The cell phone: the face of the technology advancements of the 21st century. It is become important for communication and safety, but an absolute necessity? I think not. Cell phones are much to blame for an epidemic which is a lack of face to face conversation and socialising. Mobile phones have also brought into existence issues such as text bullying, stress - related to being contactable 24/7 and the pressure of having to have, and pay for mobile phones.
Over the past hundred years, we have gone from the telephone, to the fax machine, to cell phones and texting. As the progressions have taken place, the language and quality of the communication has been downgraded and we have been further distanced from the person we are communicating with. Everyday, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of text messages are sent all around the world. This can be useful for quick communication at all hours of the day, but it has also seen a decline in face to face socialising. As humans, we rely on, and in fact can not live without social interaction. Due to the invention of cell phones, our communication has become briefer and less meaningful because we are not fully responding. It is important to note that in an average conversation between two people, 80% of the communication during the exchange is through body language. This of course is lost in our new world of communication.
The cell phone has also seen the emergence of a new and cruel form of bullying – text bullying. Bullying used to be limited to the playground. Once you left school, those harassing you could no longer work their nasty tricks. No such luck since the invention of texting. Texting is a particularly insidious weapon of cruelty. Messages are brief and blunt and they find the victim wherever they may be. There is no voice to reason with or cut off. In a 2005 New Zealand net safe survey, 23% of teens reported receiving an offensive, pornographic, abusive or threatening text or picture on their phone and a British study in 2002 found that one in four youngsters aged 11-19 had experienced bullying through text. These numbers are phenomenal and show us that text bullying is widespread and a huge problem facing our communities today. There have even been several cases of teens committing suicide due to the huge emotional stress of being relentlessly bullied via cell phones.
In the world today we live with high levels of stress, suffer from depression and the incidence rates of suicide are increasing. The idea of being contactable 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, whether you’re in your office or lounging on a beach in Hawaii, may sound appealing at first. However, because we can always be contacted, no matter where we are, we never have any truly ‘me’ time. No time to simply relax and distance ourselves from our busy home and work lives. Scientists agree that it is important to have a balance of work and play, but this is becoming increasingly difficult. How relaxing is your holiday going to be if you are constantly receiving work related calls texts and emails through your cell phone?
There is huge pressure in today’s society to have a mobile, whether you are 12 or 75. It is coming to be accepted as the norm. There can be huge costs associated with this. For many young people, it is essential to have the lasted “flip-top” or “i-phone”, and if they don’t, they feel isolated and lost. Keeping up with the latest technology can cost hundreds of dollars, with the new i-phone retailing at around a thousand dollars. Couple this with the costs of calling, texting and special plans and you’ve got one big cell phone bill. This causes huge issues for families on a tight budget with kids desperate to own that new cell phone, and sometimes people go without necessities in order to fund this sort of technology.
I do not however deny some of the positive factors of owning a mobile phone. No-one can question how useful it can be to be able to stay in contact when you are on the move. It can be great for businesses to be able to keep in contact with clients and know what’s going on when they are out of the office. They can get emails fired off to them wherever they are and they can respond to issues instantaneously. Mobiles also help to give parents a sense of security; they can always contact their children and know that they are safe. However, these benefits also come hand in hand with not so desirable factors. I believe it is a mistake to accept mobiles as a necessity or something that everyone should have, due to the many problems that arise as a result of the fact that they are so widespread.
The sad reality is that we no longer have close human contact as the staple of daily life, we are distanced physically and emotionally from those we care about and who care about us. We are competitive, stressed and constantly on the move. Although cell phones may be handy or useful, we can not forget the negatives that come alongside these. We are facing a huge decline in socialising that isn’t through some form of electronics and the rates of text bullying and stress are on the increase. Is this really the kind of world we want to be living in? To accept cell phones as an absolute necessity would be to allow them to take full reign over out wellbeing as individuals. Cell phones are not necessarily all they are cracked up to be.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Shakespeare: Fit for modern consumption?
“What light through yonder window breaks? It is the East and Juliet is the sun! Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,” A translation, fit for a modern youths tongue? “Who is that up there? Juliet is way hot! She is like the sun! Anyway, she’s just jealous, cos you’re like, prettier.” What does this offer to the teenagers of today? Absolutely nothing. Shakespeare’s plays should most definitely not be re-written in a way “easier” young people to understand and fully replace the traditional, authentic texts. His writings were works of art and we can a lot from them in their original form which would be lost in a re-modelled version.
