Season 6, Episode 13 October 29, 2023

On this episode, we'll hear about the weather, Papal Infallibility, the Balfour Declaration, a record heat wave, Lady Chatterly's Lover, and political pawns.  Not the Headlines tells a story about a story, and the Epilogue examines a survey about white supremacy.

Transcript

Hello!  Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube!  I’m your host, Bob Woodley.  Please go about your business.  I’ll just keep talking.  On this episode, we’ll hear about Papal Infallibility, Iran-Contra, and a white supremacy survey...but first, (Not the Headlines!)…

One of the stories floating around the internet this week is a story about a house near Atlanta, Georgia, in the United States, being torn down.  It was a long-time family home, and it seems it was torn down by mistake.  An Associate Press photo shows nothing but a pile of lumber exists where the home once stood.  My first thought was, “What happened to all the stuff that was in the house?”  I presumed the house was occupied at the time because of the headline to the story.  “Woman returns from vacation to find Atlanta home demolished” is a headline that can certainly catch your eye.  And, well, that’s what headlines are supposed to do.  But this headline leads you to believe that somebody came home to find their house demolished.  The place where they thought they would be sleeping tonight, the place where they had all of their pictures and furniture and personal effects, the place where they had food in the pantry and a laundry room that would soon be put to good use with the laundry that often accompanies those of us just getting home from vacation.  The headline would lead you to believe it was all gone.  As if somebody pulled into their driveway only to discover a disaster.  What a nightmare that would be for anyone who owns a home, or rents a home where all of their stuff is kept.  What a terrible thing that would be to happen to anyone.  The headline certainly conveys the heartbreak one might experience if such a thing were to happen.  But that’s not what happened.  It’s true, the house was torn down.  It’s true it was torn down by accident.  It’s true there was nothing left but a pile of lumber when all was said and done.  
What you learn if you read the story is that the house was vacant.  It had been boarded up for 15 years.  There were no personal effects inside.  There was no refrigerator with food, nor closets with clothes.  The woman who owned it didn’t live there.  Despite being boarded up, the property was maintained, the grass was mowed, taxes were paid.  Tearing down the house was a mistake, there’s no doubt about it.  The company that tore it down hasn’t yet offered a statement.  No surprise there.  The demolition company is probably busy consulting with lawyers, trying to come up with some way to avoid responsibility.  IT’s a shame that it happened, because it was a family home from way back, and the woman who owned it had a lot of emotional attachment to it.  I get it.
But that’s not why I’m talking about this story.  I’m talking about this story because of the way it was written.  It was written by a reporter for the Associated Press.  Once my most trusted source of news.  The Associated Press literally writes the rules for reporters.  At least they did.  It was called the AP Style Guide, and it was everything a reporter needed to know to do the job correctly.  I might still have one somewhere.  It was the reporter’s bible.  Full of definitions, explanations and hundreds of entries about proper English and grammar and punctuation.  It had guidelines about social issues and politics and everyday common sense.  If you wanted any credibility as a reporter, you had to follow the AP Style Guide.  The AP Style Guide was the benchmark of responsible and trustworthy and accurate reporting.  When the dateline of a story said AP, you knew you could trust it.  Perhaps you still can, if you read the story.  I will point out that there is nothing inaccurate in the story about the house being torn down.  And yes, the woman who owned it was on vacation when it happened.  But this headline obviously wants you to think something happened differently than how it actually happened.  The headline wants you to think that a lost everything she had while she was away for a week.  They put the city, Atlanta, in the headline, hoping you’ll assume it was a black woman, thus eliciting more sympathy and insinuating racism might be involved.  With any luck, the Associate Press seems to hope the headline will conjure up a vision of a little old black lady who won a vacation from a local radio station came back to find her home destroyed by deep south white nationalists.
To the woman who owned the home, the situation sucks regardless.  Some company demolished a property she owned by mistake.  But that wasn’t enough of a story for the Associated Press.  They had to attach a headline that suggested something that wasn’t in order to get you to read a story about something that was.  The story has its own merit without being embellished by a misleading headline.  Plus, the headline is misleading in another way.  The headline suggests the woman returned home to find it demolished.  As we’ve already uncovered, the house wasn’t her home.  Nor did she return home to find it demolished, as if it was some sort of surprise.  A neighbor called the woman who owned the house to tell her it was being demolished.  So, she knew it had been demolished before she got there, despite what the headline would suggest.
This story sucks in so many ways.  It has become obvious that even the Associated Press has succumbed to the temptation of clickbait.  Truthful and responsible journalism has taken a back seat to sensationalism.  Even with what should be a rather innocuous story about an isolated incident, the Associated Press feels the need to violate it’s own former standards of responsible journalism.
I certainly hope that the woman who’s property was destroyed by mistake finds a just resolution.  While such a thing has never happened to me, I sympathize with the woman.  But I didn’t need the misleading headline to get me to learn more about it.  I actually read the story on another platform before I saw the AP headline.  So, it wasn’t the AP’s clickbait headline that first got my attention.  But the Associated Press didn’t think the story had enough merit on its own, so it felt compelled to add a misleading headline.  Here’s what the headline should have said, “Company accidentally tears down wrong building.”  The headline, “Woman returns from vacation to find Atlanta home demolished” is not only misleading, it’s kind of an outright lie.  I would expect more from the Associated Press I remember.
It’s no wonder Americans have less trust in today’s news media than ever.  When the people who set the standards for news reporting are compelled to resort to misleading headlines, then we all need to take a closer look at not just what we read, but how it’s written.  Every word you read may be true, but how those words are arranged often means more than the words themselves.  When an organization like the Associate Press starts playing games with those words, then we all need to become critics of the media.  There was a time when there were several media outlets that we could all trust.  Today, every news outlet has an agenda.  Every network.  ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox.  CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NewsMax, every one of them.  Some are more centrist than others, and that centrism can vary depending upon the current situation.  Just as my centrism varies depending upon the subject matter.

