Season 10, Episode Seven December 15, 2024

SPEAKER_04 0:03

This is the Listening Tube.

SPEAKER_00 0:08

Hello. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley. Am I a hero? Am I a villain? I don't know if you don't. On this episode, we'll hear about tariffs, and I'll tell you a couple of things I know about Marines.

SPEAKER_04 0:29

But first, not the headlines.

SPEAKER_00 0:32

I realize I'm an older person. At the tail end of the baby boomer generation, I grew up in a different era than most of us. I think I've done a pretty good job of keeping up with technology and trends. I've seen a lot of technology and trends come and go. Trends seem to circle around and come back in slightly different forms, especially when it comes to fashion. But technology only goes in one direction, with the exception of records. Audiophiles today are buying a much improved product compared to the records I bought or won from radio stations while growing up. Anyway, there's an argument going on today that's similar but different.

SPEAKER_04 1:22

Similar but different.

SPEAKER_00 1:28

Thank you, Mystery Voice. As I was saying, back when I was a teenager, I had long hair. Some considered me a hippie. Not the extreme hippie from Hayton Ashbury and San Francisco. But for my small town, a boy with long hair was sometimes met with suspicion, if not outright condemnation. A Bob Seeger song from the time asks the question: is that a woman or a man? I'll admit, it was sometimes hard to tell, especially back when we were accustomed to girls having long hair and boys having short hair. I had blonde hair, and I probably hoped the chicks would dig it if I kept it long. It might also be the result of disastrous experiences with some of the barber chairs in which my dad made me sit. One of the barbers was actually named Torch. Who wants to go to a barber named Torch? I had to wear a hat for a week. It's no wonder I didn't like haircuts. And because I didn't, sometimes my long hair led me to being mistaken for a girl, especially from behind, because I have a nice butt. Once you see my radio face, though, there's no question I'm a guy. But once you knew that I was a guy, a lot of other things were assumed, such as what kind of equipment I had, so to speak, and what kind of sexual preferences I had, what kind of jobs were available to me as an adult, as well as the understanding that I had responsibilities as a man that I wouldn't have if I were a woman. Those assumptions and expectations have certainly changed over the years as women have taken on more traditional male roles in business and government and even combat. A guy with long hair might still look like a girl from the back, but fewer people assume someone with long hair is female. We no longer debate the roles or aesthetics of men and women. Today we argue about the very definition of men and women. You might think this crazy debate is unique to the radical left on the American political spectrum, but the U.S. isn't the only place where gender identity is being debated. The Supreme Court in the United Kingdom recently heard a case on the definition of woman. As you may recall, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brown Jackson claimed she couldn't define a woman during her confirmation hearing because she isn't a biologist. So I'm just going to say right now that she should recuse herself from any cases involving gender brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. As for the UK, their five-judge panel is being asked to clarify whether a transgender person in Scotland who has a certificate that declares a man has changed into a woman should be recognized as a woman under equality laws. Before I continue, I just want to point out that in America, men who transition into women have more support than perhaps anywhere in the world. If you oppose any advancement of the rights of transgender women, you're considered a transphobe or an oppressor of some sort, with few exceptions. What surprises me is that women's groups haven't come out on either side of the argument. We don't really hear much from all the feminists who have historically stuck up for the rights of women. Meanwhile, men are changing into women and taking away opportunities from women who didn't have to change into a woman in the first place. That's the argument before the UK Supreme Court. A woman's group called For Women Scotland is challenging a law passed in 2018 that states 50% of Scottish public bodies, i. e. government, should be female. As it turns out, female also includes a transgender who has a gender recognition certificate. In other words, I got a piece of paper that says I'm a tot. Well, the woman's group said, wait a minute. Half of the government isn't female if a guy can claim to be a woman and be appointed to or run for a government position. Here's what I can't figure out. If women are so oppressed by Western civilization, why do more men want to become women than the other way around? If just as many women were transitioning into men, this wouldn't even be an issue. But for some reason, more men in the United States and the United Kingdom want to become women than there are women who want to become men. Hey, do I sometimes wish I could wear something other than pants every day? Sure. Other than that, I can't think of a single reason why I'd rather be a woman than a man. Plus, the thought of having to deal with guys like me is revolting. I'm not even sure why women put up with us, let alone why we would want to be one. But hey, if you're an adult and that's what you're into, then who am