Season 5, Episode Six May 14, 2023

Hello! Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube! I’m your host, Bob Woodley. There’s no writer’s strike here!On this episode, we’ll hear about electricity, units of measurement, and gun rights, but first, (Not the Headlines)!

There’s nothing in the world that brings people together more than food. It’s the foundation of our daily routines; a method of survival, and so much more. We plan around it, use it to celebrate our cherished moments, and take pride in the way we make it. Millions of cookbooks are sold or downloaded every year. Even I wrote a book about cooking called “Don’t Fry Bacon with Your Shirt Off—A Single Man’s Guide to the Kitchen.” Food is the fuel our bodies need to keep moving. We can’t live without it. Oxygen, water and fuel are really the only things we humans need. Food is the only necessity that comes with a variety we consider a delicacy. Air and water can only be contaminated from their original forms, but food can be modified from its basic ingredients and transformed into combinations that make them better. Better tasting. But we also learned about the way food is valuable, and how different foods have different values when it came to vitamins and minerals. And we learned how those vitamins and minerals effect our bodies. But we’re still learning. A story by Sally Wadyka in the New York Times examines research done on what is now called Ultraprocessed food. That label is still new enough that my word processor doesn’t recognize the spelling of the compound word “ultraprocessed.” But it was in the New York Times, so it must be a word. Turns out, there’s actually a sort of food pyramid describing the amount of processed a food is. A research team in Brazil broke it down into four groups:

Group one is actually a combination of unprocessed and minimally processed. Some examples are fruits, nuts and vegetables, as well as rice and flour. Processed foods include things like butter and sugar, plus things that are canned or smoked. But ultraprocessed is not only a different category, it’s a different plane of food altogether. High fructose corn syrup, colors, emulsifiers and preservatives are some of the things you’ll find in ultraprocessed foods. They’re easily recognizable because they aren’t ingredients you have in your cupboard or on your spice rack. 

Ultraprocessed foods are another way food brings us together. Seventy percent of the food American’s buy is ultraprocessed. And it’s not just inner-city people who live in fresh food deserts. The story says it’s across all socioeconomic groups.

It seem our desire to vary our diets in so many different ways, using the ingredients the earth gives us, has led to an industry that creates more ways than mother nature to add to those variables, and they’ve done such a good job of it that we prefer many of the man-made ingredients over the natural ones. Sally’s story quotes an epidemiologist as saying, “Ultraprocessed foods are carefully formulated to be so palatable and satisfying that they’re almost addictive,” He goes on to say, “The problem is that in order to make the products taste better and better, manufacturers make them less and less like real food.”

So, while cookbooks are one way we feed the need for variety in our fuel, leading the charge is scientific development of flavors. And while we love the flavors, the ingredients aren’t what you will find in an average kitchen. Are you familiar with the phrase, “You are what you eat”?

There’s a concern that the ingredients in ultraprocessed foods are having a negative effect on our mental well-being. While nobody is claiming there’s causation, there may be an association with ultraprocessed foods and mild depression or feelings of anxiety. Now, if I look at this from a broader perspective, I would have to wonder if the research included what recreational drugs were used that led to the consumption of the ultraprocessed food that then led to the depression or anxiety. And while that is pretty funny, it goes deeper than that. 

The story cites a Brazilian study done last year that shows a decline in cognitive function connected to ultraprocessed food. Cognitive function includes learning, reasoning, solving problems and remembering. Those who got at least 20 percent of their calories from ultraprocessed foods showed a 28 percent decline in cognitive function. The good news is you can counteract the effects of ultraprocessed food with a diet of whole grains, leafy greens, nuts, berries and chicken. Fish and olive oil will also contribute to the battle against ultraprocessed food and its effects.

Nutritionists are still studying the reasons for the effect of ultraprocessed food, but seem to think the lack of fiber is the culprit. Fiber is present in plant-based foods, while ultraprocessed foods have barely any. The role our digestive systems play in producing fatty acids that depend on the foods we eat can also have an effect. 

The bottom line is, if you are what you eat, then you might want to pay attention to the products you buy, the ingredients in them, and how consumption of those products effect your mood. You might be a perfectly happy person, but it doesn’t show because of your diet.

