Paintball…shot down and out in Germany

The game of paintball, dressing up in combat gear and shooting other players with paint pellets that explode on impact, is fun. It’s a game friends play on birthdays, bucks weekends and for the hell of it. Unless you’re a psychopath, it is unlikely that you’ll take it seriously. 

However, in Germany, people must play differently. Apparently, the game “trivialises violence” and has been outlawed along with games that use laser guns. Fines of up to 5000 euros will be fired at those who disobey. 

According to UK newspaper The Telegraph, the restrictions have been implemented in the wake of a tragic school shooting in March. A 17-year-old murdered 15 people before killing himself with his father’s legally registered pistol. Fair enough to tighten gun laws.

According to one German politician, because paintball simulates murder, it could reduce a person’s inhibition to committing real crimes. Interestingly, the 17-year-old responsible for the mass shooting had a passion for paintball.

On Australia’s Crikey.com, Richard Farmer jokes that he doesn’t think it will be long before conservative Australian do-gooders will campaign for similar bans. I’d like to see them try. As if the public will be complacent enough to let them rob us of our fun and games?

The issue here is not adults playing war-simulating games. Boys will be boys (and a lot of girls too, myself included) and we enjoy pretending to be Rambo or G.I Jane. Most of us are mature and sane enough to realise that we’re not playing to kill and nor will we be likely to murder anyone based on our enjoyment or experience of paintball.

The issue is, and maybe they are yet to consider this in Germany, the violent computer and game console programs that children are playing. On average boys spend 13 hours per week playing video games, girls spend 5 hours per week and research shows that the majority of video games include violence, says American publication Psychology Matters. Without parent supervision and guidance, children display increased violent behaviour. 

Adults, presumably, know the difference between right and wrong. We know that we’ll go to jail for shooting someone. We know that when we play paintball, we are not going to hurt anyone, nor will the game influence our perceptions of right and wrong. Children are not allowed to play paintball. That’s because their moral development isn’t complete. 

Banning paintball and laser gun games in Germany probably won’t do much except anger paintball enthusiasts. However, looking into regulating the sales of violent video games may prevent 17-year-old psychopaths from developing a passion for violence in the first place. Maybe. But then, as long as weapons exist, it is reality that there will always be devastating crime. Unfortunately, it is a truth of human nature.

Under fire: the future of cricket in Pakistan

 

Security camera image of armed terrorists in Lahore on Tuesday

 

 

AK47′s, grenades and a rocket launcher were fired at the Sri Lankan cricket team in a terrorist attack in Lahore, Pakistan, on Tuesday. Fourteen masked gunmen fired at the Sri Lankan team’s bus as it drove to Gaddafi stadium. The attack, killing eight Pakistanis and leaving 19 people wounded, including seven players and officials, has sparked debate about the future of international cricket in Pakistan. 

Both the Bangladesh and New Zealand cricket boards have announced that their upcoming tours of Pakistan will be postponed or called off in light of Tuesday’s attacks. However, former England cricket captain Michael Vaughan insists that given enough security, “they’ll be fine”. He believes that Pakistan’s expertise, financial importance to international cricket and its dedicated fans are reasons enough to keep cricket alive in the politically unstable nation.

Last year, Cricket Australia controversially canceled a tour to Pakistan, a decision which was supported by the Australian government. Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Stephen Smith said this decision had been vindicated by Tuesday’s bloody attacks. Certainly, the safety of traveling sports men and women is of paramount concern in a time when the political stability of many areas is uncertain. It is not justifiable to send sporting teams to such areas, risking not only their lives but the lives of their security. It is pure luck that no Sri Lankan players were killed on Tuesday. It is purely devastating that  eight Pakistani’s were killed.

Of course, Pakistani cricket fans will be disappointed that future international tours are in doubt. Raised doubts about Pakistan co-hosting the 2011 world cup will also worry fans. However, now terrorists have started targeting sporting teams, the future of many international sports is at risk. It is disappointing for everyone not just because terrorism has infiltrated sport, but because terrorism exists at all. Blame the terrorists, not the countries who won’t put their sporting teams lives at risk.

After Tuesday’s attacks it is evident that sporting teams should not tour in Pakistan, or any area where terrorism is rife. The life of our sportsmen is more important than the sport. The life of security staff is more important than the sport. Cricket is not worth dying for.