I to judge? I'm not one of the judges on the UK Supreme Court. Speaking of whom, the story from the Associated Press was sure to mention that three are men and two are women. They will consider the women's group's stance that, according to one of their lawyers, your sex is determined in utero and is an immutable biological state. Amnesty International is chiming in as well. They submitted a written statement to the court that claims a blanket policy of barring trans women from single sex services is not a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. Unquote. Well that word salad is kind of true. It's not proportional because there are far more trans women than trans men. The UK court's decision, expected to come sometime in the near future, could determine gender laws over the entire kingdom, not just Scotland. In the meantime, you go a well you killt to get treated special lad. I don't have long hair anymore. It's not blonde either. Some would call it grey, but I like to think of it as translucent. Nobody mistakes me for a woman regardless of the angle from which they may see me. That may have happened many years ago, but today it doesn't really matter because nobody is surprised to find out they were wrong about someone's sexuality. Sometimes it's fun to think about the time I used to have to brush my hair, especially since I haven't even owned a comb for more than a quarter of a century. Ah the memories. Speaking of memories, a recent article from IFLScience.com explores the possibility that transplanted organs may bring memories with them. Well, that should be a wake-up call for transgender people. What kind of memories might come with your transplanted genitals? Yikes. Luckily, there's no evidence of memories accompanying a penis. But if you get someone else's heart, that might be a different story. Surgeons can now transplant all kinds of body parts. Countless lives have been saved since the first transplant in 1954. And the science keeps evolving. Of course, there's no transplant without a donor, and unfortunately, that often requires that the donor be deceased. Especially when it comes to a heart, as we don't walk around with a spare one. The one heart we do have, though, is in constant communication with our brain, and the prevailing opinion is that the brain is where we store our memories, personality traits, and everything else we think or feel. But there could be another possibility. The heart has a complex neural network embedded within it. Until recently, it was thought to simply regulate the heartbeat. But now scientists think it could be more complicated than that. Especially since the heart can keep beating outside the body, which would indicate some type of memory independent of the brain. Maybe that's why we sometimes feel it in our heart. Something conjures up a memory that wasn't stored in your brain, but in your heart. Now, only Steve Martin has successfully completed a brain transplant, so we don't know what might happen if it was done by a reputable transplant surgeon. I think we would all guess that the memories and experiences would still be stored in there somewhere. Although it's fun to think about the possibility of starting with a clean slate. So if the heart actually stores any kinds of memories, it's entirely plausible they'd still be attached. The story cites two instances where memories may have been transplanted along with a heart. One example is a man who developed a fear of water after receiving the heart of a drowning victim. Another is a woman who was a dancer and choreographer, very health conscious, got a new heart, and suddenly had an insatiable need to go to a local KFC, right out of the hospital to get some chicken nuggets. A food she had never eaten before. As it turns out, her new heart came from a man who had KFC chicken nuggets in his coat pocket when he died. There are, of course, many variables that could be at play here, and there is no concrete evidence that the heart can store memories, much less carry them to another body. But it is interesting to consider that the possibility exists. And if it does, can those memories be transported to another place where they'll exist indefinitely? What kind of memories does the heart keep? Are they more important than the memories in our brains? After all, our brains rid themselves of information all the time, otherwise they would be overwhelmed. Is the heart more selective about what it remembers because it has less space? They say we only use a small percent of our brains, so maybe there's a lot more room in the memories of our hearts than we think. The two examples in the story would indicate that the heart's memories may be the result of trauma, that only the most disturbing memories are stored in the heart. Certainly, someone waiting for a heart to keep them alive probably isn't concerned about from whom it came or what their life or demise may have been like. They only know they need a heart, and a heart is available. I'm sure if that were me, I'd be like, slap it in there, Doc. More research is being done on heart memory. The authors of a recent study maintain that the heart's neural network and bidirectional communication with the brain support the concept of heart-brain connection in memory and personality. So a new heart may be more than a new timekeeper. It may also come with all sorts of bells and whistles. Heart transplants have resulted in reports of changes from food preferences to the kind of music you like and even who you find attractive. You may have only needed a drummer, but what you got was a percussionist.

