On the show tonight….
The word for the day is “blogorrhea“. To write a blog entry just for the sake of posting an entry, not because you have done anything interesting today.
Think you only use 10% of your brain? Think again.
Why should Australia’s Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock have the ability to stop someone from publishing a book? Do we want freedom of speech in this country or not?
If someone attaches a video camera to his shoe and films up ladies skirts on Melbourne trams, what law is he breaking?
Some Christian in Washington doesn’t want his kids’ school to show Al Gore’s film because it doesn’t agree with the Bible that the earth is only thousands of years old.
As Fidel Castro apparently takes his last breaths, I talk a little about the man and his 48 years in power.
Did LBJ have JFK killed?
- E. Howard Hunt, a former CIA agent who organized the Watergate break-in, says LBJ might have done it.
- Barr McClellan, father of former White House press secretary Scott McClellan and a partner in the Austin law firm that represented Johnson, says LBJ did it.
- LBJ’s former mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown says LBJ did it
Oh and then I explain why our inability to disprove god and unicorns does nothing to change the fact that the existence of both is highly improbable.
If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure you don’t miss future episodes by subscribing to our feed.
The G’Day World Theme Song is “Save Me” by The Napoleon Blown Aparts.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, January 18th, 2007 at 12:03 am and is filed under Australian politics, Podcast, US politics, science vs religion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:06 am
No, no, no, no.
LBJ abducted JFK and faked his death, cut out a piece of his skull and replaced his brain with a bag of sand, dyed his skin black, and dropped him in a Nursing Home in the Florida Everglades so he could help Elvis save the world from an soul-ass-sucking vampire in the early 21st century.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Go Bubba!
January 18th, 2007 at 10:40 am
The whole god thing, Im a 2. Im pretty damn sure he does exist, but before you go trying to convert me cameron, I would tell you that my position is as valid as your position at 6. This tells me that while you espouse the views of dickie dorkins, there is still some lingering doubt there and that as such there is still some hope for you.
I believe that youll find more evidence for the existance of god when you look inside yourself than by looking at the ouside world. Example try convincing yourself that your love for your wife and your children is little more than a hormonal storm in your pre-frontal cortex. Im tipping Cam that no matter how hard you try, it just wont sit right.
Saw you today in the green guide man, you really do have to ditch those silly friggin glasses if you want people to take you more seriously.
but hey, thats just my opinion
Cheers
John M
January 18th, 2007 at 11:31 am
If someone doesn’t believe that “god” exists, does “god” care?
“If someone attaches a video camera to his shoe and films up ladies skirts on Melbourne trams, what law is he breaking?”
Yes…it would be an invasion of privacy. If I pointed a telescope at Cam’s bedroom, what law am I breaking? (other than the laws of good taste?)
“Some Christian in Washington doesn’t want his kids’ school to show Al Gore’s film because it doesn’t agree with the Bible that the earth is only thousands of years old.”
Since when does one religion get to dictate to everyone everywhere? Oh wait…Christians… I forgot.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Quesnel is actually pronounced quenel. Anyways you have to keep in mind that Quesnel is a predominantly Jehovas Witness town. My friend went on exchange there in year 11 and when she started dating a guy there they actually gave her a booklet from the church explaining that sexual urges are the devils work and that masturbation causes blindness. It also said that all dates should be chaperoned to avoid temptation.
The poor boy was just lucky he wasn’t excommunicated. He was actually scared that that would happen when his parents found out.
January 18th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Oi!!!
Actually Colin was in the room when I was playing that. I yelled out in objection and he just laughed.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I reckon he would have the right to be afaid Miriam, these things do happen. My best friend growing up was and still is a Jehovah’s Witness. His dad was an elder of the church and was nearly forced to excommunicate his own son when he got sprung by a member of the church literally with his pants down ! He had a couple really tough months there when he had to give good reason why he shouldnt be excommunicated and he had to go through many meetings where no one in the church was allowed to talk to him before he managed to convince everyone that he did still believe and that he was sorry for his actions.
If his dad wasnt an elder then I reckon he would have left the church.
The JW’s and the Jewish faith are both centered about the old testament, which in my opinion is the more extreme of the bibles. A Jewish mate of mine jokes that he has read both books of the bible, he thought the original was a good read but he didnt go much on the sequel.
Also the more right wing a christian church is, the more it tends to lean towards the old testament
And here is where a lot of interdenominational friction is caused. Each group believe’s that they are right. That only their members live their lives to gods word and therefore will go to heaven. everyone else will burn in hell.
As Father Bob himself has said, the clerics of this world have a lot to answer for. Because it is them that stir up a lot of trouble in the world.
The idea of religion, like unionism and politics, is a great idea, until people get in there and corrupt the ideas to suit their own adgenda.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
John - That’s where you are wrong. It’s sits PERFECTLY RIGHT with me, far far better that suggesting an imaginary deity is involved. There is overwhelming evidence that emotions occur in the brain. There is an overwhelming ABSENCE of evidence for the god hypothesis. It’s important to understand that “looking inside yourself” isn’t evidence from a rational, scientific perspective. And the whole point with this meme I’m onto at the moment is that we *must* be rational about understanding the universe. It is no longer acceptable for humans to turn to mythology for solace. As for people not taking me serious because of the sunglasses - well people who can’t see past the sunglasses are probably not my kind of people.
