Speaker 1: Great to have your company. I'm James Macpherson with Liz
Speaker 1: Storer and kayleb Bond coming up a childcare worker in
Speaker 1: trouble for drinking Gatorade on the job. Turns out it
Speaker 1: wasn't gatorade plus. When we look at the papers, Chinese
Speaker 1: swimmers test positive for performance enhancing drugs and then blame
Speaker 1: Australian beef plus the Labor Party unveil their plans for
Speaker 1: bridging the gap between Indigenous and non Indigenous Australians. All
Speaker 1: of that when we get to the papers a little
Speaker 1: later on. But the Olympic Games officials have defended two
Speaker 1: biological men competing in women's boxing events, and you won't
Speaker 1: believe they're rationale.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Iman Khaliff from Algeria and Lynn U Ting from Taiwan
Speaker 1: were banned from international competition after recent medical tests confirmed
Speaker 1: they had x Y chromosomes.
Speaker 2: In other words, they were biological men.
Speaker 1: But the IOC has allowed them to compete in Paris
Speaker 1: as women regardless, and listen to their reasoning. This is
Speaker 1: the IOC spokesman Mark Adams, and he told journalists, I quote,
Speaker 1: everyone competing in the women's category is complying with the
Speaker 1: eligibility criteria.
Speaker 2: To stop right there for a second.
Speaker 1: That gives you a clue that something is wrong, because
Speaker 1: what he should say is everyone competing in the women's
Speaker 1: category is a woman. But no, no, no, there's an
Speaker 1: eligibility criteria. Now listen to the criteria. He says they
Speaker 1: are women in their passports, and it's stated that is
Speaker 1: the case, and they are female. So there's the IOC's argument.
Speaker 1: It says that they're women in their passports, therefore they
Speaker 1: are women.
Speaker 2: Now we all know.
Speaker 1: There's an obvious problem with that, and that is that
Speaker 1: legal documents are no longer credible for determining gender. We
Speaker 1: spoke just last night about the fact that in Queensland,
Speaker 1: for instance, you can adjust your birth certificate even without
Speaker 1: undergoing any medical procedures. If you identify as a woman
Speaker 1: and live as a woman for the specified period of time,
Speaker 1: then the birth records are adjusted to.
Speaker 2: Say that you are a woman.
Speaker 1: And then if anyone sort of complains that maybe you're not,
Speaker 1: you simply point to the birth records, which you yourself
Speaker 1: adjusted just.
Speaker 2: Five minutes ago.
Speaker 1: So, Calvin Livez, here's my issue with this. If I
Speaker 1: were to go to the IOC, crude example, but go
Speaker 1: with me for a second.
Speaker 2: And I wanted to buy.
Speaker 1: Front row seats at a major event or worth five
Speaker 1: hundred dollars, And I handed Mark Adams a fifty dollar
Speaker 1: note and he said, well, I'm sorry, that's not enough
Speaker 1: you need. And I got at my biro and I
Speaker 1: just added another zero and said, no, no, it's five hundred.
Speaker 2: Would he agree that was reasonable?
Speaker 1: Because it's a lot easier to adjust the agreed value
Speaker 1: of a piece of paper than it is to adjust biological,
Speaker 1: immutable sex, is it not?
Speaker 3: Well, I just hope that that does become law, that
Speaker 3: I can, with a pen add another zero onto my
Speaker 3: fifty dollar note and make it a five hundred dollar note.
Speaker 3: I'd be all on board with that. Why don't worry
Speaker 3: about that. I mean, this is a bizarre case because
Speaker 3: these two boxes, as far as we can tell, have
Speaker 3: never outwardly identified as men or lived as men. So
Speaker 3: it seems as though they've lived their whole lives as
Speaker 3: though they were women. Now, look, I haven't looked between
Speaker 3: their legs, but I'm assuming that they have, you know,
Speaker 3: lady bits down there. But when they went to compete
Speaker 3: at the World Championships last year, they were given DNA
Speaker 3: tests to confirm that they were who they said they were,
Speaker 3: and they came back with high levels of testosterone and
Speaker 3: x Y chromosomes, which of course indicates some level of
Speaker 3: biological maleness about them. Now, they may never zones tend
Speaker 3: to be filmed, they may never have known that about themselves,
Speaker 3: but that's what turned up in the DNA tests, and
Speaker 3: so at that point there's no argument to keep competing.
Speaker 3: I mean, surely we all have to understand that there
Speaker 3: are certain things we can and cannot do in life
Speaker 3: based on the physical attributes that we are born with.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, some of us come out with
Speaker 3: the half a foot or something, right, and that means
Speaker 3: that you can't be part of the military. Now, you
Speaker 3: might grow up thinking, well, I really wanted to be
Speaker 3: part of the military, but you're never going to be
Speaker 3: accepted into the military because they say, well, you've got
Speaker 3: a physical disability and that discounts you from being part
Speaker 3: of the military. That's just how life goes. It was
Speaker 3: quite funny I heard Chris o'keeff on two GB today
Speaker 3: saying that he really wished he could be a victorious
Speaker 3: secret model. But of course, as a burly man He's
Speaker 3: never going to be able to do that. That's just
Speaker 3: the reality of life. So if the DNA test comes
Speaker 3: back and says, sorry, you're a bloke, you can't compete anymore.
Speaker 3: And I get that that might be devastating that you
Speaker 3: can't compete, but that's just how it goes. We had
Speaker 3: to accept there are some things in life we can't do,
Speaker 3: and competing as a boxer, particularly a boxer when you've
Speaker 3: got high levels of testosterone and you're saying you're a woman,
Speaker 3: is just something you can't do.
Speaker 1: I've got to say to Chris o'keef just to encourage
Speaker 1: him stas he could probably be in a bikini on
Speaker 1: the front paper.
Speaker 2: That's a good point and he'd be fine. I would
Speaker 2: go with that, Liz.
Speaker 4: And this this is affecting everyone's scores, right. So two
Speaker 4: of these people are boxes, males versus women competing as women.
Speaker 4: Two of them are on the Zambian football team and
Speaker 4: our Matilda's went to play with them. One of them
Speaker 4: scored two goals. Do you call them goals? Okay, goals?
Speaker 4: And again you have to ask yourself, were you not
Speaker 4: a biological male, would you have scored twice against our girls.
Speaker 1: It's even worse to that because the other biological males
Speaker 1: scored a hat trick, which is three goals.
Speaker 4: Liz, I was getting to that, please continuing up to that,
Speaker 4: but thanks.