SPEAKER_04 14:07

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

SPEAKER_00 14:15

This week in 1828, the nullification crisis begins when Vice President of the United States, John C. Calhoun, anonymously publishes the South Carolina Exposition and Protest. What happened was tariffs had recently become a bargaining tool for the government. But more than that, tariffs became a bargaining tool of positioning among the northern and southern states in the relatively new United States of America. As it turns out, tariffs were used as a lever to get a bill to be unpassable because of the damage to both the Northern and Southern states. Well, it passed anyway. Funny things happen when you create laws for purposes other than for the good of the people. How to impose tariffs span the administrations of both Presidents John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. South Carolina decided to take action against the tariffs. They nullified the federal law, declaring it did not apply to that state. Vice President Calhoun would resign over it. The federal government threatened to use military personnel to enforce the tariffs, and North Carolina agreed to a new tariff in 1833. Tariffs are again at the forefront of American policy. President-elect Donald Trump has already issued threats of tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico if they don't help secure the U.S. borders. So far, it seems like there may be cooperation in the works. We'll see. Democrats keep warning us that prices will go up because of Trump tariffs. Donald Trump is confident his threats will produce the desired results, thus eliminating the need for the tariffs. But immigration isn't the only way Donald Trump plans to use tariffs as a bargaining chip. He's looked at America's balance sheet from the viewpoint of a businessman and can clearly see where improvements need to be made. He's often pointed out how other countries are taking advantage of us. Perhaps there was a time when we were able to let other countries have the advantage. Geopolitics were much different just thirty years ago, while many of our current agreements are obsolete or even detrimental to our own well being. Tariffs have been a tool of the United States government for almost two hundred years now. But unlike in 1828, they're not being used by half of America against the other half. They're being used to help all of America. They're being used to bring manufacturing back to the United States, regardless of where northern or southern state. They're being used to encourage investment in America and the American people and the diversity we bring to the game in a way that no other country on earth can. The way they should be used.