Let’s Go Back liner

1765
The British Parliament enacts the Stamp Act on the 13 colonies in order to help pay for British military operations in North America.  What the Stamp Act did was require all printed materials be made from a substrate that came from London and had an embossed revenue stamp.  Wikipedia says that it included all kinds of things.  Not just legal documents, but also newspapers and magazines;  even playing cards!  And all of it had to paid for with British currency.  Not surprising, the colonists didn’t like the idea at all, and argued that only colonial legislatures could levy a tax.  Chances are, you’ve heard the phrase, “Taxation without Representation.”  Well, this is where it started.  The phrase is still used by people who live in Washington, D.C., who have no voting member of congress.
The Stamp Act was never fully enforced, as the tax distributors were intimidated into resigning.  It was repealed less than six months later.  

1870
In the United States, the Weather Bureau makes its first official meteorological forecast.  At that time, it was a part of the War Department and operated by the U.S. Army Signal Service.  Twenty-four stations reported to the central office in Washington, D.C.  Since then, weather forcasting has become much more complicated.  We now have the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  Every television station has a weatherman or woman.  Every phone has a weather app.  The weather is an important part of our everyday lives.  As for the accuracy of weather forecasts, we have a lot of tolerance for our forecasters.  It is a complicated and indirect science.    

1917
The Balfour Declaration proclaims British support for the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” with the clear understanding “that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities”.  
When World War One ended in 1918, the Ottoman Empire gave up the territories of Palestine and Transjordan.  The League of Nations gave administration of the territories to the British.  The Balfour Declaration, along with the British Mandate for Palestine were in part responsible for the creation of Israel, and a main cause of the long-lasting conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians

This week in 1923 marks the first of 160 consecutive days of temperatures of at least 100 degrees Fahrenheit at Marble Bar, Australia.  Marble Bar baked for more than 5 months.  It’s a record that still stands a hundred years later.  Climate change!  Said nobody.   