Speaker 2: For stilling said how little you knew about soccer?
Speaker 4: Trying to help you out for a minute there. My
Speaker 4: brain was like, it is a goal. Clearly I don't
Speaker 4: watch that much soccer. I'm sorry to.
Speaker 3: Europeans are writing now, Liz, socer is its football.
Speaker 4: Soccer, soccer get out, and so you have to go,
Speaker 4: how fair is this? Luckily the materialdas did get across
Speaker 4: the line six ' five, but how fair is this
Speaker 4: when that many of your goals came from the biological
Speaker 4: men on the Zambian team. And when we're talking about
Speaker 4: boxing as well, we're talking about a very real threat
Speaker 4: to women's well being in the ring. What woman, even
Speaker 4: if she is the best of the best, stands a
Speaker 4: chance against a male opponent. Boxing great Jeff Fennick has
Speaker 4: called this out is called the IOC utterly disgraceful. Direct
Speaker 4: quote from him is what has this world come to? Listen?
Speaker 4: I'm all for women's boxing, but do people understand the
Speaker 4: damage that can be done if men fight women. Put
Speaker 4: Mike Tyson in the ring with a female heavyweight and
Speaker 4: she will end up not just concussed, but with brain damage.
Speaker 4: Can you believe that? Here we are in a society
Speaker 4: where male violence against women has never been more of
Speaker 4: a talking point. DV has never been more of a target,
Speaker 4: or the government funding that goes into combating this, etc.
Speaker 4: And we've just made a spectator sport. Basically, if we've
Speaker 4: got when we talk about the Olympics, we are talking
Speaker 4: about the upper echelons of any sport. We are talking
Speaker 4: about the international stage. And these guys have folded. They've said, look,
Speaker 4: as long as it's what it says on your passport,
Speaker 4: then that's what you are. Meanwhile, we've got Queensland whose
Speaker 4: laws have just come into effect. Over the last month,
Speaker 4: over two hundred people have changed their biological sex on
Speaker 4: their birth certificates, etc. Is this where we're going now?
Speaker 4: If you can just get it on paper, the rest
Speaker 4: of the world is expected to say, Okay, then that's
Speaker 4: what you are, even when we know it's creating an
Speaker 4: impossibly unlevel plane.
Speaker 3: Well, this is the sort of weird place that feminism
Speaker 3: centered up in, right, like the first wave was, we
Speaker 3: don't need men. Then the second wave was we are
Speaker 3: the same as men, we're equal to men, and then
Speaker 3: the third wave seems to have turned out as men
Speaker 3: come and be women with the rest of us right, Like,
Speaker 3: not bizarre, it's utterly bizarre that it's turned from a
Speaker 3: movement that was sort of anti men in many ways
Speaker 3: that is now openly inviting men to come into their spaces,
Speaker 3: come into their sports, come into their bathrooms and their
Speaker 3: toilets and whatever, and say, well, as long as you
Speaker 3: say you're a woman, then that's fine. And as I
Speaker 3: pointed out last night, the research into boxing in particular
Speaker 3: has shown that someone who has gone through male puberty
Speaker 3: has punching power one hundred and sixty three times sor
Speaker 3: one hundred and sixty three times dred and sixty three
Speaker 3: percent slightly different more powerful than that of someone who's
Speaker 3: gone through female puberty. We're not just talking about, oh,
Speaker 3: you know, we're playing golf and perhaps a bloke can
Speaker 3: punted another twenty yards down the road. We're talking about
Speaker 3: serious punching power there. So you put them, as Jeffinik
Speaker 3: points out, put a biological man in the ring with
Speaker 3: a biological woman. What do you think is going to happen.
Speaker 4: They know what's going to happen, and that is why
Speaker 4: it is just completely unforgivable. They know, they know what
Speaker 4: the outcome is going to be. They have sanctioned this,
Speaker 4: and I don't know what's going to happen in the ring,
Speaker 4: but it's on their heads.
Speaker 1: The problem, as we talked about last night, is they
Speaker 1: can't back away from this because as soon as you
Speaker 1: start saying there are certain sports in which transgendered women
Speaker 1: cannot compete, then now you're making distinctions which their ideology
Speaker 1: does not allow them to make. Trans women are women,
Speaker 1: trans women are women. Repeat it verbatim as if it
Speaker 1: makes sense. Once you've adopted that mentality, that there's no
Speaker 1: shade of gray and.
Speaker 2: There's no room for nuance. But I watched some of.
Speaker 1: The footage of that fight between Iman Khaliff and one
Speaker 1: of the women that this person was fighting against, and
Speaker 1: it was pretty brutal. Khaliff was getting in some big
Speaker 1: hits and won it very easily, and I was wincing
Speaker 1: as I.
Speaker 3: Was, well, yeah, yeah, I know. Look, I have to say,
Speaker 3: though my passport, much along the lines of your five
Speaker 3: hundred dollar notes, says I'm the Prime Minister of Australia,
Speaker 3: and that's that I'm taking over the joint now now.
Speaker 3: And if I were the Prime Minister of Australia, there's
Speaker 3: one bloke I'd be having a word with and saying, look,
Speaker 3: do you know what you're talking about here? And that's
Speaker 3: the new vice chancellor of the Western Sydney University. Now.
Speaker 3: He's only ascended to the role in the last week
Speaker 3: or so and he's made it his first order of
Speaker 3: business to complain about the cost of degrees, particularly arts degrees.
Speaker 3: He says, something that really burns at me is the
Speaker 3: fact that we're about to have fifty thousand dollars degrees
Speaker 3: for art students. Arts to degrees are often the degree
Speaker 3: of choice for low socioeconomic status students, for Indigenous people
Speaker 3: and for women. They are rightfully fearful of having a
Speaker 3: debt until death because they are unable to ever properly
Speaker 3: repay it. George Williams is his name. Now. There was
Speaker 3: a change that was made by the Morrison government whereby
Speaker 3: they moved the funding that is given to certain university
Speaker 3: degrees to send it the things they thought people should
Speaker 3: be studying, i e. Nursing. They now get a lot
Speaker 3: more government funding than say, arts degrees, which means you,
Speaker 3: as the student, if you go and study an arts degree,
Speaker 3: have to pick up more of the tab to that,
Speaker 3: I say, fair enough. But I also say to mister Williams,
Speaker 3: if you're worried about the cost of a degree, now
Speaker 3: look the strange idea. But you're the vice chancellor, you're
Speaker 3: the boss of the university. Don't you have some say
Speaker 3: in the cost of that degree? Could you not find
Speaker 3: efficiencies somewhere so that that degree was cheaper? Of course,
Speaker 3: you're not going to do that because you want the money.