The most important thing to acknowledge is that Shakespeare’s work was an art form. It was revolutionary writing, the first of its time, it was truly original. In fact he is universally acknowledged as one of the greatest playwrights in history, just as Raphael and Picasso are revered as the great painters. Would we ever dream to suggest that we should “re-paint” Picasso’s masterpieces, just so that are a little easier to decipher? Of course not, and Shakespeare is no different. Much of his genius would most certainly be lost if it was written into a more “comprehensible” form. In fact it would be a mockery of his work! His plays and sonnets are not world famous for just the storyline or plot. Much of what makes them so widely acknowledged is the style of writing and the themes he develops in his work. There is a reason that your average teenager may find Shakespeare’s writing a little more challenging than your average novel, and not just because of the ‘old-fashioned’ language. Shakespeare wrote in iambic pentameter, a rhyme scheme in which each line consists of ten syllables. The syllables are divided into five pairs called ‘iambs’. An iamb is a metrical unit made up of one unstressed syllable followed by one stressed syllable. As one can see, it wasn’t just some random placing of words. In fact, the use of iambic pentameter was one of Shakespeare’s most important tools. If his texts were to be re-modelled, this amazing work would be lost.
The next question that we need to ask is, is it really necessary to re-write the plays? Shakespeare delved into many universal themes in his writing. His work may have been done 400 years ago, but these themes are still relevant to us today. He looks at ideas to do with love, freedom, friendship, the roles of different people in society, the influence of appearances. Parallels can be drawn from all of these to today’s world. Because of this, there is no need for Shakespeare to be re-written. In fact, if his plays were modernised, there could actually be a loss of these themes, or the coherency in which the themes are portrayed in their original form. Take for example, the Hollywood blockbuster “10 Things I Hate About You” which is loosely based upon Shakespeare’s “Taming of the Shrew”. No-one can deny that it is easy for teenagers to understand, it is set in a modern American high school. However, it failed miserably in doing justice to the themes explored in the original text. It lightly brushed over the deep and meaningful ideas such as appearance vs. reality and marriage as an economic institution, and instead focussed on the cheesy and unrealistic portrayal of teenage love.
We also need to consider, is it right re-model something simply because it is a tad hard? In order for us to gain a rich learning experience, we can’t just shy away from something which may be slightly difficult. In order for us to learn, to make progress and extend our understanding, we need to be challenged and Shakespeare in its current and original form does exactly that. We can learn many skills from interpretation of Shakespearian language and it helps to get us thinking “outside the box”. The authentic texts also make us think in broader terms, outside our 21st century lives. Students can learn a lot from the historical setting. It provides an interesting, varied way in which we can learn about the period in which he wrote: The structure of society, what was accepted as right and wrong, and what life was like. To re-write Shakespeare would only be to “dumb us down”.
Shakespeare is also a classic, a tradition. EVERYONE knows Shakespeare’s name. Schools all around the world examine his plays, his poetry. Everyone studied his works at school, our parents, their parents and those before them. To re-write Shakespeare and replace the original texts in schools would be to change what we have been doing for centuries. His works and the teaching of his works is a core part of western history and culture and there is no need for this to change. There is a reason Shakespeare has survived the test of time. As previously mentioned, the important ideas explored in his texts are just as relevant to us today as they were last century, and the century before that. Why would we change something that we know works?
However, this does not mean that re-modelled or adapted versions don’t have a place at all. They can be very useful as aids to the teaching of the authentic texts. There is no doubt that they are useful for helping student to understand plot or to help hook them into the story. A good example of this is the ShakespeaRE-TOLD series produced by the BBC. They take some of Shakespeare’s most popular plays and re-work them into a modern setting, whether is be portraying Katherina from Taming of the Shrew as a politician running for Prime Minister or Macbeth as a chef in a three Michelin Star restaurant. But in saying this, none of these reconstructions are ever as clever or original as the real thing. They do not explore the ideas with such depth or clarity. They are poor substitutes for the writings in their original form.
It is clear that Shakespeare should not be written in order for the plays to be more relevant to teenagers today. There is simply no need! The ideas explored in Shakespeare’s writing are universal; they are still as significant as they were 400 years ago. Shakespeare may be a challenge, but we need that every so often! We also must remember, a lot can be learnt from his texts, the historical settings give us a great insight into life in Elizabethan times. Most important, we have to view his writing like an artwork, it is what it is. Picasso’s style makes him Picasso; Shakespeare’s style makes him Shakespeare. If Shakespeare was to be re-written it just wouldn’t be Shakespeare anymore. His work unique and this is how it needs to stay.