If you’re a nice guy in the morning after you had your mini-wheats, but a maniac in the afternoon after you had a frozen burrito heated up in the microwave, it might be your diet. So, while everybody thought you were an ass-hole, which you probably were, you can become a good guy by simply eliminating the burrito, or whatever ultraprocessed food you have in your repertoire. Given the choice, I’d rather be a pussy than an ass-hole. 

Speaking of food, there’s been a lot of talk about the left-leaning among us wanting to ban gas stoves. Our only choices right now are gas stoves or electric stoves. Anything else needs to be used outside. Charcoal needs plenty of ventilation. A wood fire can be used inside, but needs proper ventilation. As for the convenience of cooking in a typical American kitchen, gas and electric have been the two choices from which we decide. There was a time when I had both in my kitchen. A gas stove that came with the half-double, and the electric stove I already owned. Side by side, I would use one or the other depending upon my needs. If I needed immediate heat, I would use the gas stove. If I wanted more concise control of the heat, I’d use the electric stove. I only have electric now, and have for more than a decade, but I miss the advantages of a gas stove. If you live in New York, you better get used to it. New York State lawmakers have banned gas stoves from all new construction in the entire state. If you’re going to build a new home, you’re not allowed to include a gas stove in the kitchen. Opening a restaurant? Don’t bother looking for a company to supply the fuel for your stoves and ovens other than the electric company. Anyone who knows how to use a wok will understand how much impact this will have on society and commerce. Every oriental restaurant in New York cooks with an open flame. The new ones, if there will be any will have to abandon the practice of cooking with an open flame in order to follow the laws of New York. Whether or not you agree with the practice of cooking with gas or the law against it is irrelevant. The elected representatives in New York already decided to make it a law. 

If you’re wondering if your state will be next, just look for some subtle clues from the media. Prior to the New York law, the New York Times said “No One Is Coming for Your Gas Stove Anytime Soon.” Well, that headline is technically correct, as any gas stove currently in use can continue to be used. But it was also misleading in the sense that it attempted to put to ease the minds of those who were most effected by the possibility that gas stoves were on the chopping block. But it wasn’t just the New York Times trying to soften the blow. The Associated Press said, “Fact Focus: Biden administration isn’t banning gas stoves.” So far, that’s true. It’s only the state of New York on the bandwagon so far. But a lot of the media downplayed the possibility that gas stoves were a target. They blamed conservatives for using the gas stove as a tool to create a culinary culture war. Time magazine said, “How Gas Stoves Became the Latest Right-Wing Cause in the Culture Wars.” and MSNBC chimed, “No, the woke mob is not coming for your gas stove.” The former accusing conservatives of starting a war, the latter attempting to redirect your attention elsewhere. Meanwhile, exactly what they said wasn’t happening did, in fact happen. Only in New York, so far. I live in Pennsylvania, just across the southern border of New York. When the weather is nice, I like to sit outside in the back yard and write the script for the Listening Tube. It’s nice right now, and I’m doing just that. Don’t worry, New York! I’m using electricity to power my laptop. However, I’m also burning three tiki-torches filled with oil infused with citronella to keep the bugs away. It doesn’t really work, but we covered that on last week’s episode, as well as a gas-powered fire-pit with lava rocks that I pour chemicals on to make the flames change color. My neighbors saw mine and got one, too. I told them all about the color-changing packets you can buy, and where to get them. But I digress. I’ve created a space that helps me bring out a part of me that I don’t know I would have discovered if I didn’t have this little slice of solitude. When I say solitude, that also includes my dog. 

It started with internal combustion engine cars, and now the target is getting narrower. Anything that requires fossil fuels to operate is a target for elimination. Electricity will save the planet. If we all stopped using fossil fuels and relied on clean, renewable energy sources like turbines to create the electricity, global warming would be less of a threat. But what creates our electricity?