Speaker 3: What you're really saying is it's not about the cost
Speaker 3: of the degree. It's about the debt that the student
Speaker 3: is incurring. And you would prefer more people to come
Speaker 3: and study at your university, but you don't want them
Speaker 3: to have to pay for it. So who's going to
Speaker 3: pay for it? I am you at home are Because
Speaker 3: what he's actually asking for is more government subsidy for
Speaker 3: the degree, not for the cost of the degree to
Speaker 3: go down. Why can't the universities knock their heads together
Speaker 3: and reduce the cost of the degree without going cap
Speaker 3: in hand of the government begging them to hand over
Speaker 3: more money.
Speaker 1: You've got the government subsidy, you've got the fee component.
Speaker 1: They want more government subsidy when they could just reduce
Speaker 1: the fee component. Correct, And the vice chancellor, and God
Speaker 1: bless him, good luck to him. But last year at
Speaker 1: that university, the vice chancellor's wage was just a touch
Speaker 1: over a million dollars. To be saying all these poor students,
Speaker 1: I mean, they've got to pay fifty grand for an
Speaker 1: arts degree. Who can help them when the vice chancellor
Speaker 1: is sitting on a million. And I'm not saying he
Speaker 1: doesn't deserve it. I'm just saying the contrast is quite stuck.
Speaker 4: Indeed, and I had to laugh at his quote because
Speaker 4: by saying that an arts degree isn't worth fifty grandy,
Speaker 4: you've just basically embitted. These things are bloody useless. Let's
Speaker 4: not forget. We have one of the fairest systems in
Speaker 4: the world when it comes to help debt. When it
Speaker 4: comes to he's debt, and the students only start repaying
Speaker 4: that debt once they have reached the threshold, once they
Speaker 4: are earning enough. Then the government says, okay, time to
Speaker 4: pay up, and they take it incrementally each year and
Speaker 4: hopefully over those years you start earning more. So to
Speaker 4: say that someone's degree is going to be so useless
Speaker 4: to them and fetch them so little money you know
Speaker 4: in the future career that fifty grands, say, over the
Speaker 4: course of seven years, is going to be too much
Speaker 4: for them to be able to carve out. You've just
Speaker 4: admitted these degrees are useless. You are not setting your
Speaker 4: students up for careers or any kind of job in
Speaker 4: which they can earn enough to pay the rent, pay food,
Speaker 4: have some sort of quality of life and pay off
Speaker 4: the degree that got them to where wherever they are
Speaker 4: at the time. And let's not forget these are the
Speaker 4: same unis who, firstly where their biggest funds are already
Speaker 4: by virtue of the government, we the taxpayer, are already
Speaker 4: fitting the bill for our universities like nothing else. That's
Speaker 4: their main source of funding, the government i e. Us
Speaker 4: the taxpayer. And how do they repay us? How do
Speaker 4: they repay us? We have seven hundred and thirty thousand
Speaker 4: university students in this country as I speak, who are
Speaker 4: all internationals, and the UNIS will give them placements over
Speaker 4: Australian students who have just as good a grades, but
Speaker 4: the internationals pay up front and almost four times as much.
Speaker 4: So the universities go stuff you, ouzzi students. Your grades
Speaker 4: are just as good, but your money's not. We're going
Speaker 4: to give these guys the placements while we're the taxpayer
Speaker 4: fund these same universities that dumb their noses at Ozzie's
Speaker 4: and then want to pretend, oh, we care so much government,
Speaker 4: can you give us some more because these useless degrees
Speaker 4: you know that we keep giving to everyone, they're not
Speaker 4: going to be able to repay fifty grand I mean,
Speaker 4: it's it's utterly nonsense.
Speaker 1: And they so want the money from these international students.
Speaker 1: By the way, I mean you said seven hundred thousand.
Speaker 4: Or more, seven hundred and thirty thousand.
Speaker 1: Yeah, one in thirty people in this country is an
Speaker 1: international student. It's quite incredible, it is orally do they
Speaker 1: want these international students. They want them and their money
Speaker 1: so bad they're dishing out degrees though most of these
Speaker 1: students can barely speak a word of English and have
Speaker 1: hardly understood their lectures, according to whistleblowers who've spoken to
Speaker 1: the Guardian. Now a number of anonymous lecturers and students
Speaker 1: have spoken of their.
Speaker 2: Experiences have listened to this.
Speaker 1: This is from an arts subject tutor who told the
Speaker 1: Media organization about international students. Most can't speak, write, or
Speaker 1: understand basic English. They use translators or text capture to
Speaker 1: translate the lectures and tutorials, translation aids to read the literature,
Speaker 1: and chat GPT to generate ideas. Goes on to say
Speaker 1: it's mind blowing that you can walk away with a
Speaker 1: master's degree in a variety of subjects without being able
Speaker 1: to understand a sentence. Now, it went on to talk
Speaker 1: about a former lecturer at Flinders University who reckon that
Speaker 1: fifty percent of students in his tutorials had quote obvious
Speaker 1: language difficulties.
Speaker 2: He said he frequently failed.
Speaker 1: International students because there were high suspicions they had used
Speaker 1: AI to write their assignments. But then when those international
Speaker 1: students appear yield, they were invariably passed. Now, I should
Speaker 1: point out Flinda's University denied those claims, but it just
Speaker 1: goes to the point that Liz was saying. Universities are
Speaker 1: so hungry for money, and there were numerous people that
Speaker 1: gave their account of what's happening in our Sandstone universities
Speaker 1: that you've got international students who can barely speak English,
Speaker 1: clearly aren't understanding what's being said in lectures, and yet
Speaker 1: are getting master's degree.
Speaker 3: And that's the biggest problem with Australian universities now is
Speaker 3: that they have simply turned into cash cars. And I've
Speaker 3: been saying it for years and I still maintained the
Speaker 3: worst thing that ever happened to the tertiary education system
Speaker 3: in this country was when the Gillard government uncapped enrollments,
Speaker 3: because it opened the floodgates for every man and his
Speaker 3: dog to go to university, including children, or some of
Speaker 3: them were children, but some of them are over eighteen
Speaker 3: as well, but kids who really shouldn't be there. They
Speaker 3: should be doing apprenticeships or other jobs because they simply
Speaker 3: don't have the academic aptitude. But they are forced through
Speaker 3: the sausage machine at school to believe that they must
Speaker 3: go to university because if they don't go to university,
Speaker 3: they are somehow subhuman and they're not as good as
Speaker 3: the rest of their classmates, so that you've got to
Speaker 3: do that. So they go off and get a degree
Speaker 3: that's not of any use to them whatsoever. And they
Speaker 3: come out the other side and they can't get a
Speaker 3: job because they're not terribly interested in what they study
Speaker 3: or and I think the number is something like half
Speaker 3: of students who enrolled don't actually end up finishing their degree.
