Season 11, Episode 6 April 6, 2025

SPEAKER_00 0:00

This is the listening tube.

SPEAKER_03 0:07

Hello. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley. TerraFree since 2022. On this episode, we'll hear about how an island in the West Indies is a lesson in economics. And I'll have a chat with the author and the World Safety Organization's ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Jerry Camarata. We'll talk about safety around the world and reestablishing the family in America.

SPEAKER_01 0:41

But first, not the headlines.

SPEAKER_03 0:47

There was a time when the teletype machine was a window to the world, and two organizations occupied most of it: United Press International and the Associated Press. If you worked at a radio station and had access to a teletype machine, you could often learn what was going on in the world before anybody. There was no internet, and television news was relegated to once a day. I was recently reminded of the time I experienced my first earthquake. I was on the radio in Guam when it happened. The whole building shook, but my record didn't skip. When the song ended, I said, I think everybody in China just jumped up and down at the same time. A few hours later, the teletype machine sent an AP report that Guam had experienced an earthquake. Now, people around the world knew what I had experienced. Without the teletype machine, we were ignorant about the outside world. Today, everybody has almost immediate access to information from anywhere in the world. A lot of it is supplied by the Associated Press. There are no more teletype machines, nor people with exclusive access to them. That's a good thing. But because the AP no longer has exclusive access to supplying news to outlets around the world, it now has to compete with other news sources. It seems to me that the Associated Press believes it has to create stories that often qualify as clickbait in order to remain relevant. A recent story about Georgia election laws would certainly qualify. Its flashy headline is not only meant to mislead you, but to also make you feel like the Justice Department was wrong and does not operate without outside instruction. Here's what it says. Justice Department instructed to dismiss legal challenge to Georgia election law. The headline wants you to believe that some higher power, presumably President Trump, ordered the DOJ to drop the charges. But when you read the story, the author never mentions that any orders came from the president. If you read the story, it never says the president ordered anything, and it was the attorney general who made the order. Which makes sense. She's the one who decides which laws will be enforced, just as it is with every administration. So if anybody instructed the Justice Department to do anything, it's the Attorney General who gave the order. That's her job. It was also the job of the former Attorney General, Merrick Garland, but he couldn't dismiss the case because he worked for a Democratic administration which maintained hope that this frivolous lawsuit would somehow grow legs. Well, it didn't, and never would have, so Pam Bondi, the current Attorney General, pulled the plug on it. But the AP wants you to believe that there's some kind of underlying mystery as to why. There's no mystery. This lawsuit has been sitting around since June of 2021. You may recall that the law caused such an uproar that Major League Baseball pulled the All-Star game out of Atlanta and moved it to Colorado, where voting laws are more restrictive than the new laws in Georgia are. Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines also jumped on the false narrative bandwagon and criticized the new Georgia voting laws. The argument that the left made is that the new laws were meant to suppress voters of color and poor people. What actually happened is that Georgia had record voter turnout in multiple elections since the new law took effect. But people like former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams still maintain that the law has made it harder for many people in Georgia to vote without specifying why they believe that. Then the author cites a December analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice to counter the A.G.'s conclusion. The Brennan Center for Justice? I'm going to look that up.

