Hello! Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube! I’m your host, Bob Woodley. It is not true that it was me who underwrote Donald Trump’s 175-million dollar bond. That’s double what I have layin’ around! On this episode, we’ll hear about the surrender of General Lee, inflation measures during 1940’s and the Chicago Eight. I’ll have a chat with a man who’s experience at Camp David led to a book about creating peace in the middle east. But first, (Not the Headlines!)…
Just in case climate change isn’t obvious and painful enough, several states, including Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Vermont are looking at ways to make sure it is. A story by Lisa Rathke for the AP https://www.yahoo.com/news/vermont-advances-bill-requiring-fossil-223448361.html says Vermont is leading the way with legislation that will create a fund to pay for damage caused by climate change. But unlike most funds, the Vermont Legislature isn’t just going to pull the money out of thin air and charge the taxpayers. No, this fund will be supplied with money from oil companies.
I must admit, this legislation is a head-scratcher in a variety of ways. My first question is, how do you prove damage was caused by climate change? My second question is, how do you prove the oil companies caused the climate change? Did they cause a hundred percent of it? If not, what percentage of it did they cause? And, how long will it be before those of us who drive internal combustion engine vehicles are expected to contribute to such a fund as well?
Certainly, the oil companies aren’t going to accept responsibility without a fight. Vermont knows it. And the oil companies have a bigger legal budget than does the state of Vermont. Nevertheless, the Vermont bill will require a report by the middle of January in 2026, estimating the cost of greenhouse gasses to the state going all the way back to the beginning of 1995. So the treasurer of Vermont along with the Agency of Natural Resources is going to add up 30 years worth of alleged damage from floods, downed power lines, ruined crops and anything else that would normally be classified as “natural” or “acts of God” but is now considered “climate change.” More specifically, climate change caused by greenhouse gasses as the result of burning fossil fuels.
Here’s an idea...why don’t we send a terminator back to 1872 and prevent George Braton from creating a feasible liquid-fueled engine? Yes, of course that’s a crazy idea. Someone else would have invented one sooner or later. But that’s the point. We can’t go back and undo what’s done. Sure, we can try to mitigate it, reduce it moving forward. But charging the oil companies for 30 years worth of whatever Vermont can find to blame on them is absurd. It’s like blaming the diaper company for what fills up the diaper. Oil companies have provided the fuel that’s given us so much. The industrial revolution, the freedom of transport. From motorcycles to jetliners, the petroleum companies have made us mobile beyond the wildest dreams of people just a hundred years ago. Big oil has powered our dreams and aspirations, entertained us with auto races and broadened our horizons with the power to get in a car and drive. I’ve driven across America at least a half dozen times. It’s a wonderful experience, even if your car breaks down just after you pass a billboard in Utah that says, “For the next 108 miles there is nothing but desert and you.” Yea. Good times. What the government of Vermont may not realize is that a thousand years ago, Utah was as green as Vermont. Sure, it’s desert now, but that’s because of climate change. You can blame the oil companies for climate change, but making them pay for providing the fuel to power America and make it the greatest nation on Earth is unfair. The governor of Vermont agrees, but the Legislature has a veto-proof majority of democrats. The other states considering such policy are Democrat-led.
I would caution the Democrat party against biting the hand that feeds you. On a related topic, the twenty dollar an hour minimum wage for fast-food workers in California went into effect on April Fool’s day. It will be interesting to watch the devastating effect that will have on the people the raise was meant to help. As prices rise at all food establishments, jobs are eliminated for less-skilled workers, and more automation is employed instead of people, government will be shown to have overplayed its hand by trying to overrule the free market.
Luckily, there’s nothing government can do that can’t be undone (except executions, I guess). Anyway, the state of Oregon has had enough with its decriminalization of all drugs. Oregon, as you may know, is a fairly liberal place. They have the same “Don’t Tread on Me” attitude as those in Virginia. Just mind you own business and as long as you don’t hurt me, I won’t hurt you. Well, for many, drug use is a victimless crime. If I want to put mind-altering drugs in my body, that’s up to me. The government should just stay out of it. And back in 2020, almost 60 percent of voters approved measure 110, which made personal use of drugs, even cocaine and heroine, a mere ticketable offense. A hundred dollar fine, if the cop even bothered to write a ticket. It was better to tread drug addicts, not punish them. So, according to an AP story, https://www.yahoo.com/news/oregon-governor-signs-bill-recriminalizing-221811650.html the state was going to use cannabis tax money to treat people addicted to drugs. Oh, the irony! It’s funny how marijuana has historically been called a gateway drug, as if nicotine and alcohol don’t exist. But when it comes time to raise money for drug addiction, they tax the one intoxicant that really isn’t addictive.