Can I afford dinner tonight? Of course not, I’m a student!

All over Australia university students are struggling to cope. They are either forced to compromise their studies to hold down a job to earn earn enough to live or remain homeless, couch hopping and skipping meals.

Jay Thompson from Online Opinion reports in ‘Postgraduate study and paying the bills’ that it isn’t just undergraduate students suffering from lack of funds. Our countries Master and Doctorate students are also in dire need of support. It seems that the general assumption among the public is that students are assisted by scholarships, bursaries, HECS and Centrelink. This is far from the truth.

As Thompson says, scholarships for post-grad students are becoming harder and harder to come by. Even for students lucky enough to be awarded a scholarship, it is almost impossible to to get by without some kind of supplementary work as the average post graduate scholarship is barely enough to cover the ever increasing costs of living. The added pressure of holding down a job is detrimental to students study.

As for Centrelink, unless you have earned roughly $18,000 in an 18 month period, you are not considered ‘independent’ until you are 25. As most uni students are between 18 and 24, they are ineligible for most Centrelink payments. For the wealthy, this is no problem. They can rely on Mum and Dad. For the rest, they can live in poverty and devote their time solely to their degrees or they can get a job which can effect their ability to complete assignments and study. Furthermore, once they graduate they are faced with thousands of dollars of HECS fees.

This is a major problem facing the future of Australia as today’s uni students are the leaders, business owners, doctors, journalists, academics and scientists of tomorrow. Without sufficient funding for students the education level of our nation will suffer, leading to decreased skilled services and university graduates in the labour force. As Thompson suggests, there are numerous solutions, the most cost effective being Universities providing low cost housing for students, relieving the pressure of somehow affording to pay rent. Whatever the solution, the problem is immense for both undergraduate and post-graduate students and needs addressing.

What R U Reading?

Did U know that if U read the newspaper every day, U R only 1 in 12 people that do? Our world is getting dumber by the minute and technology is only making things worse. In Australia, New South Wales is considering allowing ‘text speak’ in year 12 exams papers. That’s great for all those people that can’t spell YOU or ARE or don’t know how to Laugh Out Loud. But for the future of the country? LMAO (Laughing My Arse Off), you have to be kidding! Please, please don’t let us be dumber than America! We just overtook them in the ‘Fattest Nation’ stakes, don’t humiliate us anymore!

According to The Spectator’s Susan Jacoby in ‘Reading on the web is not really reading’, three years into the Iraq war two thirds of Americans couldn’t locate Iraq on a map with countries names on it. Four out of ten Americans never read any books, fiction or non-fiction. Since only one in 12 people read a daily newspaper, it is worrying that only one in eight access on-line news sites. Don’t current affairs matter anymore? 

It is important to be aware of what is going on around you and in an age of information saturation it is inexcusable to be ignorant. Why not turn off ‘Dancing with the Stars’ and read a book? Subscribe to a newspaper and don’t just skip to the cross words or horoscope. Take a footy and your children to the park and play with them. Don’t make them rely on video games for entertainment. Encourage them to read and learn where Iraq is on a map of the world. Make it your business to informed. Make it your business to educate your children. And for the sake of our language’s future, make it your business to avoid text speak. Got it? Cya

Armageddon scared of global warming!

Severe drought, flash floods, drastically dwindling oil supplies, rising sea level, possible extinction of hundreds of species of wildlife, possible food shortages and global recession. Global warming makes the future looks bleak for our world. What can we do to stop it? Snap out of our consumer driven, must have that fuel guzzling hummer and house with a plasma in every room and a 20 meter pool to match mindset most of us seem to be stuck in. 

In “Our New Energy Crisis” on US web magazine Mother Jones, Monika Bauerleine and Clara Jeffery preach what we all should know; we need a solution to global warming. Now. What it will take is something close to an industrial revolution they say. Both Obama and McCain have a history of association with energy plans. Both will be better than Bush. But, better isn’t good enough they warn. 