SPEAKER_01 5:46

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

SPEAKER_03 5:51

You can't handle the truth. Wikipedia calls the Brennan Center for Justice a liberal or progressive nonprofit law and public policy institute named after Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr., who the Washington Post referred to as the progressive voice of the modern court. The Brennan Center is opposed to voter ID, which is part of the Georgia law that was being challenged. So naturally, it's a good place for a liberal AP reporter to find some statistics that suit the narrative. And she did. While the number of black voters increased after the new voter laws, the Brennan Center claims that black voter turnout declined by just over a half of a percentage point. Why the discrepancy? How could black votes be up while turnout dropped? The Brennan Center says it's because the increase in ballots cast by black voters didn't keep up with population increases. How could that happen? I'll tell you how. Newborn babies don't vote. Adults who moved to Georgia may have voted absentee in the state from where they came. Maybe they're apolitical and don't care to vote. That comparison means absolutely nothing. The next paragraph of the story more or less admits that, but in a very roundabout and misleading way. Understanding whether or to what extent these declines are due to restrictive voting policies such as George's SB 202, justifiable feelings that the government is not working for them, or myriad other factors, will be of signal importance, the analysis says. The first six words, understanding whether, or to what extent, is just a fancy way of saying we don't know. But we're going to just go ahead and say that the law is restrictive and that the people of Georgia are justified for feeling that the government isn't working for the people of Georgia. Then adding that it could be other factors. Or maybe there aren't any factors at all, and you just made up the study to keep up the charade that the law is somehow suppressing voters when it clearly isn't. And that's why the lawsuit was dismissed. Not because the Justice Department was instructed to drop it as the headline leads us to believe. Often it's the headline that's misleading while the story is informative. In this case, both the headline and the story were meant to deceive. This week in 1908, Haitians ask for U.S. help in civil strife. The capital, Port-au-Prince, would come under siege in November. There's a large empty space in the history of Haiti during the period between 1908 and 1915. There were power struggles between different factions and cults of personality. By December of 1908, Antoine Simon had declared himself president and aligned himself with the United States. In 1908, there were people in Haiti, just as there are in America today, who believe that aligning with America would mean that Haitians would be relegated to slavery. Haiti was occupied by the United States from 1915 until 1934. Things started to go a little wonky in the 40s and 50s, and since then, Haiti really hasn't had any government stability, bouncing around between different ideologies. Today, it's a land of violence and turmoil. Gangs control the streets, and there is no government order. It's a lawless society where those with the most lethal weapons and lack of conscience rule. There's nobody able to keep order and nobody who wants to try. Meanwhile, on the other side of the island called Hispaniola lies the Dominican Republic. Two different worlds on one island. Two different worlds because of political decisions either made or forced upon the people. Haiti and the Dominican Republic have both been occupied and controlled by the United States. The Dominican Republic participated in economic programs meant to bolster trade, while Haiti was in too much political disarray to make any decisions about anything. It's almost a prediction of what could have happened to the United States of America. Under the previous administration, we were too bound to abstract ideals to make any solid decisions. There were too many people who were too worried about who might be offended instead of how many people would benefit. Under the current administration, President Trump has a clear goal and the objectives to get there when it comes to the economy. We may have become a service-only economy full of baristas and food truck drivers without any means to support those types of businesses. But President Trump wants to create jobs that support those types of businesses. The hoagie shop can't flourish without the nearby factory. The Democrats have no economic policy but the status quo and are more likely to not participate in next level thinking. The kind of macro level planning that moves us forward. We really don't see that from the Democrats, and that kind of ignorance is what helped define the difference between the stability of the Dominican Republic and the chaos of Haiti.

SPEAKER_00 12:31

The listening tube will return at the speed of sound. Send email to thelistening tube at outlook.com.

SPEAKER_03 12:42

My guest this week has worn many hats. His name is Dr. Jerry Camarata, and he's currently the World Safety Organization's ambassador to the United Nations and the author of a new book about family life in America. Dr. Camarada spent some time in the listening tube where we talked about both of those subjects. In the role of the World Safety Organization's ambassador to the UN, you're actually representing people from many different countries, unlike most ambassadors to the UN who represent their country.

SPEAKER_02 13:23

Is that correct? That is absolutely correct. I represent about 4,000 certified safety officers around the world in countries in Asia, in Europe, and the uh in the uh the Americas. Uh, and these safety officers are working in companies, uh, and they're all looking at improving the level of safety and the way performances are occurring on the job. Uh, we're growing that now, and we're trying to get more countries interested in academically providing programs in safety so that ultimately we can put more certified safety officers into companies, into government, because right now, safety and our um uh our our world climate are are the two most important things that we have that we need to make a contribution to this world on.

SPEAKER_03 14:15

How much can safety procedures vary from one country to another?

SPEAKER_02 14:21

Significantly. One, it's based upon political persuasion, it is based upon uh the inability to have technical resources, so therefore they may have to go to a lower level of performance in order to get a job accomplished. So when you look around the world, you'll see, particularly in the industrialized countries, the one of the highest levels of safety uh built in not only to their policies, but also built into government regulations. As you go to the poorer countries, you see less and less of that. And that's why it's particularly important, for example, uh Africa, where we can have our governments understand that it's not only safety that's important, but it's the other costs that take place. Those costs uh that are built in, for example, to their healthcare system, which may not be as stable as it should be in the first place. So it's a domino effect uh here. Uh we try to encourage our countries to put safety programs into their curricula in the university level. And by doing that, we will be able to produce more safety officers. Those safety officers will be in construction, be in architecture, uh, be in engineering, and uh be in um any other number of uh of company operations. And through their efforts, they can work on safety procedures and techniques to make sure that workers will be where they need to be and do their job well and know that every day they will be in the safest hands.