Speaker 3: But the university doesn't mind that as long as they
Speaker 3: can make it through a year, because once they've made
Speaker 3: it through a year, the university gets the government funding.
Speaker 3: That's all the university cares about. If we keep them
Speaker 3: enrolled long enough for us to get the money out
Speaker 3: of the government, then it's all hunky dory. That is
Speaker 3: what has happened to the tertiary education system. Instead of
Speaker 3: it being a place of academic excellence, that is, training
Speaker 3: people to go out and be the next generation of
Speaker 3: workers and thinkers, etc. They are just completely money hungry.
Speaker 3: And without the federal government stepping in and intervening and
Speaker 3: saying we've got to get back to basics here, universities
Speaker 3: are not there to generate cash. They're there for the
Speaker 3: betterment of the country. And by the way, we the
Speaker 3: government pulled the purse strings, so you're going to do
Speaker 3: what we damn will tell you. That's what they need
Speaker 3: to be told. And I'll even suggest bold idea that
Speaker 3: we go back to pre Whitlam University situation, which was
Speaker 3: and everyone credits Whitlam with having given everyone free university,
Speaker 3: which is true to some degree. But before Whitlam, under Mensis,
Speaker 3: you had Commonwealth scholarships which were essentially free university by
Speaker 3: any other name, except they were just given to people
Speaker 3: who had academic aptitude, whereas Whitlam just said, well all
Speaker 3: comers can have it. Why don't we go back to
Speaker 3: Commonwealth scholarships and encourage people who have genuine academic aptitude
Speaker 3: to get into university and then say, all you other
Speaker 3: people who don't need to be here because you're studying
Speaker 3: arts degrees and whatever else that's of no use to society.
Speaker 3: Bagger off and go and get a job I can.
Speaker 3: We'd be much better off.
Speaker 4: Take up a trade. You will be far more useful
Speaker 4: to society. And hey, no hextet whatsoever. Let's go to
Speaker 4: South Australia now, where a new campaign has launched. It's
Speaker 4: called your reference Ain't Relevant. This campaign seeks to ensure
Speaker 4: legislative change. That change would mean that people who are
Speaker 4: going to court accused of child sex abuse will not
Speaker 4: be able to use character references.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: This campaign launched in New South Wales just last year
Speaker 4: and there's now a review underway, so it's already gotten
Speaker 4: Some Traction Act also has a review underway into the
Speaker 4: same now they're targeting in South Australia. This campaign is
Speaker 4: headed up by Harrison James, who himself is a survivor
Speaker 4: of child's abuse. Here's a good quote from him. He says,
Speaker 4: for me, this work, this is my justice, This is
Speaker 4: my form of justice. This is me regaining what I
Speaker 4: lost for all those years and turning that pain into
Speaker 4: a genuine purpose. The thing that keeps me going is
Speaker 4: the thought that survivors will benefit from our campaign, and
Speaker 4: survivors will gain a sense of faith when they pursue
Speaker 4: the justice system as well. We all know that these
Speaker 4: cases are notoriously hard to prosecute, and something that this
Speaker 4: campaign raises is when someone has had the bravery that
Speaker 4: it takes to pursue a case like this and go
Speaker 4: to court, do they really have to sit through character
Speaker 4: references talking about what a wonderful person their alleged perpetrator is.
Speaker 4: We all know that a great many evil people are
Speaker 4: actually quite charming. It's not hard for them to have
Speaker 4: other people in their lives who will vouch for their
Speaker 4: character because they've never known that person to do anything
Speaker 4: wrong at all. I'm reminded of the infamous Ted Bundy
Speaker 4: when he was accused of his heinous crimes. Everyone in
Speaker 4: his community couldn't believe it. His church, community, his workplace,
Speaker 4: none of them believed it because they thought he was
Speaker 4: a peach. They thought he was a wonderful guy. There
Speaker 4: had to be a mistake here, and so it just
Speaker 4: seems to me like a very common sense measure that
Speaker 4: these sadly previous people who have had to bear this
Speaker 4: grave injustice, that they would go after this and to
Speaker 4: see such a change happen. I would hope that it's
Speaker 4: kind of a no brainer for every state.
Speaker 3: Well, you'd have to think so, right. This is Harrison
Speaker 3: James and Jared Griis is also involved in the campaign,
Speaker 3: speaking about it when they kicked it off in New
Speaker 3: South Wales last year.
Speaker 5: Child sexual abuses, by definition of their crimes, do not
Speaker 5: have a good character. They are predatory by instinct, and
Speaker 5: grooming of their victims' families, friends, schools, churches and communities
Speaker 5: is part of their standard method. Their so called good
Speaker 5: character cannot be separated from the evil they perpetrate. On
Speaker 5: the most vulnerable victims of all children.
Speaker 6: Yet our law says that the good character and lack
Speaker 6: of previous convictions of a convicted child sexual abuser on
Speaker 6: matters of relevance and mitigating factors that are to be
Speaker 6: taken into account on sentencing. Often their sentences include no
Speaker 6: prison time at all, largely because the sentencing judges find
Speaker 6: that they, apart from sexually abusing a child, but otherwise
Speaker 6: of good character.
Speaker 3: I mean, how brave are these to blokes? And they
Speaker 3: put it so succinctly there Why this is important? I mean,
Speaker 3: if you have been convicted of a child sexual offense
Speaker 3: and you're now facing sentencing, I mean, what does it
Speaker 3: matter if you were a member of the lines club
Speaker 3: for twenty years, or you served on the local PNC
Speaker 3: at the school, or you were the president of the
Speaker 3: cricket club. It doesn't matter. When you have been a
Speaker 3: child abuser and has been proven in a court of
Speaker 3: law that you were a child abuser, the rest of
Speaker 3: it goes out the window. You are now scum of
Speaker 3: the earth. Why should a judge be taking into account
Speaker 3: that someone else thinks you're a good guy? And by
Speaker 3: the way, who I don't understand why you would write
Speaker 3: a character reference for someone once you know that they
Speaker 3: are a child abuser, like even if they are your
Speaker 3: closest friend in life. And I get that, it's really
Speaker 3: difficult to come to grips with that. I mean, god forbid,
Speaker 3: it's your own father or mother or whatever, right and
Speaker 3: as a child, you're trying to grapple with the idea
Speaker 3: that this person you've loved your whole life is actually
Speaker 3: a bad person. But it's one thing to have that
Speaker 3: cognitive dissonance going on in your mind. It's another to
Speaker 3: put pen to paper and go into a courtroom and say, actually,
Speaker 3: despite this person having abused a child, I think they're
Speaker 3: a good person and they should be given a more
Speaker 3: lenient sentence.
