Season 11, Episode 12 June 1, 2025

Now heard in 777 cities around the world! On this episode, we’ll hear about a Pontiac that drove from Detroit to Pittsburgh, the power of radio, and spies.  Not the Headlines will examine stories written by the Pew Research Center.

https://pdcn.co/e/www.buzzsprout.com/1940478/episodes/17260813-season-11-episode-12-june-1-2025.mp3?download=true

https://thelisteningtube.buzzsprout.com

Transcript

Hello! Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube! I’m your host, Bob Woodley. (Trump insert). Now heard in 777 cities around the world! On this episode, we’ll hear about a Pontiac that drove from Detroit to Pittsburgh, the power of radio, and spies….but first (Not the Headlines!)

You’ve probably heard of the Pew Research Center. They do a lot of surveys and studies to try to get a handle on how people feel about things in our everyday lives. Work, fun, money, social issues and more are studied by asking a group of people, who are supposed to represent the rest of us, specific questions designed to paint a picture of how we feel. Most questions are multiple choice, with options like, “Less than before” or “more than before” or “about the same.” Other questions might ask you to rate your situation with descriptions like “very” “somewhat” or “not at all.” Then they take all the answers they got from the participants and try to come to some conclusions about what they mean, then extrapolate that onto the whole population.

The research sheds light on how we feel about a whole host of subjects, and the Pew Research Center puts in a lot of work to get the data. The great thing about data is that you can put faith in it. Assuming it’s not manipulated and was compiled in a way that was meant to be objective. So when the Pew Research Center tells us that 43 percent of Americans feel a certain way about a certain subject, you should be able to believe it. After all, math doesn’t lie, and if that’s what the people are telling the data collectors, then it’s probably a pretty accurate snapshot of the current sentiment.

But not everybody is good at reading charts and analyzing numbers. Luckily, the Pew Research Center has people who will interpret the data for us, and they even write stories about the data to help us understand it more clearly. They’re called “Short Reads” and you can find them on the Pew Center’s website. There’s a bunch of them on a variety of topics.

Because Pew Research is described as a non-partisan organization, you might assume that the stories they write are as literal as the math used to compile the results. At least you would hope they are. 

But just as data can be dry and lack any emotion, the subjects Pew Research selects to pursue isn’t as analytical as the data they provide. For example, a Short Read published May 7th has the results of a survey asking people about how they see their finances a year from now. Even though the survey was taken a month earlier than the publication of the story. Which means the survey began less than a week after the Trump tariff plan was announced. When people were uncertain about the plan and the stock market was jumping all around and countries around the world were trying to figure out what to do next. That seems like the perfect time to take such a survey if you want the results to be negative. So, were the results negative? You would think so if you only read the headline of the story, which proclaims, “Growing share of U.S. adults say their personal finances will be worse a year from now.” The story begins by pointing out that most people are about where they were last year, and those numbers have been stable. Then it goes on to say that what’s different now is that 28 percent of people expect their financial situation to worse a year from now, compared to only 16 percent of respondents a year ago. In May. In case you didn’t catch that, they’re comparing what people said last May to what they said this April, not May. If they had waited until May to ask the questions, they would have got very different answers. Maybe they anticipated that, so they took the survey just as the president unveiled his plan to reshape the world’s economy in favor of the United States, knowing that the upheaval would be unsettling to many people at the outset, without giving the strategy a chance to work. It was the timing of the data collection that justified Pew to write a negative story to manipulate the public sentiment. They didn’t release the story until May because they were comparing the results to last May, even though this year’s data was collected in April. They took advantage of the situation to get the results they wanted, then waited a month to write about it to make it look like an apples to apples comparison. They knew damn well it wasn’t.

As an aside, the Trump tariff plan was just put on hold by activist judges who are more concerned with doing anything they can to hurt our country than doing what they should do to help it. The same types of judges who are handcuffing the president in his efforts to eliminate anti-Semitism at Harvard by taking away government investments at the institution. Millions and millions of tax-payer dollars, some of which are now earmarked for trade schools. 