SPEAKER_03 15:53

Now, I I'd like to assume that it is now widely accepted that you shouldn't stick a butter knife into an electrical socket. But do people still need to learn that on their own? We really do.

SPEAKER_02 16:06

Uh, and let me give you a really fine example here in the United States, and I'm going to use myself as as the example. We have the highest technology in our cars. Now, when you hold your hand on the steering wheel, you very often put the steering wheel kind of in the middle of your pointing finger and your thumb to, you know, and you hang there. Uh now we are really supposed to hold our thumbs on the side of the steering wheel, but we often don't do that. Take that fact and now take the highest technology that we have in our cars that cars now can stop just before an accident could occur. So the technology is saving lives, the technology is uh helping us uh to prevent accidents, but because of that new technology and that sudden stop of the car, which they often don't tell you about at the dealership, your steering wheel can go into your pointing finger and go into your thumb and you can fracture your thumb, which is exactly what I did not too many weeks ago. Because there was never anything in the instruction uh policy that said the car could stop very quickly. So therefore, never hold your hand uh with the steering wheel in the middle of your pointing finger and thumb, but always rest it on the side for a precaution. Not knowing that I then had a I then had a problem. And now I'm wondering how many people are out there with this new technology holding the steering wheel the wrong way and therefore leaving themselves wide open for these kinds of fractures.

SPEAKER_03 17:42

So there are types of measures that you find you have to keep reinforcing over and over again.

SPEAKER_02 17:48

And that's what life is really all about. And we learn that uh, you know, when we're children, and it is that everyday application of similarity that becomes just so incredibly important, uh, both in our regular learning and the and the idea of being safe. And when a child sees, uh when a child's taken by the hand and gone to the street corner and there's a crossing, a child is looking at the cars going by, it's looking up at mom, looking up at dad. What are they doing? Are they looking both ways? Looking at the traffic light. Every day this is being reinforced until finally it does become second nature and safety is built into that. And without reinforcement, uh safety does become a major, major problem. That's why learning safety is not the only thing that needs to be put into place, but to practice it and to have that continuity of practice is just infinitely important to make our life better.

SPEAKER_03 18:46

Now, when it comes to safety at the industrial level, is it still the unions that spearhead those initiatives, or have groups like the World Safety Organization taken over the reins there?

SPEAKER_02 19:01

Well, it is a combination of things. One, I don't think we can discount the unions because the unions not only play an important part in making sure that wages uh and the general health of their workers uh will be taken care of, but they also contribute to safety packages and an understanding of uh safety science and getting then companies to use those sciences and use those safety techniques, and companies generally are responsive for that to happen. The World Safety Organization is a certification organization, so our job is to make sure that when somebody comes to us, they are of the highest quality, they have the highest standards in their practice, uh, have years of experience, and therefore they can be certified in the application of the work that they do. In addition, you've got a number of government agencies uh that are responsible for setting standards. You've got OSHA, occupational safety and health organization, working every single day, trying to put the highest level of uh of value on the work that's being done uh and the safety that will result from that. So it's it's a host of things. Um and thank God it's not coming from one place, because by it being the host, uh uh and coming from different places, we are able to get the best of what is out there and apply that to the work, uh the workplace.

SPEAKER_03 20:29

Yeah, certainly. Uh diversity of thought uh is always a benefit. Now, safety, uh at least the way uh I understand it, is usually a grassroots level issue. It's the individual who deals with the conditions that may or may not be safe. But are there conditions on a more macro level or possibly catastrophic safety issues that you're working to prevent today?

SPEAKER_02 21:02

There may be individual countries that are looking at that. Clearly, our governments across the globe are working at that. Uh, when it comes to uh climate change, for example, there is a tremendous amount of work being looked at now, not by the World Safety Organization directly, but by the government institutions, really to see what needs to be done in terms of housing, in terms of location of housing, for example. As the temperature changes and as the number of storms increase, so must the architecture change, the engineering change, locations of dwellings need to change. So this is an ongoing, uh, an ongoing problem. And the catastrophic planning uh is clearly being done in the industrialized areas where there is poverty, for example, in Africa, where you're you're not going to have all the resources necessary, I'm sure uh is a reliance. On the Western world to be able to help them and reinforce a lot of the things that need to be done.

