Season 9, Episode One July 7, 2024

SPEAKER_03 0:02

This is the Listening Tube.

SPEAKER_00 0:07

Hello. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. Now in its ninth season, more than 100 episodes, and so far downloaded in 43 countries and almost 400 cities. A special thank you to my supporters and all who listen regularly. On this episode, we'll hear about news sources, a mega tsunami, and record inflation. Plus, we'll explore the question: are you better off today than you were four years ago?

SPEAKER_03 0:39

But first, not the headlines.

SPEAKER_00 0:43

We all know that the Biden administration is doing all it can think of to reduce inflation and stimulate the economy. While the stock market seems to be doing well, the consensus is that everything is more expensive and there's no relief in sight. The target of 2% inflation by the Federal Reserve has never been met. The Democrats will tell you that inflation is under control thanks to Joe Biden. The reality is that prices continue to climb. According to the Heritage.com website, the price of peanut butter is up almost 41% from January of 2021. Eggs are up 40%, bread 39%, gasoline up 40%, and automobile insurance is up a staggering 51.5%. The result of that last statistic has led to people not maintaining their cars, costing even more in the long run, helping to drive up credit card debt to historic levels. By now you might be thinking, but Bob, we already know all this. Sorry, I was just setting the stage for the actual story, which is that even rich people are feeling the sting of inflation. A story on Simplicodes.com cites a survey that shows 60% of us use coupons when shopping. But households with incomes over $125,000 a year are more likely to actively hunt down discounts when shopping online. Not just by a little bit either. 89% of people surveyed who make more than $175,000 up to $200,000 a year actively search for and use promo codes when they buy stuff. By comparison, only 53% of households that earn between $10,000 and $25,000 a year also search for discounts. And the main reason for doing it is inflation and the cost of living. The survey showed very little difference between age groups, suggesting that inflation is a problem for all types of people and most income levels. But the younger you are, the more likely you are to make a purchase simply because you have a coupon. The bottom line is that even though you might have a healthy and wealthy income, today's inflation is presenting significant challenges. And people with lower incomes don't seem to be taking advantage of available opportunities to save money. That adds to the disparity between the haves and the have nots. Certainly, inflation has different effects on different people. Perhaps the greatest equalizer among mankind is disease. Unlike money, it can be found anywhere, even when you least expect it, despite cautionary measures and standard operating procedures. That's why rich and poor alike were compelled to wear protective masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether or not you believed they worked, you were often required to be wearing one to simply enter a building. Without a mask, you couldn't shop for groceries, ride a bus, or report to work. Masks became a fashion statement as well as a protective accessory. Many people found advantages to wearing them, while other people hated them. For those who benefit from wearing a mask, like people who are susceptible to disease, the pandemic made it more acceptable to do so, as it wasn't an accepted practice in America like it was in Tokyo, even before the pandemic. But after the pandemic, people were quick to dispose of the masks and go back to showing their smiles. If you ask me, the greatest damage to society brought by the mask mandate was the elimination of seeing each other smile. Sharing a smile with someone, be they a family member or complete stranger, brings a happiness to our lives that was missing during COVID. The end of the mask mandate should make us happier for that reason alone. There are those of us, though, who still find a use for wearing a mask post-pandemic, those with medical conditions, as I mentioned earlier, and those who don't want their identity revealed. So, what could be a reason you don't want your identity revealed? Well, two spring to mind, you're about to break the law, or you're going to do something you might regret later, something for which you don't want to be associated at a later date. Look, I know COVID-19 infections are still with us, and they probably will be forever. But nobody is wearing a mask to avoid an infection, and law enforcement is tired of not being able to identify people who are breaking the law because of masks. That's why laws are being introduced in several places to prohibit masks in public unless you have a medical need for one. Masks are always worn during organized mass theft in department and convenience stores. Masks are often used by the group supporting Hamas in college campus protests. Not just masks, but ones with specific colors and symbols. In Ohio, there was no need to introduce new laws, as old laws designed to inhibit the actions of the Ku Klux Klan were already in place. Turns out the bigots in the KKK are the same as bigots on college campuses in the eyes of the law. Ohio law prohibits two or more people wearing white caps, masks, or other disguise be together. So every person who protested while wearing a mask in Ohio is subject to a felony. The state's attorney general was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, In our society there are few more significant career wreckers than a felony charge. I write to you today to inform your student bodies of an Ohio law that, in the context of some behavior during the recent pro-Palestinian protests, could have that effect. That law was put in place in 1953. More recently, the state of New York is also trying to find a way to deal with lawbreakers wearing masks. The governor is considering making it illegal to wear a mask in the subway system. North Carolina has already taken steps to eliminate mask wearing by protesters and lawbreakers. Chicago and Los Angeles are also working on a way to prohibit the wearing of masks while committing crimes, or in order to conceal your identity while doing so. You know, there was a time when I was a kid that only criminals wore masks, other than at Halloween. It was easy to identify a criminal because they'd be the only ones wearing a mask in public. Turns out that's still mostly true. I guess the bottom line is that if you're going to break the law, think twice about wearing a mask while you do it. When you're caught, it'll mean additional charges you'll have to try to get out of. If you're wearing a mask because you don't want to be identified at a protest, then you probably don't believe wholeheartedly in the cause to begin with. Maybe you should just stay home. In any case, it has become more important to protect ourselves from crime than to protect ourselves from a disease. Ironic that it was a disease that started the mask wearing in the first place, and now we have to prohibit it because the lawless among us use it as a tool to conceal their identities. Perhaps instead of a mask that covers everything but your eyes, we can get crooks to only wear the type of mask that covers the area around your eyes, but not your nose or mouth. Like the hamburglar or the riddler. That way, we'd be able to tell if you're a crook or just a peaceful protester who doesn't want his or her parents to see them on television. Or potential employers to be able to identify them. As it turns out, there's an app for that. One that identifies and explains the history of the person once they're identified. It's specifically for those who hide their identities because of their anti-Semitism, and it's called Canary Mission. A story in USA Today says their slogan is because the world should know. The website's been around for a decade, but became real popular since the Hamas attack on Israel. It seems to be very good at identifying pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas people. Those who don't try to hide their identities, like a certain member of the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as those who do by wearing masks while they push the legal limits of speech and action. As Americans, for those of you who are, we're free to promote a cause as long as we don't break any laws while doing it. If your cause is just, others will join in, and an idea will become a drive, and maybe someday a law. And if you believe in something so much, so passionately, that you're willing to put your heart and soul into it, that you're so proud of what you stand for that you've done all you can to make the idea a reality, then you should be able to do so without wearing a mask.