Look that up liner

I found a helpful graph on Statista dot com that shows how the fuel used to generate electricity in the United States has changed. It graphs the sources of electricity from 1990 through 2022. What it shows is both revealing and question-raising. While coal has become a smaller part of our electricity generation, natural gas has become a larger part of our electricity generation. The very same source of power which New York is trying to eliminate from future homes and businesses is the main source of America’s electricity. What a dilemma! There’s no right-wing war going on here. The left wing is in a battle with the left wing over which sources of energy are important. While coal is being phased out, these other sources of energy like renewables, which have risen slightly in the past 30 years, haven’t stepped up enough production to make up for the loss of coal. Natural gas has emerged as the greatest source of creating electricity. Yes, the same natural gas that the state of New York doesn’t want to be used to cook. So, is New York limiting the use of gas to dedicate all of it to power electric cars? You’re not allowed to cook with it, but you’re allowed to drive with it? We’re still using fossil fuel to create the electricity needed to power electric cars. But using fossil fuel in your kitchen, be it the one at home or the one in your restaurant, is being phased out. The myth that electric cars are somehow emission-free is peddled in order to get you to feel guilty for not driving one. The truth is the generation of the electricity is where the emissions are, instead of your tailpipe. We might as well be driving natural gas powered cars. That way we can skip the electric company middle man. Why use natural gas to create electricity to power the cars when we can just power the cars with natural gas? I know they have them. The Mayor of my town drove one. There’s a place to fill them up a few blocks from my house. Closer than any electric car charging station. 

So what will the end-game be? Will New York eventually ban electricity made with natural gas? What will supply the electricity then? With gasoline-powered cars having been phased out, and the electricity needed for electric cars tightly regulated through ecological-induced law, mandate and browbeating, our freedom of movement will be severely hampered. What made a car a part of the American Dream was the mobility it offered. We were free to travel anywhere a road and a gas station existed. Gasoline cost pennies a gallon. Getting in the car and hitting the open road was a whole new adventure for the human mind and spirit. Electric cars are a poor substitute. While electric stoves have been serving us well, gas stoves are still preferred by many. But if the gas is instead being used to create electricity; the electricity you need because you aren’t allowed to buy a new gas stove, where’s the value? Is anything really being accomplished? Who benefits? Who does it hurt? These are the questions that need to be answered before you put your faith in it. Right now, I’m not sold. If the government is going to take away a source of power from the people, a source of power we’ve had since it’s discovery, sources like natural gas, and petroleum, then I think they need to justify it. Right now, it seems more like a shell game of performative maneuvers that have no proven or even obvious benefit. 

Let’s go back liner 

1776

American Revolution: the Virginia Convention instructs its Continental Congress delegation to propose a resolution of independence from Great Britain, paving the way for the United States Declaration of Independence.

1817

Quakers opened the first private mental health hospital in the United States, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Now, you might think that back in 1817, they weren’t as politically correct as we are today. So a mental health hospital might be referred to as “the nut house” or “insane asylum” or a myriad of other colorful ways to describe the building and those who reside there. But back in 1817, the name of the hospital was the Asylum for the Relief of Persons Deprived of the Use of Their Reason. To he honest, if I saw a sign in front of a building that said, “ Asylum for the Relief of Persons Deprived of the Use of Their Reason, I might suspect I was in a Monty Python skit, or about to be the subject of a prank. The name was eventually changed to Frankford Asylum for the Insane. It’s still there, but now it’s called Friends Hospital, and it is the oldest of its kind, having continuously operated since its founding. It was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1999. 

1862

President Abraham Lincoln signs a bill into law creating the United States Bureau of Agriculture. It is later renamed the United States Department of Agriculture. The United States Department of Agriculture also includes the Forest Service. More on that later...

1875

Signing of the Metre Convention by 17 nations leading to the establishment of the International System of Units. It makes things a lot easier if everybody uses the same system of weight and measures. But different countries had their own systems, and the need to establish a universal system was obvious. 

In America, it’s still obvious. We Americans are stuck using inches and feet, ounces and pounds, while most of the planet prefer the easier-to-understand metric system. While the metric system has tried to make some headway in the United States with the two-liter soda bottle, it’s mostly scientists, medical professionals and drug dealers who have mastered the system. The rest of us simply cannot fathom a sunny, warm summer day with a temperature of 28 degrees.