SPEAKER_03 22:07

We just recently had a building that was in the middle or toward the end of its construction process collapse because of an earthquake in uh Indonesia. I understand you probably haven't studied this or anything, but just from your experience, is a building only safe once it's finished being built? Or, you know, was was it was it just caught at a at a very bad time in its construction for that to happen?

SPEAKER_02 22:38

Uh it it wasn't even a question of caught in the construction. It probably goes down to how it was constructed uh and whether or not the standards were met. Rarely do you come across uh a devastating experience like that, and you you see that everything was done according to the uh the plan. There is usually some aberration, uh some problem that took place either in the design, in knowledge, uh, or in poor workmanship that causes something like that. As long as you've got a human being in the equation, you're going to have a problem in some way because of the potentiality of not following a code or not following a procedure. And it is our job to constantly work with our individuals that are on the line in the workplace to try to get them to understand that if you follow the rules, there's a very, very good likelihood that your outcome is going to be terrific. And because of that, you're going to have a good quality.

SPEAKER_03 23:45

Dr. Camarada, you have a new book out. It's called The Future of the American Family: An Unprecedented Crisis. It presents a plan to reinvigorate the focus on the importance of a stable and healthy family life. When did we lose that focus in the first place?

SPEAKER_02 24:10

Well, it really goes back 100 years, 200 years, 300 years. You know, we are in a situation now in the in the Western world where we're giving up responsibility uh to raise our children. And we're giving that up because we're enjoying ways in which we can give that up and we're feeling very, very secure. Uh, you know, it used to be a big joke, you know, little house on the little house on the prairie, uh, the little red schoolhouse where all the kids were together, they all studied. Uh, and that worked for them. But then as technology grew our our knowledge base, as enlightenment made us realize how much thinking we could take place to accomplish things, we've grown away from the family spirit and the family connection. And we've now become stuck all of these years later with a social situation that brings media and surrogate parenting into our life. And because of that, our families are suffering very, very dearly. And the numbers are very, very clear. The single parent households in the United States is at about 26%. 44% of marriages end in a divorce, 55 percentile, 55th percentile is where the mortality rate is of children in the United States. Uh, and that, you know, that shouldn't even be when we have the competency in this country like we like we do. The data does not support the fact that we are a great industrialized country and we're doing well for our families and well for our children.

SPEAKER_03 25:54

What are some of the aspects of the family dynamic that benefit the family members?

SPEAKER_02 26:03

The the benefit is that there is a way of learning your learning what life is all about, learning through simple examples every day in the household, so that you're prepared to then enter into an academic program and see the reality of those simple learnings take place, and then you're able to apply to a job. That social structure is just so incredibly important. Aristotle talked about it, Jung talked about it, all of the great psychologists talked about the need to have the family structure in place so that would allow the child to grow and to be able to do the things that need to get accomplished. Without parents, it is very, very, very hard for a child to learn the way they have the way they need to learn. And I and again, for Aristotle to make this to make this known in the fourth century before Common Era, I mean, you know, why haven't we been understanding that? And why are we dismissing it? And we're dismissing it because we're having fun with enjoying AI, enjoying the internet, enjoying social media. And we don't realize that our children now are taking that, and that's becoming, as I said just a little while ago, their surrogate parent. And we don't realize how the country is moving so far apart from uh having a clear mind and a clear effort at making everybody the best they could possibly be.

SPEAKER_03 27:44

What are we missing out on if we're not part of a close family?

SPEAKER_02 27:49

You're missing out on all of the learning uh and all of the dynamics of being a whole person when it comes to understanding relationships. And our whole life is all about relationships. You lose what it is to be a mother and what to uh what a mother feels, the emotions of a mother, you lose the emotions of a dad, you you lose the stability of having these two people in your life, or hoping to have these two people uh in your life that will give you the support, give you the encouragement to want to do well. And just to point that out, teenagers that have loving dads are 85% less likely to go to prison in this country. That's going to be missing, and that that's sad.

SPEAKER_03 28:39

Other than the parents, of course, many families, many children have siblings. What role does having a sibling play in the development of a family? And is that an advantage over someone who is an only child?