Speaker 1: And as was explained in the video, for a victim
Speaker 1: to sit there and hear that this person, aside from
Speaker 1: the fact they sexually abused you, is an otherwise standing
Speaker 1: sizon is just salt to the wound. By the way,
Speaker 1: if this story is distressing or raises issues for you,
Speaker 1: Lifeline are a wonderful place of support. We've got a
Speaker 1: number on the bottom of the screen you can call
Speaker 1: and speak to someone there if that would be of help.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about Israel for a moment, because they've had
Speaker 1: a pretty good week taking out two gold medals, or
Speaker 1: should I say two terrorists. The military commander of Hezbillah
Speaker 1: and the political leader of Hamas both assassinated in separate attacks,
Speaker 1: one in Beirut and one in Tehran in the last
Speaker 1: forty eight hours. The leader of Hamas, or at least
Speaker 1: the political leader, here's some vision of him on October seven.
Speaker 2: Can you believe it?
Speaker 1: He's watching the rist attack take place and then stops
Speaker 1: to pray and give thanks to Allah for the death
Speaker 1: of Jews.
Speaker 2: Love love, Well, he just got his just desserts.
Speaker 1: He was in Tehran for the inauguration of Iran's new president,
Speaker 1: and he was there with leaders of other terrorist organizations
Speaker 1: and just hours before he was killed by what's believed
Speaker 1: to be in Israel strike. He was in a meeting for,
Speaker 1: as I said, the inauguration of the new president, where
Speaker 1: they're all shouting death to Israel. Have a look, as
Speaker 1: I said, jokes on him. Just hours later, death to Israel.
Speaker 1: It was an Israeli bomb. We believe that ended his life.
Speaker 1: As well as that. There was the Hezbala commander who
Speaker 1: it's believed organized the bomb that struck a soccer field,
Speaker 1: killing twelve children just the other day. But he's been
Speaker 1: wanted by not just Israeli officials but the US since
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty three, when he was responsible for the death
Speaker 1: of three hundred French and American soldiers in a bomb
Speaker 1: in Beirut. There was a five million dollar bounty on
Speaker 1: his head. He's now been assassinated as well Israel, making
Speaker 1: the point it doesn't matter where you go or where
Speaker 1: you hide, they can get to you, which should be
Speaker 1: a warning to all terrorists. Peter Dutton, the opposition leader,
Speaker 1: is in Israel at the moment. Here's what he told
Speaker 1: Shari Markson earlier this evening.
Speaker 7: We know that Hamas is a terrorist organization. We know
Speaker 7: that they were responsible for the brutal slaughter literally all
Speaker 7: over Longereriod of time, thousands of people, and we know
Speaker 7: that with the mastermind behind the October seven atrocities. So
Speaker 7: like we know with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations,
Speaker 7: they pose a threat to our way of life. They
Speaker 7: certainly pose an existential threat to the Israeli people, and
Speaker 7: you would expect the Israelis to take action, particularly given
Speaker 7: the slaughter that took place on October seven.
Speaker 2: What do you think, Caleb, good day for Israel.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, you know, they've gained a couple of scalps.
Speaker 3: It's by no means the they are they are big South,
Speaker 3: but it's by no means the end of the war,
Speaker 3: right And for every person who gets knocked out of Hamas,
Speaker 3: they've got another one who comes and fits the bill basically.
Speaker 3: And of course this fellow lived over in Qatar. It
Speaker 3: didn't live anywhere near near Gaza, so you know, it
Speaker 3: sort of sort of tells you where he was at.
Speaker 3: And of course a lot of the criticism of Israel
Speaker 3: has been that they have engaged in wholesale bombing in
Speaker 3: Gaza and that has led to a large depth hole
Speaker 3: for civilians, and that that their attacks should be somewhat
Speaker 3: more targeted. And these attacks are, of course somewhat more targeted.
Speaker 3: The danger though, of course, is that it may lead
Speaker 3: to escalation of the war. And of course it happened
Speaker 3: in Iran, and we know that Iran, through its funding
Speaker 3: of outfits like Hisbollah and the Hooties and Hamas, etc.
Speaker 3: Is willing for war against Israel. So whether or not
Speaker 3: this opens the door to further danger remains to be seen.
Speaker 3: But I mean, you know, it's on one hand, was
Speaker 3: it the right thing to do, Yes, of course it
Speaker 3: was the right thing to do. Should they have done
Speaker 3: it right now? I don't know. It may be inflammatory
Speaker 3: at this particular point in time.
Speaker 4: I think we've gone past the fear of escalation, and
Speaker 4: let's not forget. In the last few days, the West,
Speaker 4: namely America, has been begging NETANYAHUO, please do not escalate
Speaker 4: this war. Please do not escalate this war. And that's
Speaker 4: exactly what we've seen with them bombing Beirutes. You bombed
Speaker 4: the capital of Lebanon. I mean previously they had also
Speaker 4: bombed be Route to take out another Hamas leader in January,
Speaker 4: but before that they hadn't bombed bay routes since the
Speaker 4: thirty four Day War of two thousand and six, So there.
Speaker 3: Was relative.
Speaker 4: Best as you could, peace in that particular area, and
Speaker 4: that has now been ruined. Of course, HESBLA has now
Speaker 4: just said you've bombed Lebanon's capital, this is our turf.
Speaker 4: We are going to exact revenge. Iran has said the
Speaker 4: same because of this leader who's now been taken out.
Speaker 4: Both of them just within hours of each other. And
Speaker 4: this is exactly the escalation that I was talking about
Speaker 4: last week when we heard Netnya who address Congress that
Speaker 4: instead of this war wrapping up, you are escalating this.
