyers were allowed in to advise them. There were no arrests, just invitations to appear on television and radio shows to talk about the ordeal meant to bring attention back to the war that they felt had been moved to the back burner of American consciousness. Police inspected the interior of the statue following the ordeal and found no damage done. The construction beams they had used to barricade the doors had been neatly stacked, and food wrappings were in trash receptacles. A story in the New York Times reports that the veterans left a message on the blackboard in the employees' lunchroom that said, Brothers and sisters, thank you for the sugar and coffee and food. They also left five dollars in an envelope.

SPEAKER_03 22:00

The listening tube will return at the speed of sound. Contact the listening tube by calling 570-601-1101 or email thelistening tube at outlook.com.

SPEAKER_00 22:20

If you enter the listening tube regularly, you may have heard me say that Joe Biden doesn't seem to really be in charge, but is just a figurehead for the puppet masters who are running the show from behind the curtain. Multiple reports now show that it's true. But now we know for how long, and even the names of some of the people pulling the strings. It seems the protocols put in place for Joe Biden to keep him safe from the COVID-19 pandemic were never fully lifted. Those that kept him isolated and provided an excuse to keep people away. Those people included other government officials and even his cabinet. His closest aides became his handlers, choreographing his words and motions and deeds, and, as it turns out, his decisions as president. Joe Biden's inner circle became the de facto presidents of the United States. And they still are. That might be why Joe rarely meets with his cabinet members. The Wall Street Journal report says the cabinet members would meet with the senior advisors instead of the president. The advisors would then go back to the president, or not, we don't really know, and then report back to the cabinet member. So they were acting as intermediaries on the surface, but proxies behind the scenes. The report even claims that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee wasn't able to get Joe on the phone prior to the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 that led to 13 American service members being killed by a suicide bomber at the airport. So for practically all of the Biden administration, we can't even be sure he was making all of the important decisions that need to be made with all of the information available to him. His aids kept him so tightly controlled and isolated that our president may have been the most coveted prize of all for those who don't believe in the American system of government. They're the same people who claim to be the only defenders of democracy, yet clearly don't think the American people will make the right choices. So they put a puppet in control and pulled the strings behind the doors that are closed to even the president's cabinet members. The Wall Street Journal says the most likely influencers of Joe Biden were Jake Sullivan, Steve Ricketti, and Lale Bernard. Sullivan is the National Security Advisor, so one look at our nation's secure borders might give you a clue as to how well that's going. Ricchetti's been with Biden in various roles since he was vice president. He also worked in the Obama and Clinton administrations, and three of his children also work for the Biden administration. Ricetti's title is Counselor to the President. The third person named, Leal Bernard, is an economist. Since we know that Joe Biden is not an economist, who do you think is responsible for Bidenomics? She's also the director of the National Economic Council and Chair of the White House Competition Council. It's one thing for a president to have advisors. It's another thing for those advisors to be making decisions on behalf of the American people when nobody voted for them to have any authority to make decisions on behalf of the American people. Especially if, as the report indicates, the president is being spood fed, specific information, and deprived of the rest. Now, in the waning weeks of his presidency, strange things are happening. The border wall is being sold. Ukraine is lobbying missiles into Russia. Emissions policies are being established for decades from now. It almost seems like those pulling Joe's strings are purposely throwing America under the bus for spite. The federal government selling the materials already purchased for construction of a wall on our southern border at pennies on the dollar a month before the transfer of power is nothing less than criminal. The Biden administration knows that those parts will be put to good use beginning in late January, but they go ahead and put it all on the auction block after letting the supplies sit idle in the desert for four years. I doubt that Joe Biden made the decision to suddenly sell off the parts needed for the next administration to accomplish the goal of the American people. But to whomever it was who even thought of doing this, and anyone who supported the idea, and to those who put the plan in motion, I say fuck you. You're going out the door of the executive branch, and all you want to do is make the American taxpayer pay again for something we already bought at twice the price it was when we bought it. Out of spite. Two months before he leaves office, Joe Biden gives permission for Ukraine to lob American supplied missiles into Russia. After keeping Ukraine in check since the first supply of weapons, Joe Biden suddenly thinks it's a good idea to escalate the war in Ukraine. We don't even know if it was Joe who made the decision. If you ask me, we should have given Ukraine the missiles two years ago and the permission to use them however they wanted. But to wait until just before the change of power is clearly an attempt of provocation designed to make Donald Trump's job more difficult, and they're willing to sacrifice world peace to do it. These are the people who have been telling you that they're protecting democracy. Then, just a few days ago, the American Environmental Protection Agency said it was okay for the state of California to eliminate the sales of new gasoline-powered cars beginning in 2035. The heavily democratic state that brought us Kamala Harris and George Gascone wants to make people downgrade to an electric car even though the state can't create enough electricity for everyone to turn on their air conditioners when it's hot outside. What's worse is that about a dozen other states will blindly follow California's radical and unrealistic emissions policies. If you live in one of the states that follow California's emissions standards, take a look at the number of oil wells in Southern California. Most recently, Joe Biden forgave more student debt and pledged more money to investments in environmental virtue signaling. Knowing that the next administration's goal is to reduce government spending and make us more fiscally responsible, the puppet masters of the Democratic Party are going out of their way to waste as much of our money as they can. It's the last-ditch effort to try to make as many Americans as possible dependent on the federal government. The only way the left has to bring members into the fold is to promise free stuff. All they have left are the people who hope the party will adjust, and the people who just don't like Donald Trump. Some of us remember that when George W. Bush became president, his administration arrived to find many of the computer keyboards missing the key for the letter W. It was the previous administration's way of welcoming the new people, so to speak. Today, people in the current administration are more likely to start World War III than make it difficult to type the new guy's middle initial. The problem is we can't even pin it on the guy who's in charge, because he's already been classified as unfit to stand trial, but not unfit to be president of the United States of America. You know why? Because somebody chose Kamala Harris as his vice president. The same Kamala Harris who called Joe Biden a racist when they both were running for president. I'm a registered independent, but there are some Democratic values I can support. But the values of today's Democratic Party are much different than they were not long ago. The Democrats used to be the Big Ten Party, but have clearly become much more selective concerning values, opinion, perceived intelligence, lifestyle, and willingness to define a woman. It's time America moves on from this out of reality president and out-of-touch legislators. Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. Support the show or send me a text from the homepage. I'm your host, Bob Woodley, for the I'll add infinitum.