{"href":"http://player.captivate.fm/services/oembed?url=http%3A%2F%2Fplayer.captivate.fm%2Fepisode%2Fce23c9c1-3067-4dd3-b60d-2ca605dfaa79","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Captivate.FM","provider_url":"https://www.captivate.fm","width":600,"height":200,"type":"rich","html":"","title":"Episode 227 \u2013 Don\u2019t trust Scomo, 4 Corners or Pinker","description":"
\nOur Orwellian Prime Minister has accused protesters of being … Orwellian. And in other news, we look at hidden agendas and BS artists.
\n2:29 The Melbourne Cup
\nA surprising number of people bet regularly on horse races.
\n
\n4:29 Mt Warning
\nActivists who\u2019ve campaigned for years to end climbing at Mt Warning saying the recent closure of Uluru has given them the momentum they need to make it happen.
\n8:58 Scomo turns Orwell on his head
\nFrom The Courier Mail
\nSCOTT Morrison has delivered a withering criticism of modern progressivism, claiming radical activists using the title wanted to attack the liberties of Australians.
\nWandering from his prepared notes, Mr Morrison said \u201cprogressivism\u201d sounded like a \u201clovely word you can cuddle up to\u201d to get a \u201cnice warm glow\u201d, but in reality was like a form of propaganda from George Orwell\u2019s dystopian classic 1984.
\n\u201cThose who claim this title want to tell you where to live, what job you can have, what you can say and what you can think and tax you more for the privilege of all of those instructions that are directed to you\u201d.
\n\u201cI am very concerned about how this new form of progressivism, a newspeak-type term, intended, intended to get in under the radar, but at its heart would deny the liberties of Australians, and particularly in this state, of pursuing the life that they want to live, the town they want to have, the jobs they want to pursue and the futures that they\u2019ve decided for themselves.\u201d
\n24:55 Trump is so smart
\nWe play a clip from a recent press conference.
\n38:55 Who is Nick Goiran?
\nFirst, what is a filibuster?
\nFrom Wikipedia
\nA filibuster is a political procedure where one or more members of parliament or congress debate over a proposed piece of legislation so as to delay or entirely prevent a decision being made on the proposal. It is sometimes referred to as “talking a bill to death” or “talking out a bill”[1] and is characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body. This form of political obstruction reaches as far back as Ancient Roman times and could also be referred to synonymously with political stonewalling. Due to the often extreme length of time required for a successful filibuster, many speakers stray off topic after exhausting the original subject matter. Past speakers have read through laws from different states, recited speeches, and even read from cookbooks and phone books.
\nBoth houses of the\u00a0Australian\u00a0parliament have strictly enforced rules on how long members may speak, so filibusters are generally not possible, though this is not the case in some state legislatures.
\nFrom The ABC
\nIn April he filibustered the Surrogacy Bill
\nThe surrogacy bill, which would give single men and same-sex couples access to the technology, had flown largely under the radar until Liberal MP Nick Goiran stood up in the Upper House to begin one of the longest speeches seen in WA Parliament.
\nAll up, Mr Goiran spoke for 22 hours across several sitting days \u2014 uttering 150,000 words and filling more than 200 pages of parliamentary transcript. \u2026 For some context on how long that is, two of the three books in the Lord of the Rings trilogy contained fewer words than Mr Goiran’s speech.
\n\u2026 it worked in the end.
\nWith the stalemate frustrating all sides, enough MPs sided with Mr Goiran to send the bill off to a committee and delay a vote by at least four months.
\n\u2026 just the warm-up act.
\nNow,","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300,"thumbnail_url":"https://artwork.captivate.fm/085762e2-797c-4ef4-9b10-434ecde61c07/logo2018v2.jpg"}