Coincidentally, a Pew Research Center survey conducted in early October of last year, and appearing in a Short Read in March of this year, warns blue-collar workers that they aren’t as happy and are less attached to their jobs as other workers in the United States. Pew states that according to them, about 27 percent of us are blue-collar workers. It claims their survey shows that blue-collar workers feel less respected and see their job as just a way to get by. The survey polled over 5,000 people, of which about a thousand were classified as blue-collar. So, if only 19 percent of those surveyed were classified as blue-collar, why does Pew think the number of blue-collar workers is 27 percent? I digress. But the classifications Pew uses to determine who is a blue-collar worker is at least a bit incomplete. They classify 5 types of workers as blue-collar: Hospitality or service, so the hotel concierge is a blue-collar worker? He or she might disagree with that label, as will the hotel manager, I’m sure. Manufacturing, mining or construction. That sounds about right. Retail and trade. Most trades are considered blue-collar jobs. As for retail, it would depend on where you are on the corporate ladder. Transportation. I don’t think an airline pilot considers himself a blue-collar worker. And the last category of blue-collar workers is Agriculture, forestry and hunting and fishing. Is there such a thing as a green-collar worker? Because that’s what they should be wearing! Well, maybe florescent orange.

All these people are said to be less satisfied with their jobs than the people in the other categories, which are: Health care and social assistance. Well, the janitor at the hospital doesn’t fall into any of the blue-collar categories so I guess their opinions don’t count. Education. Schools have janitor’s, too. Banking, finance, accounting, real estate or insurance. Government, public administration or military. I don’t know how military is included in any of these categories, as the military has every profession in it’s ranks, from pencil-pushing Generals to ditch-digging Privates. Information and Technology, Professional, scientific and technical services. Don’t be fooled. A lot of those guys are blue-collar workers, too. And finally, Arts, entertainment and recreation. Also a category full of blue-collar workers, like the guy who rents out kayaks at the state park to the set-builders on a motion picture stage. Clearly, Pew’s definition of blue-collar worker leaves a lot to be desired. But that didn’t stop them from using the data to denigrate blue-collar workers, or at least their definition of them, to make a point. You can’t lump people who have a valuable skill in a trade with hotel maids and expect to get accurate results. The airline mechanic and the airline pilot are as similar as the flight attendant and the person at the ticket counter. They’re all in transportation, but some are in hospitality or service, while others have positions that require more skill. But that’s okay if you just want to write a story about how blue-collar workers are less happy than everybody else.

The survey itself wasn’t done with nefarious purposes. The questions were common enough that they look like they’re just seeking information about what people do for a living and how they feel about their pay and opportunities for advancement and what it would take for them to move up the ladder. But none of the questions actually asked anyone if they considered themselves a blue-collar worker. Pew Research took it upon themselves to try to determine which of the respondents were blue-collar by which of the aforementioned categories they checked. The survey itself might not be flawed, but the analysis certainly must be. I’m not saying that the conclusions aren’t true. I don’t have enough data to say that. But Pew Research doesn’t have enough data to say that it is true that blue-collar workers aren’t as happy as everybody else. But if you only read the headline “Blue-collar workers are less satisfied at work, less attached to their jobs than other U.S. workers,” and you look at all the fancy graphs in the story, you might believe it’s true. And that’s what they want you to believe. Why? Because everyone at Pew Research is a college-educated researcher (except maybe for the janitor). And it’s very important for Washington beltway insiders like the co-author of both of these stories to downplay the important role blue-collar workers play in our society, and discourage the emphasis being put on such occupations while elite universities like Harvard and Columbia are trying to defend themselves for their unconscienable support of Hamas sympathizers and Jew-hating professors, administrators and students. But said co-author doesn’t have any connections to these universities, as she’s a graduate of Peking University in China. Oh, and George Washington University. Maybe I’m jaded but I can’t help but wonder why a Chinese national and graduate of Peking University is writing stories about American culture in a negative way. Why isn’t she writing about Chinese culture? Oh, maybe it’s because she’d be punished by the Chinese Communist Party for doing the same thing in China that she does here. Or maybe it’s because she’s loyal to the Chinese Communist Party and wormed her way into one of the most prestigious collectors of data on the citizens of the United States of America to use the data to undermine American society with stories based on legitimate data but presented in a way as to cause distress and uncertainty? Either way, the stories are only half hers, as both have co-authors who I’m sure have the same progressive ideology she pretends to have in order to subvert the social health of the country where she now resides.