SPEAKER_03 11:12

You can hang your hat on that.

SPEAKER_00 11:15

Here's something from the Isn't that ironic file. The National Education Association, the giant teachers union that convinced the Biden administration to keep schools closed during COVID and investigate concerned parents as domestic terrorists, had to cut short their annual convention in Philadelphia because, of all things, a strike. Not just any strike, but a strike against the National Education Association. Turns out the administrative staff of the NAA is, of course, unionized. Well, according to a story by the Associated Press, the strike by the administrators of the NEA led to the cancellation of the last three days of a week-long convention, as well as the cancellation of a speech by President Biden, which was planned to cap off the convention. As you may know, President Biden is a supporter of unions and refused to cross the admins picket line to give the speech. In fact, members of the NEA itself wouldn't cross the picket lines either. So they just went back to their hotels and spent the day at the pool. So why did the administrative staff of the National Education Association go on strike? Two reasons. One, the NEA unilaterally removed holiday overtime pay, and two, failed to provide information on outsourcing fifty million dollars in contracts. I couldn't find any information about what the fifty million dollars in contracts were for. Another article on Edweek.org said the union was also displeased with an expired clause in the old contract that gave managers responsibility for how offices are assigned. I can see how that might stick in someone's craw. Additionally, wages, other working conditions, and discipline are all subjects of disagreement on a new contract. I just think it's funny how a labor union can eat its own. I come from a union family, but I've never been in a union myself. When you look back, a lot of what unions stood for in the beginning is now mandated by the government. Safety procedures, working hours, and compensation were all championed by unions, and we owe them a great debt for improving working conditions for millions of Americans still today. Unfortunately, the unions today, especially the teachers' unions, have run out of legitimate things to demand and find themselves seeking power instead of helping the members, or in this case, another union that helps them do the work that needs to be done. It reminds me of a snake swallowing its own tail. Although the National Education Association is the nation's largest teachers union, don't assume it's the one doing the swallowing. A group of about three hundred and fifty people brought the entire union to its knees and caused the President of the United States to stay away. The president could have sided with the giant union, but instead sided with the teeny tiny one. It makes me wonder if maybe he didn't want to go there in the first place. This week in 1850, U.S. President Zachary Taylor dies, and Millard Fillmore becomes the 13th President of the United States. President Taylor died from a brief illness, and nobody is quite sure what actually caused his death. On another topic, a lot of people tell me I sound just like Millard Fillmore. You tell me. Hi, I'm Millard Fillmore. I don't know, maybe you hear it, but I don't. This week in 1889, the first issue of the Wall Street Journal is published. It used to be all about stocks and bonds and investments, but now it's also about society and politics. In fact, the Wall Street Journal is owned by the same people who own Fox News. That's why Fox News often quotes stories from the Wall Street Journal when trying to provide legitimacy to a story. It's not too far-fetched to wonder if maybe Fox News tells the Wall Street Journal what to write a story about for the sole purpose of using it as a source. At the same time, one can also imagine CNN using a story from the New York Times for the same purpose. They just can't tell them what to write about. This week in 1913, Death Valley, California hits 134 degrees Fahrenheit. Or 56.7 degrees centigrade. The highest temperature recorded in the United States. But by the time we drove by the second time, hours later, the road had reopened. Walking out onto the dried earth, I found it covered in salt, which I could scoop up with one finger and taste. Two hundred and eighty-two feet below sea level is not only the lowest point on the American continent, but also the Western Hemisphere. The second lowest point on the continent has to be my backyard, which