The most important thing to acknowledge is that Shakespeare’s work was an art form. It was revolutionary writing, the first of its time, it was truly original. In fact he is universally acknowledged as one of the greatest playwrights in history, just as Raphael and Picasso are revered as the great painters. Would we ever dream to suggest that we should “re-paint” Picasso’s masterpieces, just so that are a little easier to decipher? Of course not, and Shakespeare is no different. Much of his genius would most certainly be lost if it was written into a more “comprehensible” form. In fact it would be a mockery of his work! His plays and sonnets are not world famous for just the storyline or plot. Much of what makes them so widely acknowledged is the style of writing and the themes he develops in his work. There is a reason that your average teenager may find Shakespeare’s writing a little more challenging than your average novel, and not just because of the ‘old-fashioned’ language. Shakespeare wrote in iambic pentameter, a rhyme scheme in which each line consists of ten syllables. The syllables are divided into five pairs called ‘iambs’. An iamb is a metrical unit made up of one unstressed syllable followed by one stressed syllable. As one can see, it wasn’t just some random placing of words. In fact, the use of iambic pentameter was one of Shakespeare’s most important tools. If his texts were to be re-modelled, this amazing work would be lost.
The next question that we need to ask is, is it really necessary to re-write the plays? Shakespeare delved into many universal themes in his writing. His work may have been done 400 years ago, but these themes are still relevant to us today. He looks at ideas to do with love, freedom, friendship, the roles of different people in society, the influence of appearances. Parallels can be drawn from all of these to today’s world. Because of this, there is no need for Shakespeare to be re-written. In fact, if his plays were modernised, there could actually be a loss of these themes, or the coherency in which the themes are portrayed in their original form. Take for example, the Hollywood blockbuster “10 Things I Hate About You” which is loosely based upon Shakespeare’s “Taming of the Shrew”. No-one can deny that it is easy for teenagers to understand, it is set in a modern American high school. However, it failed miserably in doing justice to the themes explored in the original text. It lightly brushed over the deep and meaningful ideas such as appearance vs. reality and marriage as an economic institution, and instead focussed on the cheesy and unrealistic portrayal of teenage love.
We also need to consider, is it right re-model something simply because it is a tad hard? In order for us to gain a rich learning experience, we can’t just shy away from something which may be slightly difficult. In order for us to learn, to make progress and extend our understanding, we need to be challenged and Shakespeare in its current and original form does exactly that. We can learn many skills from interpretation of Shakespearian language and it helps to get us thinking “outside the box”. The authentic texts also make us think in broader terms, outside our 21st century lives. Students can learn a lot from the historical setting. It provides an interesting, varied way in which we can learn about the period in which he wrote: The structure of society, what was accepted as right and wrong, and what life was like. To re-write Shakespeare would only be to “dumb us down”.
Shakespeare is also a classic, a tradition. EVERYONE knows Shakespeare’s name. Schools all around the world examine his plays, his poetry. Everyone studied his works at school, our parents, their parents and those before them. To re-write Shakespeare and replace the original texts in schools would be to change what we have been doing for centuries. His works and the teaching of his works is a core part of western history and culture and there is no need for this to change. There is a reason Shakespeare has survived the test of time. As previously mentioned, the important ideas explored in his texts are just as relevant to us today as they were last century, and the century before that. Why would we change something that we know works?
However, this does not mean that re-modelled or adapted versions don’t have a place at all. They can be very useful as aids to the teaching of the authentic texts. There is no doubt that they are useful for helping student to understand plot or to help hook them into the story. A good example of this is the ShakespeaRE-TOLD series produced by the BBC. They take some of Shakespeare’s most popular plays and re-work them into a modern setting, whether is be portraying Katherina from Taming of the Shrew as a politician running for Prime Minister or Macbeth as a chef in a three Michelin Star restaurant. But in saying this, none of these reconstructions are ever as clever or original as the real thing. They do not explore the ideas with such depth or clarity. They are poor substitutes for the writings in their original form.