1905

Las Vegas, Nevada, is founded when 110 acre, in what later would become downtown, are auctioned off. I’ll be headed there shortly, and that’s why there will be no new episode of The Listening Tube for the next two weeks. I’ll be back.

1918

The Sedition Act of 1918 is passed by the U.S. Congress, making criticism of the government an imprisonable offense. Not a stand-alone act, it was actually an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917, and only applied when America was in a declared war. At the time, America was in a declared war. World War I. It was near the end of the war, though, so there were relatively few arrests made under the new provision. In March of 1919, hundreds of sentences were reduced or eliminated for those who were convicted under the amendment to the Espionage Act. The end of the war made it a mute point. Now, you might be thinking, “But Bob, what about the freedom of speech?” Well, the Supreme Court did uphold the so-called Sedition Act as applied to “people urging the curtailment of production of essential war materiel.” So if you were to say “Stop making guns! Stop making tanks! Stop making bombs!” you could go to jail for up to 10 years, if America were in a declared war. Wikipedia says the Act was repealed in 1920, after just two years on the books.

Even if was still illegal to protest the construction of war materials, most of us wouldn’t have to worry anyway. The last time America was in a declared war was World War II, which ended in 1945. In fact, America has only been in a declared war five times since the war for independence: The War of 1812, also against England, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. So that means the United States has fought wars in France, Morocco, Algiers, Paraguay, Mexico, Estonia, Latvia, Mongolia, Russia, Ukraine, Lebanon, China, Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan without ever declaring war. 

1927

Forty-five people are killed by bombs planted by a disgruntled school-board member at the Bath Consolidated School near Lansing, Michigan. That count also includes the man who planted the bombs, and his wife, who he killed at the beginning of the rampage. The man was the school board treasurer, and had recently lost an election for township clerk. During the prior summer, he was notified that the mortgage for his farm was being foreclosed upon. It’s thought the man began accumulating explosives and hiding them on his property and at the school. On the day of the disaster, his killed his wife and set off the explosives he had been hiding on his farm and at the school. The buildings on his farm were destroyed, as was the north end of the school building. But this disgruntled keeper of assets and liabilities had one more trick up his sleeve. While the immediate panic at the school was waning and rescue efforts were coming together, the man pulled up in an explosive and shrapnel-laden pickup truck and blew it up with himself inside, four more people were killed. Later, 500 pounds of unexploded bombs were found in the south end of the school. 

1948

Israel is declared to be an independent state and a provisional government is established. Immediately after the declaration, Israel is attacked by the neighboring Arab states, triggering the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. That was a long time ago. Let’s check in and see how it is today…

SFX

Huh. Well, some things never change.

1955

Cold War: Eight communist bloc countries, including the Soviet Union, sign a mutual defense treaty called the Warsaw Pact. That agreement ended in the early 1990’s when the Soviet Union dissolved into separate countries. Russia, and the tyrant Putin, are trying to put the pieces back together.

Phone and email liner

What if I told you a woman was fired from her government job because she posted a photo of herself on social media posing with a rifle? I’m gonna go out on a limb here are take a couple guesses. If you’re a conservative, you might protest. “The Second Amendment states that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed!” You might call it a travesty; government overreach. It’s only a photograph of a woman with a gun.

If you’re a liberal, you might say she got what she deserved. Guns should be outlawed! Stop promoting violence! We don’t need people like that being paid with taxpayer money! If she tried to defend herself, she’d be shouted down by the lunatic fringe.

Well, it happened. A 36-year old from Colorado who worked for the Forest Service as an archaeologist was let go by a teary-eyed supervisor on orders from Washington, D.C. Although she’d worked for the government since 2016, having recently begun her current assignment, she was still in her probationary status, so there’s not much she can do about it. It is the government, after all. They seem to have the final say in everything. She told Christopher Wiggins, who wrote a story about it, “I do believe that it is a violation of my First and Second Amendment rights because I worked for a government entity, and this is the government restricting my speech and my right to own a firearm.” Now, I don’t entirely agree with that statement. Clearly, there’s no violation of the Second Amendment, as the weapon in the photograph was legally purchased, therefore displaying that the right was not infringed. As for the First Amendment, her post, as a form of free speech, was cited in the letter explaining the termination of employment. The letter was shared with the author of the story. It says, “I find your post inappropriate because it included you with a gun and implying you would use it under a certain circumstance. While I understand you said you made this in response to death threats, this type of post is not appropriate under any circumstance. More aggravating, you were identified as a Forest Service employee, and this does not demonstrate the elevated ethical standards you are required to adhere to as a federal employee,”