1950
Pope Pius XII claims Papal Infallibility when he formally defines the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.  As it turns out, there’s nothing in the scripture about what happened to the mother of Jesus.  How did she die?  When did she die?  Did she die at all?  Not according to the Catholic Church, which says Mary was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.  No death needed.  In case you doubt that assessment, Papal Infallibility declares that the Pope is incapable of making a mistake when it comes to any doctrine on faith or morals.  As long as it’s an official part of the Pope’s job and it applies to all Roman Catholics.  It doesn’t mean the Pope can’t make a math mistake on his tax return, or miscalculate how much of a tip to give the to the guy who delivers pizza to the Vatican.  It’s really kind of an extension of your faith.  After all, it takes a lot of faith to be a religious person.  That might be why a growing number of people are finding easier to be pragmatic.  Oh, ye of little faith!  But with Papal Infallibility, you don’t need all that faith.  All you have to do is believe the Pope.

1960
Penguin Books is found not guilty of obscenity in the Lady Chatterley’s Lover case.  Just 65 years ago in London, the book Lady Chattterly’s Lover was alleged to be in violation of the recently passed Obscene Publications Act of 1959.  In order to be exonerated, Penguin had to show that its use of the f-word and variations of it, as well as another word sometimes use to describe a body part on a woman, had literary merit.  A jury of nine men and three women had to decide if the language in a book had literary merit.  Well, it was written down, so I think it passes the bar for literary.  As for merit...that’s totally subjective.  Prominent witnesses were questioned; literary experts and critics of what authors would write and how.  It was a public spectacle not unlike the Scopes Monkey Trial.  The press sensationalized the proceedings as 35 defense witnesses testified, as well as two for the prosecution.  The defense witnesses found a variety of ways to justify the use of the profanities and how not using them would diminish the descriptive qualities of the vision it was trying to create.
The prosecution may have lost the jury in it’s opening statement when the lead prosecutor asked the jury, "Would you approve of your young sons, young daughters—because girls can read as well as boys—reading this book? Is it a book you would have lying around your own house? Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?"
It seems the prosecutor wasn’t aware that most people didn’t have servants, and it was unlikely the three women jurors probably had wives.  In any case, the jury found the publisher not guilty, and the press gleefully pointed out how out of touch are the elite who were making these types of laws to begin with.
With the verdict came what the same elites described as the beginning of the “permissive society” in England.  The can of worms had been opened, and the law itself was rendered virtually unenforceable.   

1965
Vietnam War: Just miles from Da Nang, United States Marines repel an intense attack by wave after wave of Viet Cong forces, killing 56 guerrillas. Among the dead, a sketch of Marine positions is found on the body of a 13-year-old Vietnamese boy who sold drinks to the Marines the day before.  I spoke about how war effects children in last week’s episode.  I mentioned then that sometimes children become a part of the military.  I learned this when I was still a youngster, and my step-dad, Garry, told me about one of his experiences in the Vietnam war.  He was drafted after his first wife divorced him.  Became Combat Infantry.  He said local kids would often come into camp, offering services and refreshments.  But some of them had to be killed because of the role they accepted.  They didn’t always have something to offer.  Sometimes they would act as orphans in order to garner sympathy while working for the enemy.  It’s always a shame when children become involved in war, because no matter what happens, no matter who wins the war, the children of war, the children who participated in war, may not ever become accustomed to living in peace.  Some may even seek out war, because that’s all they know, and they know it all too well.

1966
The New Orleans Saints football team is founded.  I only mention this because it’s my wife’s favorite football team.  I should also point out that I made her choose a favorite football team before I would ask her to marry me.  So, her allegiance may not be absolute, seeing as it was made under duress.  At the time, she seemed excited about the subject, but her interest has certainly waned since then.  Wait...are we still talking about football?