Speaker 4: And Netnya, who appears to be and has been for
Speaker 4: quite some time now, leveragingtober seven to create a larger
Speaker 4: conflict in the area, to create a regional war, and
Speaker 4: with America begging him not to do this, I agree, Caleb,
Speaker 4: this is not the best timing. Nobody is saying we
Speaker 4: don't want these guys dead. We want them dead. But
Speaker 4: the way that they've gone about this, I fear is
Speaker 4: just going to get what I suspect is Netnyahu's wish,
Speaker 4: and that is a more regional war. And let's not
Speaker 4: forget America is not in a good way at the moment.
Speaker 4: They're thirty five trillion dollars in debt, they're still in Iraq,
Speaker 4: they're still in Syria, They've sent one hundred and seventy
Speaker 4: five billion dollars to Ukraine. We do not need another
Speaker 4: all out war. And this concerns us here in Australia because,
Speaker 4: of course, any a war that America gets involved in
Speaker 4: with boots on the ground or sending money there. We
Speaker 4: are to Australia. We've done it countless times before, and
Speaker 4: we would out let's be doing it again. We don't
Speaker 4: want to be dragged into World War three. I said
Speaker 4: it last week. These stipulations that Netnya, who made to
Speaker 4: Congress as to when and why he would end this war,
Speaker 4: were completely unrealistic. Complete demilitarization, complete deradicalization. You have just
Speaker 4: radicalized generations by killing forty thousand people in Gaza. They
Speaker 4: will not forget, they will not forgive, And eradicating Hamas
Speaker 4: is in fact impossible because it is an ideology. So
Speaker 4: for everyone that you take out, and for every single
Speaker 4: woman and child, and there's twenty five thousand of them
Speaker 4: no longer alive in Gaza, you have created probably about
Speaker 4: one hundred Jihadis per head who want to exact revenge
Speaker 4: on that death.
Speaker 3: But I suppose is Israel than expected to be the
Speaker 3: bigger man.
Speaker 4: So so man twelve twelve hundred versus forty, they have
Speaker 4: their retribution. You're not eradicated, but it is decer sure.
Speaker 3: But his attacks Golan Heights and then in response Israel
Speaker 3: attacks Hezbala. So is Israel expected to not retaliate. I
Speaker 3: guess is the problem here, and I know that.
Speaker 4: Raelis they weren't even Israelis. I fear that excuses are
Speaker 4: being made to heighten. Like I said last week in Congress,
Speaker 4: Netnyahu made it very clear what he wanted. We're not
Speaker 4: scaling back, We're not ending this. Here are completely unrealistic
Speaker 4: terms in order for me to end it. He wants
Speaker 4: to go back to the prior to two thousand and
Speaker 4: six status quo in Gaza. Nobody will ever agree to them.
Speaker 2: There's a lot to unpack this. There's two things. I
Speaker 2: take exception two. One.
Speaker 1: I take exception to this the assertion that Israel escalating
Speaker 1: things by going after those who attack them in the
Speaker 1: first place. Whenever Israel defend themselves, then israeli accused of
Speaker 1: escalating things.
Speaker 2: Her mus are escalating things by.
Speaker 1: Continuing to hold more than one hundred civilians hostage. Has
Speaker 1: for are escalating things by lobbing hundreds of missiles every
Speaker 1: day into northern Israel and have done ever since October seven,
Speaker 1: and say they'll continue to do so. He must escalate
Speaker 1: things by having in their charter that they will not
Speaker 1: stop until Israel is destroyed. And as for radicalizing a
Speaker 1: new generation Harmas teach that the Jews must be destroyed.
Speaker 2: They teach it in their schools.
Speaker 1: Benjamin Nett and Yao who Benjamin Netan Yahoo is radicalizing
Speaker 1: nobody her must have radicalized Palestinians. They are responsible. And
Speaker 1: to set the home sheet home, the blame to Israel.
Speaker 2: I'm doing it of Israel.
Speaker 1: You would never expect of any other nation on earth,
Speaker 1: Every sovereign.
Speaker 6: Nation not.
Speaker 4: Put words in my mouth. I did not simply saying
Speaker 4: this is escalating. The West has begged Israel not to
Speaker 4: do this, and that is precisely what they've done.
Speaker 3: I don't think there is There is simply no.
Speaker 4: End in sight. If this is going to keep up,
Speaker 4: hesbelarender now fight Israel. Well, now we've got to fight
Speaker 4: back with even stronger power. There is no end in sight.
Speaker 4: If it's just going to be.
Speaker 1: The world demands that her Maus surrender, their leaders, give
Speaker 1: up the hostages and relinquished power. That's the end of this,
Speaker 1: and that could happen if the world agreed. That should happen.
Speaker 1: But the world keeps equivocating between terrorists and Israel and
Speaker 1: has zero moral clarity and that's why this continues.
Speaker 4: Everyone in Gaza supports Hermas. Everyone in Gaza supports herm
Speaker 4: us so to say that, oh, we will not stop
Speaker 4: until they're completely eradicated. That means you're never stopping. That
Speaker 4: means we're looking at World War III with Iran.
Speaker 1: You can't live with your next door neighbors committed to
Speaker 1: your destruction.
Speaker 4: They have lived with their next or name.
Speaker 2: Twelve hundreds are now dead in one.
Speaker 4: Day, forty thousand palace days since the forty thousands on
Speaker 4: Israel are now dead. At what point can you not
Speaker 4: go okay, this, this has got to stop.
Speaker 3: The reality is that war never ends in that region.
Speaker 3: It never in It won't for as long as there
Speaker 3: are Islam's terrorists under traue.
Speaker 4: Will never add relative peace in the Middle East. Until
Speaker 4: two over seven we had relative they always swap bombs.
Speaker 4: Would laugh like that.
Speaker 1: They wouldn't say, well, it's only a few bombs being
Speaker 1: loved over Asia relative.
Speaker 4: They Israel will not stop this assault until everyone who
Speaker 4: hates Israel is eradicated.
Speaker 3: That's far too.
Speaker 1: Many hates is to a looser word, everyone who demands
Speaker 1: the destruction of Israel is eradicated.
Speaker 2: They have every right to do that.
Speaker 4: Okay, Okay, so we should just defend carpet bomb Iran
Speaker 4: carpet bomb, not carpet bomb. You just said until everyone
Speaker 4: who isn't committed to Israel's destruction, until they're.
Speaker 2: All determined to destroy a mass as they should be.
Speaker 4: That is far too many people that you're talking about.
Speaker 1: So you just live with terrorists to continue to terrorize
Speaker 1: your people, and you just say we wouldn't do it.
Speaker 4: In Australia has said we will stop when Israel stops.
Speaker 4: The fuities have said.