SPEAKER_02 28:54

Uh it's very important to have siblings. I'm I'm an only child. So my siblings came from my cousins, uh, came from the other uh boys and girls in my neighborhood. Uh so I had that extended feeling that never really made me feel like I was the I was the only child. I had my parents, I had my cousins, so it was really a whirlwind for really a whirlwind for me. But to be able to see brothers and sisters react to parents, that's a learning curve as to how you may want to or may not want to learn. Not everything is going to be, not everything is going to be positive. Siblings are really uh very, very important. And they're very, very important because part of the economy, they're part of the intellectual growth of a country. Right now, our family rate is getting lower and lower. It's going from 2.1 to 1.6. And having less children that we're producing means that we're putting a burden on our economy, a burden on our country, the growth of our country, the stability of our country. And it's allowing us, making us, forcing us to actually embrace immigration because they need to take over some of those jobs that we cannot support because we're not raising a family. And we're not raising a family because we can't afford to raise a family today. There are two parent households that have to give up all of their time in order to make the money just enough to put food on the table. That's a very, very sad commentary of our country, uh, of our country today, to have um two parents, uh two parents on a job.

SPEAKER_03 30:38

Now, you describe some of the ways Americans can get back to living in a family atmosphere, and most of them involve some type of government assistance or intervention. Why is the government so critical in re-establishing family values?

SPEAKER_02 30:58

Uh well, some of it is economic, and some of it, I sadly say, is a question of giving to the poor rather than giving to everybody. We don't particularly look at an egalitarian society in a in a very, very nice way. It would be nice if everything was equal, if everybody had a level of opportunity. Uh, some people don't want that, some people don't uh don't move in that direction, and there never will be a real uh egalitarian society. But uh we do need uh some really very, very basic support for families in order to get on their feet. For example, 50 years ago, plus plus 50 years ago, I was the first father in this country to win the first paternity leave. I was that dad that was trying to make a great living, always out of the house, always there for the family. And in fact, not always there for the family. So by me having the first paternity leave, that changed my life around. Uh, but the significant point here is not me. The significant point is we are 50 plus years later, and we still do not have a national family leave policy. In fact, we're the only industrialized country in the entire world that doesn't have a national family policy. And that is just so incredibly sad. And I know I use that word sad a lot, but it is really that that bad. We need to have not only uh paid family leave, but we've got to find a way between government, the company, and the employee, the worker who wants to go out on leave, how we can structure a financial plan so that nobody is overburdened. And we can't get Congress to really pay attention to that the way Congress should be paying attention to it. But I've been talking a great deal about having a national paid family leave policy in place so that we can take some of those families that are not making it and giving them the best opportunity. When you look at Netflix and some other companies uh that are in Silicon Valley, you see paid family leave to be extraordinary. Eight weeks, you want you want six months, you want a year, we can give that to you because they value their worker. Their worker is so important to them, they don't want to lose them. They're willing to pay a little bit on helping that worker get through something that's so extraordinary in their life, having a child and being there during the formative years and then getting back to work. There are companies that are willing to say to workers today, if you don't want to take a full leave, but you want to work part-time, we could work that in. Maybe we can adjust hours and we can have two people working on the same job. There are a lot of ways of framing the workplace today that we need to begin to look at, including incentivizing corporations in this medicine uh in America to kind of redesign and restructure the workplace so that the family could be honored.

SPEAKER_03 34:15

Some of your efforts to improve the American family also rely on education. How are the two connected?

SPEAKER_02 34:25

Right now, it's the blame game. If in elementary school the child is not doing well, well, it must be the parents. I mean, because obviously they're not sending us the children that are ready to learn. Uh, there must be some psychological difficulty here. Let's look at the family structure. Then you get into high school and you know, they're having difficulty in math. Well, you know, it's the elementary school didn't really prepare them in the basics of mathematics. And then you get into college and we're hearing the same thing. Uh, and now we're trying to move away from that, but you know, we're we're going to have some early learning courses that a child is going to have to take before you can then start college-level classes. So the blame game goes down and down and down, and it's becoming enormously costly. I'm indicating to Congress, let's get rid of that. Let's not have a blame game, but let's have a structure that is able to hold onto the child from the time they're in the family until the time they go through college. And I'm uh asking Congress to establish a national education contract. And that'll put the local colleges with the high schools, with the elementary schools, the preschools, special education, and the parents together all for a common cause. In this contract, that means that the colleges who are actually teaching the teachers to be teachers will now be responsible for working with the high school and elementary school teachers continually on making sure that top-down better instruction techniques can constantly be in place, while teachers can bring to the attention of the college, the college that's in the network, all of the problems they're having, so that new techniques can be developed. And the parents are in the mix because the parents will have that same level of communication. Can you imagine if that took place? If in a town where there was a college, that college was associated with its three high schools, with its 10 elementary schools, and the parents of all of the children and the children all working together, wow, it would be absolutely amazing in terms of where we would be on the uh on the academic schedule. Because right now we're not there. The reading level of the United States, the U.S. is ranking 13th in the world. That's sad. In mathematics, 37th ranking, in science, 18th ranking. Now, those numbers are intolerable when we know at the university level we've got absolutely incredible, incredible talent. So we need to make the change. And I think the the national education contract uh that I'm proposing would be the best way to do that and would create the interlocking necessary to make a difference.