1984
Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi is assassinated by two security guards. Boy, if you can’t trust your security guards, who can you trust?  Not to mention, by 1984, Indira Gandhi had already cemented herself as the most influential woman in the history of her nation.  She had more rings around her than anybody.  But because of her authorization of operation Blue Star, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians being killed who were of the Sikh faction of their religion, anyone in her security force who was Sikh was reassigned.  But the Prime Minister had a favorite, and he was one that had been removed from her protection.  He was reinstated at her request, and became one of her assassins.  Riots break out in New Delhi and nearly 10,000 Sikhs are killed, in addition to those who died prior to her assassination.
Without Indira Gandhi, India would not be where it is today.  While she seems to have earned her enemies, she’s certainly one of the most powerful women in world history.  Indira Gandhi made India a nuclear power, and showed the world time and time again that a woman can be a leader of men.

1986
Iran-Contra Affair: The Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa reports that the United States has been secretly selling weapons to Iran in order to secure the release of seven American hostages held by pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon.  I was fresh out of the Air Force when this whole pile of crap hit the fan.  I got a job at a radio station, and saw the news come down the Associate Press teletype machine while I was at work one night about some Marine named Oliver North.  I was confused as to how a low-ranking officer could facilitate such an operation, but then the correction came over the wire.  Early reports identified Oliver North as a Lieutenant, when his actual rank was Lieutenant Colonel.  In hindsight, that’s about the rank you would want for somebody to pull off this kind of operation.  Just enough credibility to get the job done, but low enough for the chain of command to break before Generals need to take responsibility.  
This was less than a decade after Iran took Americans hostage and kept them in captivity for 444 days.  American hostages are the most valuable hostages in the world.  Our government makes sure that is so.  That can be a detriment to America as a whole.  But if you are the hostage, then you might be glad the American government thinks that way.  But not every American hostage is treated the same.  A journalist in a Russian jail isn’t seen the same as a hostage of Hamas, yet both are political pawns, and neither has done anything to deserve their predicament.
The Iran-Contra Affair, as it’s called, showed us that even the political pawns have different values.  Not just hostages, but also Lieutenant Colonels. 