The bottom line here is that you can often trust data, but you also have to look beyond the surface. When the data was collected, the questions asked, how they were asked and why they were asked are all important variables to consider, although few of us rarely do. When we leave it to others to interpret the data, we might sometimes be misled by someone else’s description of what the data shows. In fact, I invite you to consider all of those factors and any others you might come up with to examine my interpretation of the data. Feel free to draw your own conclusions. I’m no expert data analyzer. But I am good at analyzing the written word. And the spoken word. And that’s why I’m advising you to be cautious what you hear and read, and encouraging you to draw your own conclusions based on the data you have available instead of letting somebody else decipher it for you.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/05/07/growing-share-of-us-adults-say-their-personal-finances-will-be-worse-a-year-from-now/

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/31/blue-collar-workers-are-less-satisfied-at-work-less-attached-to-their-jobs-than-other-us-workers/

Sincerely liner

Let’s go Back liner

1763

There was an event called Pontiac’s Rebellion. Pontiac was a Native American chief. Prior to America declaring itself a nation, there were battles for territory between the British, the French and the native Americans. At what is now Mackinaw City, Michigan, Chippewas, under the leadership of Chief Pontiac, capture Fort Michilimackinac. There was once a car company named after the great Indian Chief. A division of General Motors, Pontiac made some pretty cool cars over the years like the Tempest and the Solstice as well as other classics. I remember first reading about Chief Pontiac when I was a kid leafing through an encyclopedia. There’s a story that claims Pontiac’s trooops took the fort by diverting the garrison’s attention with a game of lacrosse, then chasing a ball into the fort. How embarrassing for the men defending the fort at the time. Pontiac’s forces, made up of members of several tribes, continued on, conquering territory all the way to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. That’s where the British got even for the embarrassment of Michigan. In what was probably the first case of biological warfare in North America, the British passed along blankets infected with smallpox to the tribes, who had no immunity to the disease. The level of devastation to the indigenous people is debated, but it’s believed to have been a decisive blow to Pontiac’s resistance. 

1896

Guglielmo Marconi applies for a patent for his newest invention: the radio. There are other well and lesser-known names of people who pioneered the parts needed to develop what we know as radio today, specifically AM and FM radio. It was a new mass-reach medium, where only print had the ability to reach multitudes of people prior to radio. Then came television and the internet and satellite and streaming and owned music like records and tapes and CD’s. And somehow, through it all, radio is America’s number one mass-reach medium. More people listen to the radio than use a cell phone, and many of those who listen to stuff on their phone are using it to listen to their favorite local radio station.

1986

Jonathan Pollard pleads guilty to espionage for selling top secret United States military intelligence to Israel. He was sentenced to life in prison, but was released early. Once all of his judicial prohibitions were satisfied, he moved to Israel. He had been granted Israeli citizenship while still in prison in America. As recently as March of this year, he’s advocated for relocating the population of Gaza to Ireland.

And yet another spy has been charged for attempting to sell secrets to a friendly nation. Nathan Laatsch was arrested after a months-long investigation after the government says he left a thumb drive with classified information on it to be picked up by who he thought was a representative from a foreign government described by the FBI as friendly.

The guy is an IT staffer for the Defense Intelligence Agency who allegedly shopped his services around to several foreign governments because he didn’t agree with the values of the Trump administration. What a sick, sick person. To become a traitor to your country because of a personal spat with a new administration is despicable. Just quit your job if you don’t want to support the mission. Well, too late now. You’ll pay the price if found guilty, and it’s not looking good for you. 