But all that’s in the rearview mirror, now! According to the Associated Press, it failed because of implementation issues. They blamed Covid-19 for a slow start, and the more recent fentanyl crisis for it’s continued failure to get measure 110 off the ground. But is that reason enough to abandon the whole thing? Just because it’s taken longer to start doesn’t mean it won’t work, right? Why the sudden turn back to re-criminalization? The AP story doesn’t really say. For that I had to find an article from AFP, a French news source. The English translation describes “unabashed drug use on city streets, resulting in sometimes fatal overdoses on sidewalks and in parks.”
Public pressure caused the leftists to reverse course. Once again, mere possession of cocaine, heroine, and fentanyl can land you in the slammer for six months.
There are those who lament the last three plus years of the experiment. Treating drug addiction as a crime is wrong. But until 2020, in Oregon you had to break the law to get the drugs in the first place. Since 2020, Oregon has seen what the lack of a deterrent can leave in its wake. How many people started using drugs because there was no longer a law against it? How many people don’t use drugs because of the laws against it? It’s the same old story with decriminalization. When you try to reduce the number of criminals by removing laws, you inevitable get more people doing what used to be against the law. On paper, there’s less crime. In the real world, there’s more.
There is only one exception: marijuana. Decriminalizing cannabis hasn’t led to a surge in overdose deaths or people becoming homeless because of an insatiable desire for a high. Not only has the decriminalization of pot not led to widespread social illnesses, it’s been a boon for a whole new industry. It’s less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol. Many people today don’t even call marijuana a drug, but rather a natural supplement. Meanwhile, the Oregon experiment clearly shows what happens when the use of addictive and dangerous drugs are not regulated. Laws are meant to protect us, and that’s especially true for drug laws.
Now if we could just get the Food and Drug Administration to stop approving pharmaceuticals with side effects that include death.
Let’s go back liner
1865
American Civil War: Robert E. Lee surrenders the Army of Northern Virginia (26,765 troops) to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia, effectively ending the war. Or so you would think. The Civil War lives on in the hearts and minds of many. There are many people today who still fly the stars and bars of the Confederacy. They somehow get some kind of inner glory, holding on to a past that will never return. They call it heritage. Others call it bigotry. One thing’s for sure. The war isn’t over. My wife and I were in Virginia for Easter weekend and we stopped for lunch at a place that had a souvenir shop next to it. After lunch, we went in to take a look around. The place was a mix of Union and Confederate memorabilia. Even rusted pieces of belt buckle assumed to be from a soldier’s uniform. Uniform replicas, hats, flags, patches, toy soldiers, swords...from refrigerator magnets on up. Representing both the north and the south. Behind the counter was a lady who looked like she may have been working there for the past 40 years. I looked at her and said, “The war never ends for you, does it?” She gave me a little bit of a smile as if she’d been waiting for someone to ask that very question. “When people come in here,” she said, “they fight about everything.”
1943
U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in an attempt to check inflation, freezes wages and prices, prohibits workers from changing jobs unless the war effort would be aided thereby, and bars rate increases by common carriers and public utilities. Today, the Biden administration is reluctant to admit inflation exists, first calling it “transitory” then claiming “inflation is down” without acknowledging that it’s still high. The Wall Street Journal recently said a bag of groceries that cost 100 dollars in 2019 now costs 136.50.
1969
The “Chicago Eight” plead not guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to incite a riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois. There were riots at the convention. The Democratic National Convention is in Chicago again this year. So, what led to the riots in 1968?
Look that up liner
The eight defendants were responsible for organizing protest marches and rock concerts, according to history dot com. I’ve been to plenty of rock concerts, and none of them erupted into political violence, and not all protest marches lead to violence, either. At some point, though, clashes began between people. The police responded. When riots occur, somebody has to be held responsible. So it was the leaders and organizers who were charged. The leaders, who’s names most of us no longer recognize, were counter-culture anti war protesters. This was the height of the Vietnam War. Martin Luther King was just assassinated. To these demonstrators, the Democrat party wasn’t far enough to the left.
Now we’re in 2024, and the Democratic National Convention is in Chicago. The extreme left is once again trying to pull the party even further. Protest votes by progressives against the current administration because of policy issues have exceeded organizer’s expectations. The war in Gaza has put President Biden in a tough spot, trying to uphold America’s commitment to Israel and somehow pacifying the radical left. The Democrat party seems to have found itself in a similar situation to 1969, but this time, the protesters are within the elected members.
Phone and email liner
Last week I had a chat with a man named Gidi Grinstein (as in beer stein) who, 24 years ago was a part of the Israeli team of negotiators attempting to create peace agreements with Palestinian leaders. While those meetings didn’t result in any agreements, the experience has led Gidi to share his viewpoint on how future negotiations might bear fruit with a book called (IN)SIGHTS Peacemaking in the Oslo Process Thirty Years and Counting. Gidi has extensive knowledge and yes, insight on the continuing search for peace between Israeli’s and Palestinians…
Interview….
You can find Gidi’s books at gidi grinstein dot net. Thank you, Gidi!
The Listening Tube is written and produced by yours truly. Copyright 2024. Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube! Subscribe today. I’m your host, Bob Woodley for thou ad infinitum.