Indeed, there may be no “fix” for global warming. However, if we change the way we think about things then we can work towards a cleaner, greener world and a potentially longer future. The western world has always been consumer driven. Unfortunately, few of us think about the environment when we buy that new pair of rainbow striped Nike high-top trainers. How much oil was used to make them? How much carbon was released into the atmosphere? How much bigger did the hole in the ozone layer get, just so I could buy my new shoes? Sure, I may have made a difference buy not buying those new shoes. If everyone in the world turned of lights when they weren’t using them, switched to hybrid cars (if we could all afford them) and turned the tap off when we brushed our teeth then I’m sure that collectively, we could make a difference. However it’s just not realistic. At least not until everyone in the world was aware of the dire situation we’re in. 

According to Bauerleine and Jeffery, the solution lies in government which, with the presidential election is at the front of everyone’s minds. The only option is to “overhaul our society and economy, as we did when confronted with the Great Depression or World War Two” and hopefully before we run out of oil and ice-caps. To Bauerleine and Jeffery the global warming debacle is even “more important than resolving the war [in Iraq], bolstering the economy or fixing health care”. Global warming will eventually affect each and every one of us and generations to come regardless of where we live or how rich we are. So, we need to address it. 

Back to the solutions: 1. Overhaul society. Readers, tell everyone you know to unplug their phone chargers when they’re not in use and install rainwater tanks. There are 6.7 billion people in the world that need to be re-educated about preserving the environment so we need to start somewhere. 2. Overhaul economy. Mr Prime Minister (or prospective US President), please invest all of the countries’ spare money into solar power research and electricity generating wind farms. Please introduce taxes on plastic bags and please make Hybrid cars more affordable. Better yet, encourage people to take public transport. Ensure that all new buildings conform to a green energy standard and strive to reach our national carbon emission goal. OK, that oughta do it for a little while. But, don’t rest yet dear reader. Get to work to save for that Hybrid car (or catch the train).

Tobacco banned but weed is freed

Think Australia is the only place where tobacco smokers have been pushed out into the cold after our bans on lighting up in cafes, restaurants, pubs and clubs? Think that smokers in Europe are accepted wherever they go? Think that in Amsterdam in particular, anything goes? Think again. Things have just changed.

In Amsterdam, it is technically legal to smoke marijuana. If you’re 18 years or over, “coffee shops” can legally sell up to five grams to you which, most tourists anyhow, smoke in the shop. However, as reported by Britta Kuck on French opinion website Cafe Babel, 1st July saw the introduction of smoking bans in the Netherlands.

Now, “only marijuana [is] allowed to be consumed”. If you’re planning your liberating European trip of a lifetime and Amsterdam is in you itinerary for it’s laid back reputation, don’t fret. If pot is what you want, pot is what you will smoke. Since tobacco is now banned in all “coffee shops”, restaurants and cafes, the healthier tourists can rejoice too. Apparently, according Kuck, marijuana joints produce less smoke and are less damaging to your health than regular tobacco cigarettes. Even marijuana joints containing tobacco have been banned. However, only 18% of marijuana consumers don’t mix their pot with tobacco because pure marijuana would be too strong for most consumers says Kuck.

Due to the bans, pot pilgrims must be more careful about how much they smoke. Travellers, beware. Sure you don’t have to put up with tobacco smoke anymore, woohoo for that. But, weed from the Netherlands has a reputation of being pretty strong. Now that tobacco mixtures are forbidden a joint is no longer just a joint. How much is too much? One Netherlands tourist website advises traveller to ask coffee shop staff for assistance. “They’re only too happy to help”. I’m sure they are since they’re now breathing pure marijuana smoke all day.

Is this a wise decision by the Netherlands government? Of course not. It is potentially dangerous and will take a while for residents and tourists alike to adapt to. Most European countries have introduced smoking bans or are very close to doing so. It is this push from the European Union that resulted in the Netherlands ban. For other countries, where smoking cigarettes in the school yard, cafes and pubs is not uncommon, a ban on tobacco smoke is probably a good thing, as we’ve seen here in Australia. However, those countries don’t have the leniency when it comes to marijuana which is illegal. Thus, it is in no way dangerous to ban cigarette smoke. In the Netherlands it is different. They have a very different approach to smoking other substances so why conform to the European approach to smoking cigarettes? Ah well, I suppose residents will get used to the ban, just like Australians have. As for tourists, if they are so greedy, irresponsible or ignorant enough to ruin their Amsterdam experience from overindulgence then so be it.