1989

The government of China sends troops to force protesters out of Tiananmen Square after seven weeks of occupation. A lot of us remember the event itself, but personally, I’m a little fuzzy on why the protest began in the first place…

Look that up liner

Encyclopedia Britannica has a very good summary of how it all went down. The bulk of the protesters were university students. They had been exposed to western values and standards of living and felt they were being held back. When a former general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Hu Yaobang, passed away, the students were inspired to protest. The former leader was a reformist who was forced to resign two years earlier. Tens of thousands of students converged on Tiananen Square on the day of his funeral, and stayed there. Nothing happened at first, but then demonstrations started popping up in other Chinese cities as well. 

But Tiananmen Square was already filled with journalists from around the world because of a visit to China by the leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. Very poor timing for the Chinese Communist Party. 

Eventually, in early June, the rebellion was squashed. The people at first surrounded the protesters to keep the army at bay, but not for long. Tanks would roll into the square and the crowd of students would be dispersed. Many were arrested, some were executed. Government officials at several levels were dismissed or jailed.

As you may have heard, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, stated that there will be an active revocation of visa’s for students from China. And rightly so. Why should the United States welcome and educate someone who may be a spy for the Chinese Communist Party? China is our top adversary and is known to spy, steal data and intelligence and intellectual property. Harvard has a high number of Chinese students per capita, and make a lot of money from those tuitions. It’s not unlikely that every one of them has a personal connection to the Chinese Communist Party. Yet I heard a quote from one Chinese student who said, “It’s like the United States is becoming the country we left.” My advice for that student would be, “You might not want to repeat that, as you may be headed from Harvard to Peking University.” Luckily, you’ll be close enough to Tiananmen Square to start a protest. Go ahead.

Speed of sound liner, email liner

Is it just me, or is everything President Trump does against the Constitution of the United States of America? Every time this guy opens his mouth, he’s met with a lawsuit. As both President and as a private citizen, Donald Trump has had to defend every move he’s made in the last ten years in a court of law. I have never seen or heard of anyone since the Magna Carta who’s had to defend his every action as if he is guilty until proven innocent. While President Trump barrels his way through the agenda for which he was elected, every action is met with an opposite, but not quite equal, reaction. The only tool his opponents have is court-induced delays. The Trump administration has won practically every lawsuit brought against it, and those it didn’t win didn’t seem to have any effect at all, even though the Trump administration is under strict orders of the president to not violate any judges ruling. The left sees that as an opportunity to keep any success the current administration has to a minimum. What a great way to prove you’re a champion of the people! 

But delaying any success by the administration is a small victory for the opposition, even if their temporary win is detrimental to the good of the people. 

The stars of the progressive left right now are the lawyers who scour the books to find ways to obstruct the president from advancing the policies the people want. Bruce Springsteen couldn’t do what they’re doing. Bobby DeNiro could make himself look like twice the asshole he already has and still not stifle Donald Trump from his goal of an American renaissance. But the lawyers are putting the brakes on progress in the name of the progressives. https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/

is tracking 249 legal challenges to Trump administration actions, 10 of which have been closed. Now, you might be thinking, “But Bob, you can’t break the law just because your the president!” And you would be right. And he hasn’t. Practically every action that has gone through the process of the law has been vindicated. 

But the left losing the battle isn’t as important as preventing a win for the right, which in this case is a majority of Americans. 

During a recent press conference, Press Secretary Karoline Leavett read a laundry list of just some of the lawsuits being used to slow the progress of American society….

Sound bite

Clearly, the only arrow left in the progressive quiver is frivolous lawsuits that waste even more taxpayer money. They can’t get a majority from the democracy they pretend to protect, so they use biased judges to delay anything they can by bankrolling organizations and individuals who may or may not be effected by said proclamation to sue the government. The legal hook is that sympathetic judges only have to feel like there may be some type of harm somewhere down the road for those seeking to block the action. And they feel like that’s enough to impose a nation-wide injunction that has repercussions throughout national security and sovereignty and diplomatic policy. 