turns into a lake every time we get a healthy rainfall. This week in 1922, Johnny Weissmuller swims the 100 meters freestyle in 58.6 seconds, breaking the world swimming record and the minute barrier. Today, the record for the fastest 100 meter freestyle is 44.94 seconds, according to your swimlog.com. If the name Johnny Weissmiller rings a bell, and you're not a fan of swimming, it might be because Johnny Weissmiller was also the man who played the role of Tarzan in the early days of cinema. If you think 9% inflation is the best the US can do under the Biden administration, Hungary says hold my beer. Because it was this week in 1946 that Hungarian hyperinflation sets a record with inflation of 348.46% per day, or prices doubling every 11 hours. It's hard to imagine, but let's say you were planning on making Hungarian goulash for dinner three days from now. To buy the raw ingredients for it cost eight dollars. But then that evening it cost sixteen dollars, and the next morning it cost thirty-two dollars. The next morning the ingredients cost one hundred twenty eight dollars, and by the time you get to make it, the basic ingredients to make Hungarian goulash cost more than five hundred dollars. Hard to imagine, indeed, but not impossible. The United States has a budget deficit higher than ever before, with no real plan to pay it off. Part of the problem is our system of government. No politician wants to be responsible for the painful measures that will be needed to remedy the situation. So it gets kicked down the road. Someday the road will come up to meet us, like the Irish saying hopes. But from behind, which is more often associated with Greece, not Ireland. This week in 1958, Latoya Bay is hit by a mega tsunami. The wave is recorded at 524 meters high, or just over 1700 feet, the largest in recorded history. Latoya Bay is in the southern part of Alaska, and the tsunami was caused by a 7.8 magnitude earthquake. Reports say it was heard over 50 miles away. But it wasn't the readjustment of tectonic plates that ultimately caused the tsunami. It was a rock fall of over thirty million cubic tons of rock falling several hundred meters into Gilbert Inlet. It was then when meteorologists began to study the effects of falling rock and ice into bodies of water. Because the area was so remote, only five people were killed by the wave's effects. Wikipedia recalls that a man and his seven-year-old son aboard a fishing boat were swept hundreds of feet into the air by the swelling water, surviving with minimal injuries. A man named Bill Swanson gave a harrowing account of what he and his wife saw from their fishing boat. Some found it hard to believe that Mother Nature could create such a vision. People shake their heads when I tell them what I saw that night, he said. I can't help it if they don't believe me. I know the glacier is hidden by the point when you're in the Anchorage Cove, but I know what I saw that night too. The glacier had risen in the air and moved forward so it was in sight. It must have risen several hundred feet. I don't mean it was just hanging in the air. It seems to be solid, but it was jumping and shaking like crazy. Big chunks of ice were falling off the face of it and down into the water. That was six miles away and they still looked like big chunks. They came off the ground. Glacier like a big load of rocks spilling out of a dump truck. That went on for a little while. It's hard to tell just how long. And then suddenly the glacier dropped back out of sight, and there was a big wall of water going over the point. The wave started for us right after that, and I was too busy to tell what else was happening up there. Climate change, said nobody. Because earthquakes aren't caused by climate change. This week in 1960, Francis Gary Powers is charged with espionage resulting from his flight over the Soviet Union. His U-2 spy plane was shot down over the Soviet Union, giving the Russians a valuable political tool to be used for propaganda. The USSR made a spectacle out of powers, parading him on television. His capture left America red-faced. No pun intended. Fortunately, the SR-71 was in the works. The skunk works, to be more precise. The top secret SR-71 Blackbird flew so fast that by the time an enemy got a blip on their radar, the plane was already gone. And because it was so fast, it had to keep track of where it was by the stars, not by what was below it. Today, satellites do the job of spy planes, able to zero in on anywhere we want them to look with clarity.

