Just got a tweet from Hannah -- who it turns out follows me:
Thanks for this. Agree that for the most part, abusive behaviour isn't typical - I've also had good times at many games!
No, but it is the park’s management’s job to keep people in the crowd safe, right?
And we have the former head of the GCSB saying that we either play their game or unnamed enemies (“a very generic grouping of straight-out jihadists and terrorists through to nation states who may have some evil or incorrect intent against New Zealand”) will take away our freedoms, or –worse – turn off the sewage system.
That's a disappointing interview. I've spoken to Sir Bruce before and been very impressed by him, but he's not making sense there.
That said, infrastructure threats are within the scope of our security services.
Finally – and this is my final word because it’s giving me OOS – I don’t think David’s story of his interaction with Paul is a good blueprint for “The Future of Befriending Disabled People.”
And yet they've been friends for 14 years. I'm not sure there's a manual for that.
Sorry, too late, I already have! People are engaging. It’s a difficult conversation and people are feeling uncomfortable, but that’s not “mowing the rest of you down.” I’m simply articulating a point of view that makes people think differently. I’m worthy of that as much as anyone is worthy of disagreeing. But I won’t stop presenting my view simply because people don’t like what I’m saying.
Of course. And you're welcome here.
If history had been full of people who stopped challenging the status quo because it was unpopular, slavery would still be thriving, women wouldn’t have the vote, homosexuality would be illegal and gay marriage – well, we wouldn’t even have thought about it, would we?!
But if anyone has challenged the status quo, surely it's David?
But does that mean no one should be able to tell the story, ever?
Quite possibly, yes.
I'm just not sure that's a win. For Paul or anyone else.
My issue is with the article, and the personal aspects of it related to rape and abuse, that have been written and published without consent. As I stated from the beginning, I don’t think it’s another person’s place to tell this story, and I feel it was only told because the subject is disabled.
Paul does know David has written about their relationship and didn't object, although given that he doesn't read and doesn't understand the internet, the idea of informed consent is difficult. But does that mean no one should be able to tell the story, ever? Or that David should have censored important parts of the story? I'm not sure that's a good result.
I thought the "We were happy here" passage was actually one of the most powerful parts of the story.
Dylan, can you acknowledge that Ben and I are responding from direct, family experience of disability, and in good faith?
I don’t think TPTB are happy with this leak, as such, but I also don’t think many people are all that surprised about the scope or intent of the data collection. The leak itself might be the most surprising part of thus story; most of us have assumed the rest was true for years.
In the case of the original Verizon story, it's one that was broken by Seymour Hersh seven years ago. The only real news is that it's still going on under a different administration.
Your flick of dirt in his direction is nothing compared to what he will be up against, but disappointing all the same. It’s telling and somewhat encouraging that those exploiting his “rape a nun” metaphor couldn’t find something more recent.
I've acknowledged and corrected the error. I do have some problems with Greenwald's reporting, as noted above,