SPEAKER_03 37:19

Are there other ways that corporate America can help improve family life? And do they get any benefit for helping improve family life?

SPEAKER_02 37:31

Well, the uh if we extract the government having any relation to the to what you're indicating right now, and we just look at the corporation, the result is always a happy worker, a content worker will be more productive, more tuned in to the mission of the company, and thus the profits of the company, the product of the company is always going to be better. So, yes, to your point, there are many things that can be redone.

SPEAKER_03 37:58

Now, what can the family members themselves do to improve their family life and promote the benefits of a healthy home environment?

SPEAKER_02 38:09

You need to have a social network in your community. We all can't be isolated. And sometimes because of finances, uh, because of where we're living, we have a level of isolationism. But there's something very, very important to be said about our churches, about our synagogues, about our uh our um uh social community uh groups that are there to give us the support that we need, if not monetarily, if not specifically with a service, at least with a high level of psychosocial motivation, uh, so that we could realize that we're not the only ones sometimes in the boat that we think we're in. But there are others out there, and we can share in that knowledge, and we all can learn to be to be better parents. I I often enjoy traveling through Brooklyn, New York, for example, where almost on every block in Brooklyn there's a church. And you wonder that, well, if you know if there's a church on every block, and therefore there's a population of parishioners, that the children really must be absolutely dynamic and terrific. And without any statistics and without any knowledge, I think I can probably safely say that's not the case. So, you know, one then gets suspicious about how well all of our social institutions out there are really working on trying every day to keep our families together, give them every opportunity to grow, and also to be some surrogate parents in that the person at the grocery store, for example, is constantly looking at looking at Johnny every time he comes in. How are you doing? Did you do your homework? Uh, there are some companies, for example, that when they employ uh high school students to work that are of age, they will give them one hour of the work time in the back room just to do their homework. That's actually not productive for the company, but it is productive because that child lives in that community and that store owner wants to make sure that that person is going to succeed in life. That's great.

SPEAKER_03 40:27

For someone reading your book, The Future of the American Family, what do you hope that they come away with once they finish reading?

SPEAKER_02 40:37

Two things. One, the government begins to realize the responsibility it must have in order for the families to grow in this country. Corporations must understand that they need to play a greater role in restructuring their workplace for the family, that we begin to move in a direction where we will work together as a society in order to put the family as the centerpiece of our society. And I believe having a White House conference on families, and if it can be done by this president, by President Trump, we could be in a very good position to bring some of these issues out and then to execute these issues, which, by the way, when we had our uh White House conference on families with President Carter, which I was a member of, many of those uh recommendations never came to pass. And that was the sad outcome of that. But I think if we have one now, we could make the improvements, the family could be on the rise, and we can have a healthier America in the future.

SPEAKER_03 41:42

The title of Jerry's book is The Future of the American Family: an Unprecedented Crisis. It's chock full of information and insight. Give it a read. Many thanks to Dr. Camarata for spending some time in the listening tube. The listening tube is written and produced by yours truly. Copyright 2025. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. Go to the homepage on your cell phone to send a text.

SPEAKER_00 42:14

You can text the listening tube from the homepage. If he says something stupid.

SPEAKER_03 42:24

Or sign up to be a supporter of the program.

SPEAKER_01 42:27

Hey, if he says something smart, you can support the show from the homepage.

SPEAKER_03 42:36

Check in next week when I'll have a chat with a man from Switzerland. I'm your host, Bob Woodley, for the Hell at Infinitum.