It is clear that Shakespeare should not be written in order for the plays to be more relevant to teenagers today. There is simply no need! The ideas explored in Shakespeare’s writing are universal; they are still as significant as they were 400 years ago. Shakespeare may be a challenge, but we need that every so often! We also must remember, a lot can be learnt from his texts, the historical settings give us a great insight into life in Elizabethan times. Most important, we have to view his writing like an artwork, it is what it is. Picasso’s style makes him Picasso; Shakespeare’s style makes him Shakespeare. If Shakespeare was to be re-written it just wouldn’t be Shakespeare anymore. His work unique and this is how it needs to stay.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Should the Drinking Age be Raised to 21?
Binge drinking. Alcohol poisoning. Alcohol abuse. Drink driving. Domestic violence. We are constantly being bombarded with information about the consequences of drinking, disastrous for ourselves and others. No-one can deny that these problems exist, they do. There is no doubt we have issues in our society such as alcoholism, drink driving and binge drinking. But is raising the drinking age going to make any difference? I’m not sure that it will.
Firstly, raising the drinking age would create “double standards” in our society. By the age of 18 people are allowed to vote, have sex, get married, and die for their country. Are we saying that our 18 year olds are mature enough to do these things, take the countries future into their own hands or to go and die on a battlefield in a foreign country, but not mature enough to have a drink? It just doesn’t add up. If you were to raise the drinking age to 21, there would be a 5 year difference between the age to go to war or to have sex and the drinking age. Do either of these things require less maturity or responsibility than drinking? We need to decide on an age, ONE age at which we believe the majority of citizens of our country to be mature and responsible and this age needs to apply to all laws of a similar nature.
People often cite issues such as binge drinking as a key reason for why the drinking age should be raised. Binge drinking is becoming a huge problem in New Zealand, and it is becoming a part of the youth culture in this country. The best definition of binge drinking is to drink as much as you possibly can until you are completely “wasted”. Apparently this is cool. Would raising the drinking age help to reduce the number of people, especially young people, par-taking in binge drinking? I fear not. In fact, it may even make it that much cooler. You see, the more un-attainable we try to make an object appear, the more attractive it becomes. We always want what we can’t have. This is especially relevant for youth – the main culprits. Teenagers are known for their “rebellious” behaviour, for trying to defy authority and their determinedness to not conform to the expectations of the older age group. If we were to increase the legal drinking age, it could just make these issues, such as binge drinking even more common and wide-spread. Why? Because it would make it even more cool.
Another important thing to consider is, would it be fair to raise the drinking age? Essentially you would be punishing everyone for the actions of a few. The majority of 18 year olds are responsible and safety conscious. The majority of 18 year olds would not binge drink or drink and drive. Therefore it is important to remember that it is not the entire population of 18-21 year olds who are causing these problems. We also have to think, if, at age 18, someone is still immature, still playing up, what difference will another few years make? Also, its alright for the people proposing these laws, they are 30, 40, or even 50 years past 21, so it doesn’t bother them if an 18 year old is no longer allowed to drink, they have already had their fun. How would they have reacted when they were 18 if the ‘old people’ raised the drinking age? Not only would raising the legal drinking age be inefficient, it would also be unfair.
We also need to remember, do we want to keep new Zealand a place where we can make our own choices. Would raising the drinking age just be another dangerous step towards a nanny-state in which the government controls our lives? People are always going to make mistakes, make stupid decisions or have a lapse of common-sense. It is part of human nature. We can legislate until our faces go blue, but is it really going to change anything? I think not. Sometimes we just need to “let go”, and let people make choices for themselves about what they want to do and how much risk they are willing to put themselves under.
So, should the drinking age be raised to 21? I do not believe it would have the desired positive effects. I do not believe that it will stop young people drinking, or binge drinking as the case may be. In fact, it may just achieve the opposite; it could make activities such as binge-drinking even more attractive. Raising the drinking age would also create a society in which there are double standards, young people are allowed to do so many things which require just as much, of not more, maturity than drinking. It would also be unfair to prevent those responsible 18-21 year olds from drinking; they should not be punished for others wrong-doing. Finally, people need to make the choice for themselves, they don’t need the government holding their hands, telling them what to do.
Firstly, raising the drinking age would create “double standards” in our society. By the age of 18 people are allowed to vote, have sex, get married, and die for their country. Are we saying that our 18 year olds are mature enough to do these things, take the countries future into their own hands or to go and die on a battlefield in a foreign country, but not mature enough to have a drink? It just doesn’t add up. If you were to raise the drinking age to 21, there would be a 5 year difference between the age to go to war or to have sex and the drinking age. Do either of these things require less maturity or responsibility than drinking? We need to decide on an age, ONE age at which we believe the majority of citizens of our country to be mature and responsible and this age needs to apply to all laws of a similar nature.