Speaker 3: Stop, they won't stop. I don't think either of those
Speaker 3: two situations are particularly born out in reality. I mean,
Speaker 3: you can't carpet bomb the whole joint, but nor can
Speaker 3: you expect Israel to just pack up stumps.
Speaker 4: And I'm not saying that, I'm simply saying you can
Speaker 4: never eradicate her Maas. Okay, that is a furfey. They
Speaker 4: have decimated them, they have not eradicated them. And if
Speaker 4: the end is only in sight once they're completely eradicated,
Speaker 4: then the end will never be in sight. It is
Speaker 4: time to wrap this up. Want to perpetuate this Just
Speaker 4: incredible bloodshed, and the most of which are innocents.
Speaker 2: You know, sometimes in the let debate we get so
Speaker 2: called up in the argument. The producers in areas say
Speaker 2: that's enough. That's enough.
Speaker 1: You've got to go to an ad break. So we're
Speaker 1: going to go to an ad break. We'll be back
Speaker 1: in a moment.
Speaker 2: Welcome back.
Speaker 1: Let's take a look at what's making news tomorrow. Liz,
Speaker 1: you've got the career mail.
Speaker 3: Would you believe it?
Speaker 4: Australia we are standing accused of doping two Chinese swimmers
Speaker 4: who were reefed from the Beijing Olympics, and apparently it
Speaker 4: was all our fault.
Speaker 3: Check this out.
Speaker 4: It's on the front page of the Advertiser, It's on
Speaker 4: the front page of the Daily Telly, and it's on
Speaker 4: the front page of the Courier. Male China's bizarre drugs
Speaker 4: beef with ossies playing silly burgers. The Courier mail reads,
Speaker 4: the Paris Olympics swim meet has exploded with a doping
Speaker 4: scandal after revelations two members of the Chinese team had
Speaker 4: been overturned by claiming their positive tests were the result
Speaker 4: of the pair eating a lunch of contaminated Australian burger meat,
Speaker 4: fries and a soft drink the pair, including relay swimmer
Speaker 4: Tang Mouhann, tested positive to the same steroids. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Speaker 4: used to beef himself up and now it's all our fault.
Speaker 4: What on earth, what is in our burgers? God, we're
Speaker 4: hoping Chinese swimmers they must think.
Speaker 3: We came down in the last shower. Seriously, and this
Speaker 3: is not the first time that China has been able
Speaker 3: to get away with blue murder when it comes to
Speaker 3: doping and how it's been treated by WADA, the World
Speaker 3: Anti Doping authority. Remember the story I think it was
Speaker 3: earlier this year of twenty three again swimmers, Chinese swimmers
Speaker 3: who were tested by CHINADA, which is the Chinese antidoping
Speaker 3: agency back in twenty twenty one, and they were found
Speaker 3: to test positive to trima tazardine. I don't know what
Speaker 3: trima tazadine actually does, but twenty three of them tested positive.
Speaker 3: But then Chinadas said, oh, it was contamination, and then
Speaker 3: they just handed those findings over to WADA, and WADA said,
Speaker 3: you butte buddy, all good. Twenty three of them tested positive,
Speaker 3: and then the Chinese Antidoping Agency, which of course you know,
Speaker 3: in a communist, corrupt country, like China. They would never
Speaker 3: diddle their stuff like that, would they. They tell Wada
Speaker 3: it's all good, and Wada says it's okay. These people
Speaker 3: get their ban overturned because they said their maccas burger
Speaker 3: was tainted.
Speaker 2: Seriously that There's two problems I have with this story.
Speaker 1: One is what sort of elite athletes are munching on maccas?
Speaker 3: What the heck there are to be honest, it's going
Speaker 3: to be better than a lot of what else you
Speaker 3: get in China.
Speaker 1: Here's my other problem with this story, and this is
Speaker 1: the one that's personal for me, that they ate McDonald's
Speaker 1: burgers and therefore consumed steroids that are the same that
Speaker 1: helped Arnold Schwarzenegger developed body masks.
Speaker 2: I've been eating macas for years. What's gone wrong? Nothing,
Speaker 2: no results at all? Does so annoyed by this?
Speaker 4: Get your money back? Get your money back, or maybe
Speaker 4: we put something a little special in the ones that
Speaker 4: we send to Beijing.
Speaker 3: I just I don't get it, because Australian meat isn't
Speaker 3: doped up with all that stuff anyway. And the fact
Speaker 3: that Wada actually accepted it, Sure you can have your
Speaker 3: ban over to and oh you just had a bit
Speaker 3: of cheeky macas. I mean, by Evan's sake, if they
Speaker 3: ever put a breath Eliza on the front of this building,
Speaker 3: I'm gonna have a lot of trouble getting in here.
Speaker 3: But I'm just going to say because it's I smooched
Speaker 3: someone beforehand who had been drinking, and then it's all
Speaker 3: fine to me. I got doped.
Speaker 1: Remember we talked about a Japanese athlete who was sacked
Speaker 1: from the team because she was fond of smoking.
Speaker 3: She had a cigarette, which was nine Chinese athletes eat
Speaker 3: macas and dope and they're allowed to compete. And japan says,
Speaker 3: if you have a cigarette and a drink when you're underage,
Speaker 3: you can't even compare. This incredible, isn't it. Let's go
Speaker 3: to the Australian where it says tomorrow urgent plea to
Speaker 3: close the political gap. Interesting story this one. Labor will
Speaker 3: seek a new bipartisan approach to closing the gap between
Speaker 3: Aboriginal Australians and the rest of the country. Is bureaucrats
Speaker 3: tightening grip on Indigenous policy making is blamed for a
Speaker 3: calamitous backslide in suicide and incarceration rates. Now This is
Speaker 3: Malandari McCarthy, who's taken over from Linda Bernie as the
Speaker 3: new Indigenous Affairs Minister, is making her first order of
Speaker 3: business to go over to the opposition and say, well,
Speaker 3: can we come up with some shared policies here to
Speaker 3: deal with closing the gap after the great debacle of
Speaker 3: the Voice. You can hardly blame them for going to
Speaker 3: try and come up with some by part policy because
Speaker 3: it didn't really work for them last time. Going out
Speaker 3: on a limb.
Speaker 2: Do you know how the sharing is going to go?
Speaker 1: So label will share their policy ideas, let me demonstrate
Speaker 1: it's a blank page, and then they'll take this into
Speaker 1: prices policy ideas which are quite extensive, as published in
Speaker 1: the Australian magazine recently, some really good policies. So I
Speaker 1: think this is pretty smart. I mean, we all want
Speaker 1: to see bipartisanship. Wouldn't it be great if everybody just agreed,
Speaker 1: let's do this do it well?