SPEAKER_03 23:34

The 21st century.

SPEAKER_00 23:50

So from where it was when we first saw it, it took 165 years to get back to that spot in the solar system. I wonder how they keep track of birthdays on Neptune. Maybe it's a fraction. Relative to Earth years, I think on Neptune my age would be 0.375. You can do the math yourself.

SPEAKER_03 24:16

The listening tube will return at the speed of sound.com.

SPEAKER_00 24:34

One of the questions you might be asked when deciding who to vote for this November is: are you better off now than you were four years ago? The premise being that if you aren't, you shouldn't vote for the incumbent. Obviously, a change is needed as the status quo hasn't been beneficial to you. The question also assumes your success and happiness are somehow directly connected to the executive and legislative branches of the government. For many of us, that's true. If you depend on social programs, then one style of government might work better for you. Ideally, your survival will only depend upon your effort and not have a reliance on the mechanisms of governance. If that's the case, then how much better or worse off you are may not be the result of an election. So if you are better off now than you were four years ago, do you automatically support the current administration? If you're not, do you automatically vote for change? How do you determine whether or not you're better off? Are you making more money? Did you move into a bigger house? Did you buy a brand new car? Did you fall in love? Did your podcast start making money? Did any of that have to do with the policies of the current administration? Certainly, economic health is often altered by government policy, so it may have a secondary effect on your success and happiness. Some occupations are recession proof and some are not. If you're a salesman, economic conditions may alter the needs of your clients. If you're a fortune teller, people might not be able to afford to find out what their futures hold. On the other hand, people might be more willing to invest in having their fortunes told in order to help them decide what to do next. You know, keep living or not. Realistically, most of us should be better off than we were four years ago, if not professionally, at least personally. With every day that goes by, we should be growing and learning, getting more experience and wisdom. Maybe you didn't get a raise, but you learned how to be a better person. If you haven't learned anything in four years, then it doesn't have anything to do with who's president. You're just not trying. The answer to the question, are you better off now than you were four years ago, is relative at the very least. It reminds me of a one panel comic I saw in a newspaper a long time ago. It was a drawing of two cavemen sitting by a campfire with meat on a stick. One of the cavemen said to the other, It doesn't get any better than this. And Mr. Caveman was right. His perception and reality were aligned, and he was totally satisfied with where he was in the world at that moment. There was nothing there to spoil it, and there was nothing needed to improve it. Over the next four years, our caveman may have been able to stock food, build shelters, and meet women. His life had improved considerably, but that one moment will be his vision of perfect, sitting by the fire with food and peace. In much the same way the caveman looks back with fondness, modern man often laments the good old days when things were a little simpler. Advances in technology are almost always considered to be improvements to our lives. Artificial intelligence seems to have us a little apprehensive, but so many people have already learned how to use it that there's no way to put that genie back in the bottle. Other than that, everything is an improvement on what we had. While what we want is what we had, but we accept the new despite our preference for the old. Otherwise we get left behind. As it stands alone, the question are you better off now than you were four years ago isn't a bad question. We should always take a moment to do a self-evaluation every once in a while. But the question is almost always asked in relation to politics. It's a gentler way of saying it's the economy, stupid. The person asking the question doesn't care about your personal growth, they just want to know if you're better off financially. It's like if you quit smoking cigarettes, you'll be healthier and you'll save a lot of money. Which is more important to you? Here's how the different factions of the government look at it. Statistically, you have more money in your pocket, which benefits the party in power. But what if it was because of a program initiated by the other political power that made it possible for you to get the