Abortion: Should the limit be raised to 24 weeks?

The A word has always provoked passion in some people, controversy in society and is now the centre of a debate in parliament (again). Should abortion be completely legalised up to 24 weeks? By removing it from the criminal code and putting it under the health act it could be, but the debate is set to continue for a while yet.

In England, a similar debate is occurring. Their current laws deem abortion to be legal until 24 weeks into the pregnancy, what we’re trying to achieve here. However, some people are campaigning to get that limit lowered to 20 weeks. Jennie Bristow of Spiked, an English on-line opinion forum, argues in “24 reasons to defend 24 weeks” that women should have the right to decide when, should they chose to have an abortion. Her arguments are also applicable here in Australia given our similar debate.

Her first argument, that women need access to safe and legal abortion, is true no matter when the women is seeking an abortion. “History tells us that women with unwanted pregnancies will try their best to end them, sometimes with severe risk to their health”, Bristow says. She also says that there is no right time for abortion. We all know that abortion is no light issue. However, we usually think of abortion as a social, moral or religious issue. Instead, think about abortion from a women’s perspective.

No women set out to have abortions. It is an exhausting, personal and lengthy decision process. By extending the limit to 24 weeks we are releasing some of the pressure felt by women during the distressing decision making period. Instead of being forced into a decision quickly and trying to find appropriate medical services, women are free to consider the outcomes and not be rushed into a wrong decision.

There are a multitude of other reasons that a women may be delayed in seeking an abortion including emotional and physical risks to both herself and the foetus. Also, some women who originally wanted a pregnancy may, for many reasons, seek an abortion. This does not make these women any less deserving of the right to an abortion nor does it make abortion any less necessary says Bristow. “Women need abortions when they need them, not when somebody else thinks it is the right time to have them.”

Finally, what difference does it make to us, as a society, whether a very small minority of women have an abortion at the later stage up to 24 weeks? Once the bill is passed or rejected, how many of us will be affected by it or even give it a second thought? For whatever reason abortion is opposed, it is the women that need abortions that are affected the most. Why take their right to chose away from them? Why make them suffer, and possibly a child suffer, from an unwanted pregnancy Bristow asks. An abortion is often an extremely emotional and distressing but often necessary procedure for a woman. Should we lift the abortion limit to 24 weeks to make this decision less traumatising for the women it concerns? Consider yourself in this position. Would it change your mind?

Melbourne’s public transport crisis not over yet

Melbourne is in the midst of a transport economy crisis. I don’t use the word ‘crisis’ lightly either. Every second day there is an article in the newspaper about our public transport inefficiency. As petrol becomes more expensive, more people are turning to public transport which, undeniably, cannot support this influx of passengers in its current state. What’s worse is that this crisis comes at a time when the government should be encouraging people to switch to public transport…unless they want us to die of carbon dioxide poisoning and global warming repercussions.

Tristan Ewins of Online Opinion is calling for “a revolution in the transport economy” and asking for the government’s help. How is it, he asks, that residents of Vancouver, Canada, are privy to the use of an extensive public transport system at around half the price of Melbourne’s? Unfortunately for Melbournians, unless you live in the transport rich inner city suburbs, you are forced to pay high fairs for transport that is so crowded during peak time that it is often impossible to hold onto a hand rail, let alone get a seat. Furthermore, services are frequently delayed or cancelled. Even worse is that for many suburbs, such as the eastern suburbs where I live, there are no trams or trains at all and buses are rare, especially during the day.

Perhaps that’s why only one in 20 outer melburnians take public transport to work, as noted by Ewins. Considering the average “$2918 annual running cost” of cars (according to Ewins) compared to a Metlink yearly ticket of $1117 for zone one or $1722 for zones one and two, it’s a wonder that people are still driving to work. Perhaps it’s because they have no choice, there isn’t enough public transport. However, if the government is as concerned about climate change as they say they are, it’s about time they took some measures to keep in check the ever increasing public transport crisis. Our population is growing, at an alarming rate, but our public transport system isn’t.

The Olympics are about Politics? No-one told the athletes.

No human rights...no Olympics?