Look, I’m a firm believer in the system of checks and balances. The formation of the American system of governance has worked well for more than 200 years so far, and the three branches of government have always respected each other. So, how are U.S. District Judges now dictating policy for the executive branch? Article III of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, and leaves room for inferior courts as seen fit and created by congress. No where in the constitution does it give a judge in Boston the power to dictate the policy of the entire nation. But that’s what they’re doing. There are many inferior courts in the country, from the local magistrate to the county judge and the state-level judges to handle all kinds of issues. And while judges have a lot of latitude about how to rule an issue before them, those decisions are always applied only to that particular case, and has no effect on any other case anywhere. But federal district court judges seem to have assumed the power to impose their rulings on similar cases all over the country. Or more accurately, obstruct and delay. 

There are two ways to fix this problem. The Supreme Court can establish jurisdictional boundaries about how federal judges rulings apply elsewhere, or congress can create a law that does so. And that’s two out of three branches of the government that have the ability to correct a problem in the judicial system, the executive branch not having any authority to affect change. The way the constitution was written suggests that if two branches can change something that needs changed, and the third branch is complaining about it, then it should probably be changed. 

But getting back to some of the things the press secretary talked about, if the President can’t control immigration, then you get what we had under the Biden administration. But a judge said we can’t even temporarily pause a refugee program, despite the fact that millions of migrants are already straining the social system. Despite that, a judge said, “Nope, we gotta let more people in.” It didn’t matter that our cities are struggling to accommodate the millions of people let in by an administration that pretended to not have any control at all. Now that we have a president who cares, we discover judges who think the last four years was a good idea. You know what we didn’t see during the Biden administration? A lawsuit to keep the border closed. Only Texas sued the federal government as far as I can recall, but maybe it was the other way around when the federal government sued Texas for trying to close the border with floating obstacles in the Rio Grande, oh, and when Arizona tried to use freight containers to create a wall, and the federal government sued to have them removed using an endangered species law. What is it about the liberals that makes them want to abandon organized immigration? Immigration itself isn’t a divisive issue. It’s how the immigrants get here that divides us. There’s a difference between immigrants who follow the rule and enter through an established point of entry and someone who wades across the river, hoping to not be seen. The millions of immigrants under the Biden administration are the latter. Now that they’re here, the new administration has to deal with it, and the proper course is to undo the damage to our society by removing those who don’t respect our values and those who haven’t earned the right to be here. Plus those who have abused the privilege to be here. 

There are a lot of immigrants who, by no fault of their own, don’t respect the rules of American society. They come here and mistake our trust of humankind as a weakness and try to take advantage of it. They were never a part of a neighborhood where people relied on each other and trusted each other with the key to the back door. Or they never had a door worth locking and are shocked at the bounty that is American life. It’s hard to assimilate to America if you just drop in from somewhere else and all of your preconceptions are shattered.

America needs a break to recover from the catastrophe of the Biden immigration policy, and judges have enough leeway to consider that but they don’t, because it would be a win for the Trump administration. 

And why would a judge insist that the federal government provide funding for sex-change operations on children? And because it’s a federal judge, that means nationwide, according to federal judges. 

If that isn’t enough liner

The press secretary points out that the president was overruled by a judge as to whether or not he had the authority to fire people in the executive branch! Off the top of my head, I’m going to say unions had something to do with that.

While I was writing this episode, the Trump tariffs were stopped by one court and reinstated by another. Then the media blames Trump for all the uncertainty. Activist judges think they’re doing us a favor by being obstructionist, pretending to bring back normalcy for the sake of familiarity and the status quo. They forget that the people voted against the status quo. But what sickens me most is that we have judges who think that they have some kind of mission to steer the country in a certain way. That’s clearly the job of the executive branch. The judicial is there to execute justice when laws are broken, not dictate the direction of the country itself.

The Listening Tube is written and produced by yours truly. Copyright 2025. Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube. Special thanks to Dave in Alabama and Jeanette in Pennsylvania for your support. I’m your host, Bob Woodley for thou ad infinitum.