People often cite issues such as binge drinking as a key reason for why the drinking age should be raised. Binge drinking is becoming a huge problem in New Zealand, and it is becoming a part of the youth culture in this country. The best definition of binge drinking is to drink as much as you possibly can until you are completely “wasted”. Apparently this is cool. Would raising the drinking age help to reduce the number of people, especially young people, par-taking in binge drinking? I fear not. In fact, it may even make it that much cooler. You see, the more un-attainable we try to make an object appear, the more attractive it becomes. We always want what we can’t have. This is especially relevant for youth – the main culprits. Teenagers are known for their “rebellious” behaviour, for trying to defy authority and their determinedness to not conform to the expectations of the older age group. If we were to increase the legal drinking age, it could just make these issues, such as binge drinking even more common and wide-spread. Why? Because it would make it even more cool.
Another important thing to consider is, would it be fair to raise the drinking age? Essentially you would be punishing everyone for the actions of a few. The majority of 18 year olds are responsible and safety conscious. The majority of 18 year olds would not binge drink or drink and drive. Therefore it is important to remember that it is not the entire population of 18-21 year olds who are causing these problems. We also have to think, if, at age 18, someone is still immature, still playing up, what difference will another few years make? Also, its alright for the people proposing these laws, they are 30, 40, or even 50 years past 21, so it doesn’t bother them if an 18 year old is no longer allowed to drink, they have already had their fun. How would they have reacted when they were 18 if the ‘old people’ raised the drinking age? Not only would raising the legal drinking age be inefficient, it would also be unfair.
We also need to remember, do we want to keep new Zealand a place where we can make our own choices. Would raising the drinking age just be another dangerous step towards a nanny-state in which the government controls our lives? People are always going to make mistakes, make stupid decisions or have a lapse of common-sense. It is part of human nature. We can legislate until our faces go blue, but is it really going to change anything? I think not. Sometimes we just need to “let go”, and let people make choices for themselves about what they want to do and how much risk they are willing to put themselves under.
So, should the drinking age be raised to 21? I do not believe it would have the desired positive effects. I do not believe that it will stop young people drinking, or binge drinking as the case may be. In fact, it may just achieve the opposite; it could make activities such as binge-drinking even more attractive. Raising the drinking age would also create a society in which there are double standards, young people are allowed to do so many things which require just as much, of not more, maturity than drinking. It would also be unfair to prevent those responsible 18-21 year olds from drinking; they should not be punished for others wrong-doing. Finally, people need to make the choice for themselves, they don’t need the government holding their hands, telling them what to do.
New Zealand: A Safe Place?
The Collins Dictionary states that safe means 1. Giving security or protection from harm, 2.Free from danger 3.taking or involving no risks. Can any country give total security or protection from harm? Is anywhere free from danger? Is it possible to live anywhere without taking risks? The simple answer to all of these questions is no. It is impossible to be completely safe, ever. The very nature of life is unsafe! However, is New Zealand a relatively safe place to live, compared with other destinations? Would we be wrong in believing we live in a country which has less risks associated with it than other nations?
Crime. On average 100,000 New Zealanders are convicted of some sort of crime each year. Much of this may be petty crime, such as graffiti or vandalism, or theft of something like a handbag or bike. However much of the crime in New Zealand is malicious, and intended to hurt others, and the rates of this are increasing. How often are we now hearing on the news about a murder, rape, physical abuse, grievous bodily harm? Another innocent person who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time? However, though our crime rates are higher than we might want and increasing, they are not necessarily that bad compared to other countries. Take South Africa for example. It is widely acknowledged that in Johannesburg, you can’t just walk down the street without being at risk. People live in compounds behind barbed wire and multiple security gates. So when you compare our crime to this sort of situation, it begins to seem rather insignificant.
New Zealand is also free of a lot of problems which make other countries unsafe. New Zealand is a relatively safe place to live in regarding your health. It is not perfect by any means, but when you compare us to other places, you realise how lucky we are. HIV aids is ravaging Africa. Malawi, a small country in southern Africa is believed to have over 1 million aids sufferers. A report suggests that 70% of hospital deaths in 2000 were AIDS related. The epidemic has heavily affected children. At the end of 2005, an estimated 91,000 children in Malawi were living with HIV, and over half a million children had been orphaned by AIDS. So is New Zealand safe in this respect? Very. Due to New Zealand’s isolation we are also less at risk from any possibly impending pandemics, such as bird flu which is creating much hype among medical professionals in the last few years. We aren’t completely immune, but the fact that we are so far away from anyone else, does make it easier to manage.