Back in 2001, when China was awarded the right to host the current 2008 Olympic Games, IOC president Jaques Rogge said he hoped that hosting the Olympic Games would help improve China’s human rights record. The time is now upon us and recent Chinese retaliation to the Tibetan unrest evidently shows that China made no such promise, as confirmed by Wang Wei, secretary general of the Beijing Olympics organising committee.

Since the outbreak of violence in Tibet in March this year athletes, world leaders and Tibetan demonstrators have questioned the decision of the IOC to allow China to host the Games. Many have considered boycotting the games and the Olympic torch relay has been plagued by violence and protests since the very beginning. However, the controversial question is: should politics be linked to sport?

The 2008 Olympics are being likened to similar political outbursts at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics which were questioned for Southern US homophobic culture. The 2000 Sydney Olympics were also surrounded with controversy over Australian Aboriginal rights.  Unfortunately, the Olympics are not supposed to be a time of controversy, protest, violence or conflict. For two weeks every four years isn’t it possible to celebrate the talent of the world’s athletes and unite in peace as we stand behind them in support? Apparently not according to Crikey.com’s Bernard Keane.

For viewers at home sometimes it isn’t possible to forget the violence China inflicted on Tibet. Nor is it possible to forget whaling in Japan, conflict in Georgia and Russia or war in Africa. The world is full of terrible people, governments and tradgedies. However, it is also full of athletes that have dedicated their lives to training for the Olympics. All they want is to succeed. For themselves, their families and their countries. Now the Olympics are here, whether China deserves to hold them or not. If a Russian athlete and a Georgian athlete can hug after their event, isn’t it possible for us at home not to forget, but to put our predjudice on hold while we witness some amazing feats of athleticism? The athletes are doing it for you, can we do it for them?

Is Google Street View The New Big Brother?

Smile, you’re on candid camera! Since Google introduced “Street View” to Australia on 4th August, almost a year since its launch in the US, debate has raged over whether or not the program is an invasion of privacy or if we just need to be more careful about what we do and where we do it. Gaining popularity for its novelty factor, images have been collected from a street level camera on almost any city street in the US, France, Italy, Japan and now Australia. Having read George Orwell’s 1984, this is an alarming concept of Big Brother watching us.

“Street View” is a feature of Googlemaps. However, is it really useful? Sure, it was useful for the guy who caught his neighbour parking in front of and damaging his garage in his absence. It was also useful for the woman photographed with a rake and bucket in her garden so she can now prove to her friends that she is the hardworking, gardening spouse. Really though, Google Street View does not help navigate the streets for travelling purposes beyond what a normal map or regular Google map can do.

Many Australians have been affected in the week since the introduction of the program. There’s the woman who was shocked to see both of her parents standing outside their house in a street view, especially since her father had passed away a month ago. There have been many complaints from residents living in private roads who have been photographed, or had their property photographed, as the Google photographer’s car ignored no trespassing signs. There have been homeless people caught on camera, their faces clearly visible as Google ignored promises to blur all faces. There have also been sunbathing teenage girls viewed by voyeurs the world over.

Of course, Google Street View is not actually doing anything illegal (yet). The photographer’s car is on public property (usually) and is only photographing things that can be seen by any passer by at the time. In the case of two sunbathing girls on college grounds in the US, their images are now being commented on in various blogs over the internet. I know the girls were in full public view anyway but would they have moved if they knew the were being photographed for Street View? I would have. As Paul Bullock commented on Crikey.com (Oh no, Google took a photo of my house!) there is a definite difference between being seen in a public space and being photographed in a public space which is broadcast all over the world.

Street view is also a fantastic tool for the criminally minded. Due to the ability to zoom into high resolution pictures, it is often easy to see a plasma television in the window of a house. It is possible to see what kind of cars people drive, how big their houses are, possible entry points and where to park the getaway car (and probably a whole heap of other useful stuff too but I’m not a crook so I wouldn’t know). All this criminals can access from their own homes, without having the risk of being seen snooping by neighbours. Also, some parent groups have complained that paedophiles can roam the streets looking for areas with lots of kids, areas where kids have been snapped playing in the street or accessible streets or parks around schools.

The novelty factor is high though and Street View is the techy thing of the moment. Is it really useful though? And to what detriment? Does it really matter if our homes and their inhabitants are photographed for the world to see? What do you think? Don’t forget, Big Brother is watching…