Speaker 2: But you have to, I mean, Lizia.
Speaker 4: And this is an issue where there should be a
Speaker 4: bipartisan approach. We all knew that obviously the Voice wasn't bipartisan,
Speaker 4: but that was because it didn't promise there was no
Speaker 4: proof that it would result in an increased quality in
Speaker 4: life for any Indigenous Australians, whereas and neither do many
Speaker 4: of them on a state level either the cultural heritage laws,
Speaker 4: et cetera, and so on. It's not like Indigenous Australians
Speaker 4: are like, oh, thank you so much. Our incarceration rates,
Speaker 4: our suicide rates have plummeted, Thanks so much for that.
Speaker 4: If we can just get together and focus on the basics,
Speaker 4: the DV in certain Indigenous communities, the child sex abuse
Speaker 4: in certain Indigenous communities, how can we not make the
Speaker 4: main things the main things for five minutes or just
Speaker 4: long enough to exact change, especially when the taxpayer is
Speaker 4: funneling over forty billion dollars every year into Indigenous communities.
Speaker 4: Where are the KPIs? Why are none of them being achieved?
Speaker 4: We've been hacking away at this for decades. So I'm
Speaker 4: actually all four of bipartisan approach. If it's going to
Speaker 4: get us any real time results that we can point
Speaker 4: to and say, yes, we've done the right thing by.
Speaker 3: These guys, wouldn't that be good?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 3: I was going to go through some other stories on
Speaker 3: the front of the ODS, but there's actually a much
Speaker 3: better story on the front of the Newcastle Herald, which
Speaker 3: I believe you have in your hot little hands.
Speaker 1: Let's speak of sports. This is the big sports story
Speaker 1: of the day. The Newcastle Herald headline reads speed Wobble.
Speaker 1: I's believed to have been found dumped in a skip
Speaker 1: In has given the condition of the new Newcastle Beach
Speaker 1: skate Park the worst possible rating on the eve of
Speaker 1: the projects completion, citing dozens of cases of concrete chipping
Speaker 1: and cracking and signs of corrosion. Now this was quite
Speaker 1: a controversial skate park because it was built right on
Speaker 1: the beach and the council had been worn that it's
Speaker 1: going to be all sorts of maintenance issues being right
Speaker 1: on the beach. It took longer to build than the
Speaker 1: first stage of the John Hunter Hospital and cost twenty
Speaker 1: million dollars.
Speaker 2: There are more than fifty cases.
Speaker 1: Of concrete cracking, chipping, and so I don't think we're
Speaker 1: going to have any Olympic skateboarders coming from Newcastle if
Speaker 1: that is a sort of facility that they'd be better
Speaker 1: off going to Macas and the counter we're to go
Speaker 1: to a break, we'd stick around until be back in
Speaker 1: just a moment. Well, there's a number of workplaces where
Speaker 1: you just shouldn't drink alcohol, but a childcare center is
Speaker 1: probably one of the ones where you really shouldn't put
Speaker 1: a childcare work in New Zealand has been disciplined charged
Speaker 1: with serious misconduct after she poured vodka into a Gatorade
Speaker 1: bottle and drank that while on the job. Look at
Speaker 1: that headline childcare worker disguised vodka as gatorade tribunal fines.
Speaker 1: It goes on to say staff described to her demeanor
Speaker 1: at a staff meeting later that day.
Speaker 2: As very over the top.
Speaker 1: The tribuna was told she was uncharacteristically happy, greeted other
Speaker 1: teachers in an overly friendly manner, slurred her words, was unfocused, disruptive, confused,
Speaker 1: and sipped alcohol during the meetings. Liz and Caleb, can
Speaker 1: you believe this?
Speaker 3: I didn't see what the problem is. I mean, how
Speaker 3: the hell I work at ten o'clock at night? You know,
Speaker 3: how do you expect me to get through all of
Speaker 3: this with add a little bit of vodka in my
Speaker 3: Gatorade bottle? I think that's quite fair.
Speaker 2: Just explained so much of your commentary on this program.
Speaker 3: Caleb indeed, it explains why it's so good, because it
Speaker 3: just loosens me up and gets me going.
Speaker 4: So, what's in your mug every night? Nobody?
Speaker 3: Actually, you do not mean to give away the trade secrets. Goodness,
Speaker 3: I can.
Speaker 4: Smell it on his brain. I'm going to have.
Speaker 3: Management on my back. Oh, for goodness sake.
Speaker 2: Just quickly, can I tell you my favorite part of
Speaker 2: this story?
Speaker 1: The article says, towards the end of the meeting, a
Speaker 1: person realized she was drunk and tip the alcohol down
Speaker 1: the drain. And then it adds this and put the
Speaker 1: bottle in a recycling bit.
Speaker 4: Saving the kids and saving the planet in one. But
Speaker 4: before we go tonight, you've got to check out this image.
Speaker 4: It has gone viral of a surfer called Gabriel from Brazil.
Speaker 4: He has scored the highest score ever in any surfing
Speaker 4: Olympic competition. Check out this photo. One wonders how these
Speaker 4: guys even survive. He is just flying there. I don't
Speaker 4: know if any of you have caught any of the surfing,
Speaker 4: but it is truly death defying what these guys are doing.
Speaker 4: Interhediot moment. I'm just watch and I'm clenching everything, just going,
Speaker 4: are you gonna survive?
Speaker 2: Is it worth it?
Speaker 1: I thought you're about to say, I don't know if
Speaker 1: any of you guys have ever caught a wave. I'm thinking,
Speaker 1: look at us, do we look like I'm caught away?
Speaker 4: You haven't eaten enough or the burger pat.
Speaker 1: You've got a nine point nine for the surf, But
Speaker 1: the photographers who got a ten out of ten for that.
Speaker 3: Fat well one hundred percent. And I'll tell you what,
Speaker 3: if I were out there catching that wave, I'd need
Speaker 3: a bit of my gatorade afterwards to calm down. I
Speaker 3: heard one of the surfers saying the other day that
Speaker 3: that was like the most dangerous position he'd ever been
Speaker 3: in in his life. But I have to say, after
Speaker 3: watching some of the skateboarding, which was awful, by the way,
Speaker 3: there's no skills whatsoever. These are the true athletes out
Speaker 3: there ripping it up on the waves.
Speaker 2: That's from us. Stick around, Recha Petey show is coming
Speaker 2: up in just a moment.