SPEAKER_04 17:23

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 17:42

Let me just say that I've never met a Marine I didn't like. I was in the Air Force, so while I may have run into more Marines than the average civilian, I didn't run into as many as I might have had I been a Marine. So there's the possibility that there may be a few who I would not have liked had I met them, but I didn't. My grandfather, father-in-law, and son-in-law are all Marines. I have childhood friends who became Marines. I don't know too much about female Marines. It takes a special kind of person to want to be a Marine, regardless of gender, but I've never had a personal relationship with a woman Marine. I was once married to an army woman, found Air Force women to be kind of aloof, and always loved Navy women, but because I want to keep my scrotum intact, I never even tried to get a date with a Marine woman. I don't know what kind of stuff they teach Marine women. Instead of sure, honey, I'd be like, yes, ma'am, may I have another? But I'm sure there are marine women out there who are very kind and empathetic, just as there are Marine men. Being a Marine isn't just about how to attack and kill. Being a Marine is also about discipline and honor. Being a Marine is about defending the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic, just as it is with every enlisted member of the US military. But the Marines are special. I don't know what Marines go through in basic training or what they specialize in moving forward. I know they have cooks and they have killers, but maybe all of them are both cooks and killers. I don't know. I don't want to know. I don't need to know. All I need to know is, are you a Marine? So when I heard that a Marine had been charged with manslaughter in the death of a fellow passenger on a New York City subway car, I'll admit that I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt without knowing anything else about the incident. That's a prejudice I have. That if a Marine did it, it must have been the right thing to do. Odds are that's not going to be correct 100% of the time, but again, benefit of the doubt. The story, in case you're not familiar, is a man comes onto the subway and proclaims that someone is going to die today, and he doesn't care about going to jail. He's extremely threatening, and the other passengers are terrified, trapped in a subway car with a man who's threatening to kill. What the man doing all the terrorizing doesn't know is that there's a man in the car with him who's been trained in combat and who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Trained to give his own life to protect the lives of American citizens. This man sees the fear growing at an accelerated pace as the threats and gestures of the offender accelerate. The passenger suddenly realized he's the only person in the car who has the training and ability to defend the other people there with him. He also had the experience and wisdom to make a basic assessment of the mental state of the threat and how to gain and keep an advantage. Despite a struggle, the Marine, along with some help from other male passengers, were able to subdue the threat until the car came to a stop where police could take control of the situation. Witnesses told reporters and the police of the terror they experienced from the man who threatened to kill and was acting erratically. They praised the people who suppressed the threat. Everyone was eager to tell the story of what happened, even the Marine who led the defense of his fellow passengers. He even relinquished his Miranda rights and spoke freely to the police about what happened. The police didn't tell him. Him that the man who he subdued in the subway car later died. Even though they knew. They released him without pressing charges. Ten days went by. Then, seemingly under pressure from social justice vigilantes, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose campaign is funded by an arm of the George Soros Enterprise, files charges against the Marine who protected his fellow passengers. Yes, Alvin Bragg, the same D.A. who ran on a promise to find a way to prosecute Donald Trump, the same DA who charged Trump with nearly three dozen felonies, all of which the former and soon-to-be president was found guilty, all of which would have died on appeal in front of a real judge, but are now in a state of suspended animation because of the results of the election. Alvin Bragg, who's too busy with political persecutions to deal with actual crime in Manhattan, found a way to give a jury two ways to put the Marine in jail by charging him with both second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. The jury deadlocked on the more serious charge, so that charge was dismissed. And he was found not guilty of the lesser charge. Even though, in my mind, this was an open and shut case of not guilty all around, I'll give the jury credit for not jumping to any conclusions and taking what I thought was far too long to come to the same conclusion that I did. They obviously took the charges very seriously and considered all of the evidence in a very methodical way. Daniel Penny, according to the jury, is not responsible for the death of Jordan Neely, the man who was threatening the passengers locked in a subway car. The other men who helped Penny subdue Neely were never even charged. As I mentioned earlier, the last time they saw Neely, he was still alive. Same with Penny. He was at the police station freely speaking with investigators and didn't know Neely had died. Daniel Penny had no reason to believe he was in trouble for anything. It seemed like the jury came to the correct verdict, even in progressive Manhattan, with a district attorney trying to earn points with his benefactors. But there were some who thought justice hadn't been done. Here's the leader of the local BLM chapter.

SPEAKER_02 24:43

How can you promote love to a nation that is built on theft and genocide?

SPEAKER_00 24:50

If he's talking about the way Native Americans were treated in the early days of the United States government, I get it. But to say that our country is founded on murder is very short-sighted. Our country was founded on many principles, most of them Christian.

SPEAKER_02 25:07

What we preach is unity. Black unity. Stop begging this system to justify lies. Stop begging this system for justice. When things happen to you, you step up and defend yourself.

SPEAKER_00 25:27

Defend yourself. That's exactly what Daniel Penny did in that subway car. He defended himself and the rest of the passengers, most of whom were members of minority populations.

SPEAKER_02 25:40

Just like everybody else seeks justice on their own? Just like everybody else has vigilantes? We need some black vigilantes. People want to jump up and choke us and kill us for being loud?

