Posts by oga
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But isn't all the diving an attempt to get penalties? As soon as they realize that they have been pushed from behind, they must dive and land badly in order to win the penalty for their team, especially if they're within a fair shot of the opponent's goal. The only problem with diving like this is that they might actually injure themselves badly since obviously doing a roll out of the fall would imply that they dived on purpose. Right?
-
Having been subject to a similar use of "deaf" by the media to describe a person, group, or organization, I can sympathize, but at the same time, I don't take it personally anymore because I don't really identify with being "Deaf" as a cultural construct, even although I most certainly share characteristics of cultural Deaf, rather, as Sacha has eloquently described it elsewhere (and in the real world), we are not disabled people, rather, it is an uncompromising environment that is disabling. Certainly, language is inextricably tied to identity, perception, and so on. So when someone says "I'll call you later," I don't angst about how it's physically impossible for them to do so. I have more constructive uses for my time, such as focusing on why it is impossible for people to call me. Even with the NZ relay service, I have never once received a phone call in my life.
-
Whenever Blind are discussed in the NZ disability sector, I cannot help but be a little irritated when the subject of means-testing the blind is not mentioned. Blind are the only disability group in New Zealand to my knowledge to be able to earn a high salary AND receive a high disability benefit at the same time as working or studying. I could have done with that as a deaf person in NZ.
-
Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall, in reply to Russell Brown,
I've never actually been able to get a disability allowance or the disability benefit. Why? Because I am a large fit young (well, if you count being in your late 30s young) man who just happens to be profoundly deaf. It doesn't matter that I couldn't get work and that I'd like to study while being unemployed, surely I must be able to get casual labour on a building site or be a taxi driver (with four tertiary qualifications), while friends with far more useful hearing (telephone users, even!) were allowed to get the disability benefit because they had a doctor on their side and a WINZ case worker who loved them. The last time I even asked for the form, the WINZ receptionist actually told me to FUCK OFF. In these words. And don't let me get started on the annual doctor's visit to prove that I am profoundly deaf (what part of permanent disability do WINZ not understand? Permanent means IT CAN NOT CHANGE and if anything gets WORSE). And then I look at Blind, with their non-means tested benefits and it is just so grossly inequal across the sector.
-
In the disability sector (I'm on the executive board of Deaf Aotearoa NZ) we had a lot of problems convincing Deaf youth not to vote National. They were (and not just the ill-educated) sucked in by the "need" for change, and wanted more money in their pocket.
I had an argument with one particularly smart young 20-year-old Deaf woman who'd just bought a house with her boyfriend. They both were staunchly going to vote National at their first election. I predicted everything that has just happened and they flat-out disbelieved me. I'm looking forward to seeing them again and asking them who they'll vote for next time round.
National (and middle NZ) do not care for supporting those who are less fortunate and who are least able to support themselves, i.e., the cover story kids in today's paper. Who gives a damn about these cripples anyway? They should be bunged in an asylum or thrown out onto the street at birth . . .
Yes, it's the early 1990s all over again.
-
What I don't understand is why the Crown/Defense never posited the possibility that Robin killed the family, David came home from his newspaper round, and found Robin in the lounge, struggled with him, took the rifle and killed Robin.
There's motive, this explains a lot of things, like why David didn't call the cops straight away, the prints on the washing machine, the suspicions of the cops, etc.
There's also a plausible defense of extreme provocation. What person would not freak out if they came home and found their family dead or dying and their asshole father in the lounge?
I couldn't understand why this option was never presented to the jury. It was always David OR Robin. This pissed me off throughout the trials, and more so in the recent trial because it was so OBVIOUS.
-
I find such discussions interesting, but what always makes them ultimately pointless is that neither participant has truly had an experience that convinces them beyond doubt of the existence of God. I don't mean the Christian God or the whatever God, but that most subtle of essences. Such things are truly unspeakable. They must be experienced and known this way. God is not repeatable, therefore God cannot be known by the rational, scientific mind. So quit, already! Now, lets see if this quantum physics jag can actually bring us closer to doing something useful with zero-point or electromagnetic fields.