Phone and email liner

Sometimes I have to search for something to talk about on the program, and sometimes stuff just falls into my lap.  That’s what happened this week when I was invited to answer a survey by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  In case you’re not familiar with the organization, it was founded in the 1970’s with good intentions, sticking up for the disadvantaged in our nation’s court system.  They found ways the Constitutional rights of people were being violated and took action to put a stop to it.  They have many successes to their credit, and a long history of representing the oppressed and overlooked.  They’ve done a lot of good work over the decades.  When they were interested in my opinion, I was interested in what they wanted to ask me.  When I went to the survey, here’s what it said at the top, “HELP US FIGHT WHITE SUPREMACY.”  I’m not a fan of any kind of racial supremacy, but this is a survey specifically about white supremacy.  Well, I’m white, so maybe I can provide some valuable insight.  Besides, I’ve spoken about racism on this program a number of times, so I’ve already put some thought into it.  
The survey doesn’t get to the questions right away.  First, it sets the premise for the survey.  Or, in this case, tells you which answers they might be looking for.  The premise it sets is that white supremacy has gone mainstream in our nation.  Hmmm.  Are there any statistics to support that premise?  Without making any specific claims, the Southern Poverty Law Center claims to have the solution to white supremacy.  We still haven’t got to the first question of the survey, but I’m assured there’s only one thing that can stop white supremacy:  “Thousands of people of goodwill, from every corner of our country, joining together against hate, racism and inequity.”  So, we should all be against three things.  Let’s look at them one at a time.  Hate.  I agree that there should be no hate based on someone’s race, creed, skin color, social status, religion, or anything else that groups people together as a group that should be hated for whatever reason.  If you want to hate the non-profit medical company that charged you three times the national average for an MRI, then I get it.  So, I guess I’m against most hate, but not all of it.  
Racism.  All too often, racism is used in place of bigotry.  Racism, by definition, is simply dividing ourselves based on race.  We do that all the time.  Often, the first thing we observe about another person is the color of their skin.  That’s racism.  We’re constantly bombarded with racism when we’re told that someone who did something is a person of color.  Any time we’re told what skin color someone has, that’s racism.  There doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with pointing out the first black person to accomplish something.  But that’s racism.  Bigotry is when racism is weaponized with words or deeds.  That’s what we need to stop.  
Inequity.  The opposite is equity.  Equity is a pipe dream of the extreme left.  Equity is everybody ending up in the same place regardless of effort.  To strive for equity is to strive for all of us to end up at the lowest common denominator.  As of now, I only agree with one third of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s goals.  But I’m still willing to take the survey.  They assure me my answers will be kept confidential, so I’m free to speak my mind.  They just want to learn about any white supremacy in my neighborhood so they can paint a picture of the problem nationwide.  Which, by the way, is racist.  They ask for my name, email address and ZIP code.  Only my email address is required to be filled out.  Which means they don’t really care who I am or where I live.  The important thing is another email address to add to the list.  The good new is, I finally made it to the questions.  That’s where I discover you’re not even required to answer any of the questions.  The only thing on the questionnaire you are required to answer is your email address.  That kinda makes me wonder if they even care what I say.  Maybe they’re just fishing for email addresses to add to their list for fundraising purposes.  Either way, there are five questions.  This should be easy.  Let’s see what kind of questions they ask.  Here’s question one:   Do you agree with federal government officials who say that white supremacist extremists pose "the most lethal threat" among domestic terrorists in this country?  If I were to say that this is a complicated question, you might think, “Bob, it’s not a complicated question.  White supremacists are a threat!”  And I would agree with you.  But that’s not what the question asked.  Before I can answer this question, I have to know how many forms of domestic terrorism there are in order for me to conclude one of them to the be “the most lethal.”  But the question does single out white supremacist extremists, not just your run-of-the-mill white supremacists.  That does narrow the scope quite a bit, so maybe they are.  But that’s still not what they’re asking me.  They want to know if I agree with federal government officials who are making the claim that the extremists are a lethal threat.  So, they’re not really asking what you think, they only want to know if you agree with somebody else’s opinion.  They could have just asked if you think white supremacy extremism is the most lethal threat among domestic terrorists.  Oh, and for whomever wrote the question, “domestic terrorists in this country” is redundant.  By the way, the only acceptable answers are yes, no and not sure.
Question two:   Have you observed white supremacy or other hate group activity in your community?   This is really two questions.  Have you observed white supremacy activity in your community, and have you observed other hate group activity in your community.  The only acceptable answers are yes, no and not sure.  So, if you saw other hate group activity not involving white people, you would answer yes, but it would be counted as a white supremacy activity.  White people aren’t the only people who have hate groups.  This question counts all hate group activity as white hate group activity.  Additionally, the question is now more broad, as it doesn’t narrow the activity down to extremist activity like the first question did.  The barrier for giving a yes answer is lower.  
The third question also begs for a yes answer;    Do you think local law enforcement should do more to monitor and investigate white nationalist groups?  Let’s look past the law enforcement part of the question for a moment.  We’re no longer talking about extreme white supremacists or whatever other kind of white supremacists there might be.  Now the question uses the term white nationalist groups.  So, what exactly is a nationalist, and are they only white?