SPEAKER_00 25:59

For being loud? No, sir, that's not why Jordan Neely was subdued on the subway car. He was being more than loud. To minimize his behavior as merely being loud is the definition of misinformation. He was threatening, terrorizing, and an imminent danger to everyone in that subway car.

SPEAKER_02 26:23

How about we do the same when they attempt to oppress us? I'm tired.

SPEAKER_00 26:29

You're more than tired, sir. You're sadly mistaken, and you're leading your followers down a path that ends in disappointment. It's not justice you seek, but retribution. This man should be charged with inciting violence. Here's a local NAACP spokeswoman.

SPEAKER_01 26:54

Who has the look in the face of a jury that no matter the facts, no matter the expert witnesses, no matter the people yelling on that train that day to let Jordan go, you will kill him. They will not find a white man guilty of killing a black man in modern day America. This is no different than Jim Crow.

SPEAKER_00 27:15

No, ma'am, you're wrong. Plenty of white men have been charged and convicted of killing black men. Derek Chaubin in Minnesota being just one. What doesn't happen enough is black men being charged and convicted of killing black men. Being black-on-black homicide is far more prevalent than any other kind.

SPEAKER_01 27:38

This looks like a picture out of the picture book when you look at that anonymous jury. We have baby boomers who are there doing Jim Crow on this jury. We have young people who are looking at Daniel Henney as a hero. And Wood America is a hero is a hero, a killer. He didn't give a crap about Jordan. They said not guilty. These wonderful white people, I hope they celebrate their Christmas while the Neely family is praying and asking God for comfort. God damn them and God damn America.

SPEAKER_00 28:11

That's correct, ma'am. He didn't. But Jordan was alive the last time Daniel Penny saw him. You know who else didn't give a crap about Jordan? You. Or his family. Or the city of New York. Only now do you care, now that you have the opportunity to make an issue out of the death of someone whose life had no value to you until he was dead. The only reason you can say the disgusting things you say is because you live in the United States of America. Somehow, this has become an issue about race. Because the black guy is the one who died, and it's a white guy who they say did it. Race had nothing to do with the actions of neither the man who died nor the man who was charged. The left wanted to turn this into the next George Floyd moment, and it would be just in time to disrupt the next presidential administration. Disinformation or misinformation is irrelevant. It's just wrong to call Daniel Penny a vigilante. Daniel Penny wasn't out looking for a way to take the law into his own hands. He was maintaining control until law enforcement was able to take over. Here's Jordan Neely's father after the not guilty verdict.

SPEAKER_03 29:39

I miss my son. My son didn't have to go do this. I didn't have to go do this either. It hurts. Really, really hurts. What are we gonna do, people? What's gonna happen to us now? I had enough of this.

SPEAKER_00 30:03

System is rigged. I find it interesting that the father, who must live in the same area, is suddenly concerned about his homeless, hungry son. Where were you the day before he died? Why weren't you there while your son was being arrested more than forty times, including numerous times for assaulting people on the subway? You're right, Mr. Neely, you didn't have to go through this. Neither did we. Neither did Daniel Penny and the rest of the victims on that subway car. This incident had nothing to do with the race or creed or religion of anybody. Everybody on that subway car recognized that. The only people who didn't are the racists of Black Lives Matter and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Both of those organizations took this opportunity to show their true colors, no pun intended. Black lives only matter to BLM when a white person can be blamed for something, and the NAACP is only interested in advancing a racist agenda, not the colored people they claim to represent. A friend of mine recently shared a meme on social media that said, Today you could be standing next to someone who is trying their best not to fall apart. So whatever you do today, do it with kindness in your heart. I think that applies to everyone, but my question is, is it really healthy for us to assume that everybody else may be unstable?

SPEAKER_05 31:51

Think it over what you just said.

SPEAKER_00 32:15

Copyright 2024. 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 Thou Ad Infinitum.

SPEAKER_05 32:32

Think it over and think of me. Think it over and you will see. A happy day with you and I.