Herne - is it really an invasion of privacy. My bedroom is *private*. Standing on a tram is *public*.
Miriam - Cmon, you know I’m right.
Obviously Colin does as well.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Just because you’re right doesn’t mean you’re not a bastard for saying it :-p
January 18th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
awww I’m just bringing you out of your shell. It’s good for you. Healthy. Be who you are. Embrace the dark side of the force. You know you want to.
January 18th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I think I’m as far out of my shell as is appropriate for polite company thanks all the same. I mean honestly do I really strike you as the type who holds much back?
January 18th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Oh, and for the record I wouldn’t be particularly bothered by someone taking upskirt photo’s of me, its just underwear. Unless of course you’re going commando in which case its advisable to keep your thighs firmly together anyway (case in point Brittany Spears).
January 18th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Cmon… you think Brit wasn’t looking for the attention? My $50 says she paid to get those shots taken.
January 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Nah, upskirts when you’re getting out of a car are an occupational hazard for girls in short skirts. Particularly those low sportscars. She was just too drunk to take the necessary precautions.
January 18th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
The Problem with leading a perfectly rational life is that humans are far from rational beings. I mean how many times do we make the same mistakes. If this is your aim however ….. LIVE LONG AND PROSPER (makes vulcan sign).
Why MUST we be perfectly rational in our understanding anyway ?
John M
January 18th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Well perhaps it’s a bit ambitious for us to be perfectly rational 100% of the time, but shouldn’t that at least be our goal? If we aren’t trying to be rational, it means we are accepting irrationality as a sound model for living together. Many of the world’s problems today (religious conflict, hate crimes, global warming, extreme poverty) are justified, at least in part, on irrational thinking. If we don’t lift our game quickly, this planet of ours, perhaps the only planet in the Universe with life on it, could well become a barren rock.
January 18th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Thanks for making me sound like a total dork.
BTW Linden Lab dollars is Second Life not World of Warcraft and last night was 1st time I had played in about 2 months.
The whole ranking thing would make me a 6 if we are talking about God. I don’t believe there is a God but if evidence was shown that he existed then that owould make me think again.
January 18th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Cam I am just guessing but I reckon most girls would view the inside of their skirts as *private*… it is just a guess though, I am not a girl and don’t make too many presumptions regarding how they think of the inside of their skirts.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
BTW I don’t sound like Mick… Thanks a lot, or is that a good thing? Time for a new promo! I’ll get Knightwise to do the next one.
If I Mick never left then I guess that makes me your co-host…
January 19th, 2007 at 6:28 am
“Herne - is it really an invasion of privacy. My bedroom is *private*. Standing on a tram is *public*.”
I disagree…what’s up someone’s skirt (or in someone’s pants for that matter) is private. If it were public, then they would be naked…and charged with indecent exposure, no doubt.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Herne - Oh I see. So the theory here is that some parts of your body have a different degree of privacy, when in public, than other parts of your body. We have a spectrum of privacy from low to high.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:24 am
well thats what I teach my kids. Certain area’s of your body are private. No one is to look at them or touch them unless its ok with you
I dont see this as an overly moralistic point of view, I see it as common sense
John M
January 19th, 2007 at 10:40 am
1. he wasn’t touching.
2. the people on trams weren’t (afaik) kids and there are different rules for kids and adults.
So to explore this a bit… can you “look” at someone’s groin in public without being charged with stalking? If a woman wearing a short skirt bends over in public and I look up her skirt, can I also be charged?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Well, yes, there are different levels of privacy. If I’m walking down the street and someone looks at me, that’s not an invasion, I’m in a public place and I can’t realistically expect nobody to look at me.
If I’m on a bus and someone opens my backpack and starts looking through it, that’s an invasion or privacy. Looking up someone’s skirt is akin to rummaging through someone’s possessions–No invitation was extended.
In most of the Western world, it’s fine for one person to look at another, but if you touch a stranger on purpose, you’re sailing into dangerous waters… If I tap someone on the shoulder on the bus to tell them they dropped their glove, I have to be very careful to telegraph my intentions so that everyone around is sure I’m not “assaulting” someone.
We’re not quite as bad as the US, but we sometimes get people around here who try to sue someone else for “assault” when some stranger did something the person didn’t like. “He pushed me out of the way and took my seat on the bus! That’s assault! I want him arrested!”
January 19th, 2007 at 11:20 am
They have a point there Cam. I’m pretty unfussed by the whole thing relative to other girls because of my acting etc but most girls would be very upset about it.
January 25th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I haven’t read all the comments, so this might of been touched on. In the podcast you mentioned that you thought the govenment or the law should have the right or should be able to ban books that break the law. So, if Phil Nitschke is publishing a book that helps you commit euthanasia, you could argue that he is assisting them and therefore I am fairly sure that would be breaking a law.
So in this case your beef isn’t with them banning the book your beef is with the euthanasia laws. The book banning is just a side effect.
You should try and get Phil on the show and either have a podcast about euthanasia including descriptions on how to do it or have him on G’day world to explain. Either way, when the govenment steps in its going to be great publisty for the show!
Molly
January 25th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Are you serous about the upskirt photographer? Come on! Your just testing the audience on this aren’t you?
Molly