Look that up liner

Whatever dictionary my search engine took me to summed it up this way:  noun;  a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.  Synonyms include patriot, good citizen and statesperson.  These seem like good qualities, regardless of the color of your skin.  It makes me wonder why there aren’t all kinds of nationalist groups with people of all different skin colors.  I’m sure not only white people are good citizens.  Why is nationalism so frowned upon by the Southern Poverty Law Center that they want to know if you think law enforcement should keep a closer eye on it.  Not only keep a closer eye on it, but actively investigate groups that by definition, are patriotic statespersons.
Look, I know that not all so-called white nationalist groups are a bunch of folks who band together to pick up trash along the highway.  But this question suggests local law enforcement get involved in a federal matter.  It also suggests crimes are being committed.  In the United States of America, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  I shouldn’t have to remind the Southern Poverty Law Center.  It’s not against the law to be a nationalist, no matter what color your skin.
But question four assumes you agree that local law enforcement should violate the rights of patriotic Americans when it asks, “Do you think the federal government is doing enough to monitor and investigate white nationalist groups in the United States?  At least this question got the jurisdiction correct.  Civil rights violations, such as racial discrimination, are a federal matter.  But again, the question is asking the government to violate the civil rights of Americans.  Not only that, but the Southern Poverty Law Center is asking you if you think the federal government should be racist by only investigating white nationalists, and not any other kind of nationalists.  Personally, I’m surprised there aren’t more nationalists of all skin colors.  Especially in the United States of America, where all people of every skin color is free to pursue the American Dream.  The dream of self-determination and self government.  You don’t have to be white to be a nationalist.  It’s extremism of any kind we want to avoid.
The fifth question is so far out in left field that I considered not even including it in my analysis of the questionnaire.  It’s so strategically convoluted and misleading that I’m not even sure I can break it down without getting vertigo, but I’ll give it a whirl.  Pun intended.  Here’s the question:  Do you think members of Congress who cooperated with organizers of Jan. 6, 2021, coup and continue to spread hate and racism should be held accountable?  Well, the first part of the question we need to unravel is whether or not this was a coup.  Nobody was charged with a coup attempt, so the premise of this question is questionable.  Before you can determine if any Congressmen cooperated with the organizers of the alleged coup, you first have to determine who organized the rebellion.  Before you can do that, you have to decide if it was, in fact, organized.  Then you have to assume that members of congress who may have cooperated with someone who may have organized the event spread any hatred or racism and continue to do so.  You would think that if there were such congresspersons, the question could have named them, rather than relying on the respondent to be keeping track.  Ultimately, you’re asked if they should be held accountable for a coup that, according to the charges, never happened.  Most people call what happened on January 6, 2021 an insurrection.  None of the defendants have been charged with insurrection or attempting a coup.  So, for what should any congresspersons be held accountable?  The question is designed to make like-minded people answer yes.
To summarize, all of the questions on the questionnaire are leading questions.  Every question is designed to illicit the desired response from certain segments of society.  It’s those segments of society who are most likely to respond to the survey.  This isn’t by accident.  Polls like these don’t provide us with any valuable insight.  They are simply designed to create the desired results.  
Not long from now, the news will have the results of the poll via a press release.  The Southern Poverty Law Center will use the results of the poll to claim that white supremacy is spreading.  The poll will be used by the Southern Poverty Law Center to raise alarms and raise money.  The media will happily parrot the results of the so-called questionnaire on white supremacy without closely examining the questions themselves, as we’ve done here.  Millions of people will arrive at conclusions based on what the press tells them about the results of the questionnaire.  You and I will know better.
Is white supremacy a problem in America?  Yes, it is.  But this racist questionnaire from the Southern Poverty Law Center does nothing to shed light on it.  It’s only meant to exaggerate it for political and fund-raising purposes.
If the Southern Poverty Law Center wants to battle racism, they might make more of a positive impact by focusing on the college students who are currently protesting in favor of Hamas terrorists.  Sadly, they don’t seem to recognize racism unless black people are the victims.  

The Listening Tube is written and produced by yours truly.  Copyright 2023.  Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube.  Subscribe today.  This is the last episode of season six.  I’ll be taking a short break before I return with Episode 1 of Season 7.  Until then, I’m your host, Bob Woodley for thou ad infinitum.