prescription you needed to quit smoking cigarettes? Your health improves and you spend less on medical bills. You can now afford a premium whiskey instead of second-tier diet beer. Now because of you, the man at the beer store isn't selling as much as he did. That makes him worse off than he was when you drank beer. He blames his sales loss on the economic climate created by the current federal administration. He has no idea you quit smoking, and that's why you don't buy beer anymore. The answer to the question, are you better off now than you were four years ago? has so many variables that it's really hard to justify using the answer as a consideration factor in the voting booth. It's a flawed question to begin with, but there's a better reason to disregard it. The question itself is too personal. Since when is the state of my affairs the deciding factor of how I vote? If we all voted only for those who promised to help us personally, we'd never get anything done. The government wasn't designed to make us happy. It was designed to allow us to seek happiness. If your happiness is dependent upon the administration in power, then you might be highly qualified to answer the question, but as for the rest of us, it shouldn't matter. We should be voting for the people who will do their best for the entire country, not just you or me. Too many politicians make promises to special interest groups, hoping to build a coalition large enough to win an election. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left on the sidelines paying taxes and keeping to ourselves, not demanding any special favors or attention to a cause. The everyday American knows if he's better off now than he was four years ago, and knows how much the government had to do with it. But I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of people who don't vote for any particular candidate because they think it will benefit them personally, but because they think that candidate will be good for the country. They don't want to be asked if they're better off now than they were four years ago. They want to be asked if the country is better off than it was four years ago. That's a much better consideration to keep in mind than some promised personal benefit. Take student loans, for example. You might vote for Joe Biden in the hope that he'll cancel your college debt. That might benefit your personal finances, but is it good for the country? Maybe you think it is. It might be, depending upon how that newfound wealth is spent. But maybe student loan forgiveness will only add to the national debt and promote inflation. Tuition rates will surely go up, as the colleges and universities now have no incentive to control costs as long as the taxpayers are footing the bill. Or maybe student borrowers put that money into savings or investments that drive the economy in the right direction. In any case, the Supreme Court struck down Biden's first try, and he's had to use backdoor methods to try to keep his promise. Litigation is still pending on what can and cannot be done to relieve student debt. Maybe you are better off than you were four years ago. Maybe you experience those it doesn't get any better than this moments more often than you did before. I, for one, am happy for you. I'm sure you deserve it. The question being asked is if you are better off, should the government get credit for it? If you're worse off, how much of it is the government's fault? Look, we all want to have more of those it doesn't get any better than this moments. And we will, because we're human and we're capable of appreciating the little things, like a campfire and meat on a stick. We're also capable of great heights, and when we believe in ourselves, there's nothing the American government can do to stop us as long as it's legal. We don't need the government to keep us happy. We'll always be better off than we were four years ago in some way, even if we're not in other ways. That's why it shouldn't have anything to do with the way you vote. There are more important reasons to vote than how it might affect you personally. After all, together we are a country, but the more we divide ourselves, the less of a country we are. I'm not asking you to relinquish your individuality. I'm suggesting you use it for a common good rather than a personal reward.

SPEAKER_01 34:52

When that scapes lose it, all security comes through the wall. Future dreams we have to realize. A thousand skepticums won't keep us from the things we play. Uh we're clinging to the things we prize.

SPEAKER_00 35:43

I'm your host, Bob Woodley, for Thou Ad Infinitum.

SPEAKER_01 35:52

Get to sixty and do no regret. It may take a little time, but lonely path of not helping. Success or failure will not alter it. And the game is a good one.