So it wasn’t the picture of her with the gun that got her fired, it was the accompanying words. Just the photograph alone wasn’t enough, but it was a contributing factor. Well, now we’re talking words, which if I recall are the bedrock of speech. Not cartoons, not photographs, but words are what make speech. So did this 36-year-old say something so horrendous that the government found it necessary to set them free? What could be said that isn’t protected speech? Well, the answer is threatening violence, especially when you’re holding a rifle in the picture. Now, you might say, “Bob, who was being threatened?” Does it matter? Does it matter who? 

The question should be under what circumstance did they say they would use the weapon in the picture? The caption with the picture indicated they would use the weapon to defend themselves against a particular group of people if they came for her. She was demonstrating her right to bear arms and her exercising of that right and outlining the parameters under which she would use the weapon. 

If your a gun advocate or a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, you’re by now appalled by what’s happened to this person who posed with a gun. Losing their job. That’s the Biden administration for you. Always trying to appeal to the woke mob. Those on the left might rejoice. Finally, those gun-loving radicals are starting to get their comeuppance. Make ‘em choose between their guns and their jobs!

So, is it right? When the government decides that a statement you made on social media is a threat, and fires you from your job?

You have your mind made up about this one, don’t you? Whether you’re on the left or the right, you’ll probably agree that I’ve summed up where you fall on the subject. It may be more or less extreme than what I described, but I’m painting with a very wide brush here. There’s no convincing you you’re incorrect. Open and shut case.

Now allow me to add a little more context. The story was an article in the Advocate. The 36-year-old woman is described as transgender. I’m assuming that means a person who was a man. The caption accompanying the photograph of the subject with an AR-15 style rifle, as if that makes a difference,that was posted to social media said, “While advocating for trans people to ‘arm ourselves’ is not any kind of solution to the genocide we are facing, I do want to say that if any of you transphobes try to come for me, I am taking a few of you with me.” 

Does any of that context make you feel different from how you felt before? You may pause the program here if you need a little more time to think about that. I’m just gonna pick up where I left off. Does transgenderism change any of the ways in which laws and regulations are enforced? Why did the decision to let go of this person go all the way to Washington? Is the reason given in the letter the real reason for the firing? Is it because a transsexual with a gun doesn’t fit the image the left is trying to sanitize right now? While the author of the story weaves examples of how it’s all the fault of “right-wing trolls”

“I’ve been fired from my job with the Forest Service because of the lies published by the Daily Mail, Newsweek, and other right-wing tabloids,” she said. 

I didn’t know Newsweek was right-wing, and I definitely know it’s not a tabloid. But anyway, she continues, “But more poignantly: I was fired by the Biden administration for being a trans woman that owns a gun.”

“When I say the Biden administration, I mean literally that,” she later wrote “My boss just called me, crying, to tell me that he did everything he could to stop this outcome, but the call to fire me came directly from Washington. So someone fairly high in the Department of Agriculture fired me.”

So, is the Biden administration transphobic? Well, the trans community certainly can’t use that argument. That’s why the Advocate tried so desperately to find a way to blame conservatives. The best they could do was point out that conservatives brought attention to the post. Conservatives didn’t create it. Only one did. It seems to me that this trans person got fired for being too conservative! Owning a gun and telling you they’re not afraid to use it! Well, that doesn’t fit within the boundaries of what’s acceptable representation of the trans community. At least according to the Biden administration. While many on the left may be wringing their hands wondering where to fall in line, the right relishes in the sight of woke mentality eating its own. 

The Listening Tube is written and produced by yours truly. Copyright 2023. Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube. Subscribe today. I’m your host, Bob Woodley for thou ad infinitum.