Another way in which New Zealanders are living in a safe environment is when looking at the case of international conflict. Terrorism. The Trade towers, the Madrid bombings and the London bombings. People overseas are afraid to use public transport, to work in large buildings or to go to huge public gatherings because of the risk of a suicide bomber or chemical gas attack. New Zealand is again, largely separated from this kind of activity. We have a foreign policy based on non-intervention and we did not take part in conflicts such as the War in Iraq. Therefore we are less of a target for violence. Our isolation also makes us safer in the case of foreign wars, or world wars. Neither WWI nor WWII ever got here, simply because we were too far away from the main battlefields of Europe. Our citizens were never under the attack of air-raids or living with the threat of chemical warfare. So again, in this respect we are better off.
Basically I think it comes down to, New Zealand may not be as safe as we night like to think it is, however nowhere is ever going to be completely safe and what we have in new Zealand is definitely a whole lot better to what you might find elsewhere in the world. We are certainly not crime free; in fact we are far from it. But we are still relatively safe in our homes and in most areas, 99.9% of the time you will be perfectly fine if you just go for a walk down the street. So in the end, I believe we have it relatively easy. On most occasions we can live our daily lives without interruption and we are not living in constant fear. And this, I believe, constitutes a safe country.
Crime. On average 100,000 New Zealanders are convicted of some sort of crime each year. Much of this may be petty crime, such as graffiti or vandalism, or theft of something like a handbag or bike. However much of the crime in New Zealand is malicious, and intended to hurt others, and the rates of this are increasing. How often are we now hearing on the news about a murder, rape, physical abuse, grievous bodily harm? Another innocent person who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time? However, though our crime rates are higher than we might want and increasing, they are not necessarily that bad compared to other countries. Take South Africa for example. It is widely acknowledged that in Johannesburg, you can’t just walk down the street without being at risk. People live in compounds behind barbed wire and multiple security gates. So when you compare our crime to this sort of situation, it begins to seem rather insignificant.
New Zealand is also free of a lot of problems which make other countries unsafe. New Zealand is a relatively safe place to live in regarding your health. It is not perfect by any means, but when you compare us to other places, you realise how lucky we are. HIV aids is ravaging Africa. Malawi, a small country in southern Africa is believed to have over 1 million aids sufferers. A report suggests that 70% of hospital deaths in 2000 were AIDS related. The epidemic has heavily affected children. At the end of 2005, an estimated 91,000 children in Malawi were living with HIV, and over half a million children had been orphaned by AIDS. So is New Zealand safe in this respect? Very. Due to New Zealand’s isolation we are also less at risk from any possibly impending pandemics, such as bird flu which is creating much hype among medical professionals in the last few years. We aren’t completely immune, but the fact that we are so far away from anyone else, does make it easier to manage.
Another way in which New Zealanders are living in a safe environment is when looking at the case of international conflict. Terrorism. The Trade towers, the Madrid bombings and the London bombings. People overseas are afraid to use public transport, to work in large buildings or to go to huge public gatherings because of the risk of a suicide bomber or chemical gas attack. New Zealand is again, largely separated from this kind of activity. We have a foreign policy based on non-intervention and we did not take part in conflicts such as the War in Iraq. Therefore we are less of a target for violence. Our isolation also makes us safer in the case of foreign wars, or world wars. Neither WWI nor WWII ever got here, simply because we were too far away from the main battlefields of Europe. Our citizens were never under the attack of air-raids or living with the threat of chemical warfare. So again, in this respect we are better off.
Basically I think it comes down to, New Zealand may not be as safe as we night like to think it is, however nowhere is ever going to be completely safe and what we have in new Zealand is definitely a whole lot better to what you might find elsewhere in the world. We are certainly not crime free; in fact we are far from it. But we are still relatively safe in our homes and in most areas, 99.9% of the time you will be perfectly fine if you just go for a walk down the street. So in the end, I believe we have it relatively easy. On most occasions we can live our daily lives without interruption and we are not living in constant fear. And this, I believe, constitutes a safe country.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Welcome to the World of www
Today’s teenagers put far more personal information on their Bebo or MySpace page than they would ever give a stranger in the street. In fact, it has almost taken over the social lives of some. A comment on Bebo can be just as valued as a face to face conversation, if not more so. And this, some say, is the problem. As our lives become so entwined with the internet, our personal information becomes more and more accessible. Are we putting ourselves in danger by using social networking sites?
We have all been taught about stranger danger since our first year at primary school, or maybe even before. We know not to get in the car with the guy who offers you a ride, no matter how friendly he may look and not to accept lollies from the smiling woman standing outside the school gate. This is all second nature to us, so it isn’t the problem.
However, many of us let our guard down over the net. We seem to believe that dodgy strangers aren’t getting our personal information simply because we aren’t giving it directly to them. Think again. In fact, you are probably in more danger from stalkers in cyber-space than in the real world. You see, it is much more straightforward to ‘stalk’ someone from the internet. It is easy to hide behind the sweet photo of your supposed-self, 15 year old “Polly” and the personal description of how you love “hanging with your friends and shopping”. Obviously, a 50 year old male paedophile isn’t going to be able to hide behind this persona while trying to lure kids into his car. So, how do you really know, next time a girl adds you to her MySpace page saying they are a friend of a friend, that they really are who they say they are? The answer is simple, you don’t.
The internet has also opened up a new form of abuse, cyber-bullying. Playground teasing used to be limited to, as the name implies, the playground. Once you left school, the ‘bullies’ couldn’t get to you. No such luck since the invention of the www world. The incidents of cyber-bullying have been escalating with kids and teenagers being harassed, abused and stalked over the internet by fellow-school mates. This sort of personal torment is insidious. No matter where you are, as long as you are near a computer screen, you can’t get away from it. It also allows the offenders to make the humiliation far more public. There have been various cases of youths video-taping attacks and then just to top it off, posting these videos on the net for the rest of the world to see.
So, are social networking sites endangering us? To certain extent, yes, they are. But in saying this, you get as good as you give. If you are putting your address, phone number or email address on your page, you’re asking for trouble. However, if you only add people you actually know, don’t advertise your address for the entire population of the planet to see, and take advantage of the safety options most of these sites provide, you will probably be fine. It comes down to doing all you can to minimise the risks and acting sensibly. It also pays sometimes to realise that, there is a real world out there! Real people, real conversations and real social interaction!
We have all been taught about stranger danger since our first year at primary school, or maybe even before. We know not to get in the car with the guy who offers you a ride, no matter how friendly he may look and not to accept lollies from the smiling woman standing outside the school gate. This is all second nature to us, so it isn’t the problem.
However, many of us let our guard down over the net. We seem to believe that dodgy strangers aren’t getting our personal information simply because we aren’t giving it directly to them. Think again. In fact, you are probably in more danger from stalkers in cyber-space than in the real world. You see, it is much more straightforward to ‘stalk’ someone from the internet. It is easy to hide behind the sweet photo of your supposed-self, 15 year old “Polly” and the personal description of how you love “hanging with your friends and shopping”. Obviously, a 50 year old male paedophile isn’t going to be able to hide behind this persona while trying to lure kids into his car. So, how do you really know, next time a girl adds you to her MySpace page saying they are a friend of a friend, that they really are who they say they are? The answer is simple, you don’t.
The internet has also opened up a new form of abuse, cyber-bullying. Playground teasing used to be limited to, as the name implies, the playground. Once you left school, the ‘bullies’ couldn’t get to you. No such luck since the invention of the www world. The incidents of cyber-bullying have been escalating with kids and teenagers being harassed, abused and stalked over the internet by fellow-school mates. This sort of personal torment is insidious. No matter where you are, as long as you are near a computer screen, you can’t get away from it. It also allows the offenders to make the humiliation far more public. There have been various cases of youths video-taping attacks and then just to top it off, posting these videos on the net for the rest of the world to see.
So, are social networking sites endangering us? To certain extent, yes, they are. But in saying this, you get as good as you give. If you are putting your address, phone number or email address on your page, you’re asking for trouble. However, if you only add people you actually know, don’t advertise your address for the entire population of the planet to see, and take advantage of the safety options most of these sites provide, you will probably be fine. It comes down to doing all you can to minimise the risks and acting sensibly. It also pays sometimes to realise that, there is a real world out there! Real people, real conversations and real social interaction!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)