Y07043

Driving Age

Driving children around can be a hassle. Especially if they are very social or play sport. With having a child being able to drive, relieves the stress of “what time do I have to pick them up?” Or “where are they?” So, the driving age should not be put up. As of August 1^st 2011 it is going to change to 16. In order to help parents cope it should stay at the current age of 15. As well as this it will teach young adults how to become independent. Driving also helps them to be more responsible.

In order to help parents cope, the driving age should stay the same. A personal example of this is when I was waiting for my mum and she forgot to pick me up. When parents are driving children around remembering where they are or what time to pick them up puts a lot of pressure on parents. So it should stayat the current age which is 15 for a learners licence.

Teaching young adult’s independence can be hard but letting them drive is an easy solution. When people drive by themselves they have to make decisions that involve no one but themselves. An independent 16 year old would be them driving to sports practices and parking in a good spot by themselves.

Teaching young adults how to be responsible can be a hard task. But letting them drive is a huge responsibility and that’s why it should stay at 15. If you are driving on the road by yourself, you have to be responsible because if you’re not someone could be injured or even killed. With driving comes a lot of costs like, warrant of fitness (WOF), petrol and registration. To pay for all that you have money and to get money you have to work. Most 15/16 year olds can’t get a job because they’re not old enough, or big enough. Also if you are involved in a crash that is another huge cost that needs to be payed for.

In summary, the driving age should not go up because it helps parents cope with all the stresses. Helps young adults become independent. It also helps young adults become a lot more responsible behind the wheel and hopefully everywhere else.

Y10202

Smokers Are Jokers

Past generations used to think smoking was great and all the ‘cool’ people did it, but since then we have found it is not cool as it can take your life. There are several problems with smoking like the costs, health risks and the addiction. Smoking is a big factor in New Zealand so why would anyone carry on smoking?

Years ago thought it was cool to smoke until they found out about the health risks. From smoking you can get different types of cancers, for instance lung, mouth, lip and heart cancer. From being around smokers, there’s a thing called ‘second hand smoke’, which is simply inhaling it, so it has its health affects on everyone. I think it is a good idea about the smoke-free zones as it minimises places with smoke and then people are prevented from smoking until they find a place where they can, and it doesn’t lead to second hand smoke for other people. There is not one cigarette company now that does not try to get people to quit, they put all these horrible pictures of cancer or cracked lips from smokers which are truly ugly and sometimes it actually persuades people to quit. But still people say to me it is impossible to quit, so why do people carry on smoking?

I class smoking as a drug as it is very addictive and people get hooked easily. There are no benefits to smoking except it gives you something to do. It is not a good example to set for younger generations because look at what example they set on us, and now the present smokers can not quit. From teenagers to elders, people all round New Zealand smoke and personally I think we can change that. There are things like patches that you can easily attach to your arm, and they help you stop the craving of smoking or things as simple as gum which gives you excellent reasons to quit. So why don’t people quit?

The costs of smoking is not to flash either, a negative is there is packets from around fifth teen to forty dollars, and some people chew through a few packs a week so the money starts to add up. People who smoke eventually end up having to pay for healthcare as well if they want to live, which can be very expensive. Imagine what the family misses out on, if people saved there money each week for a year I am sure they could almost take there family on a holiday. So it can affect everyone in all types of ways, so it is pretty selfish to continue this habit considering the cost affects on your family.

Smoking should be banned in New Zealand, and I am glad I know I will never get into it. Anyone smart would know it is bad for you, and there are so many reasons why people should quit, whether its costs, health risks or the facts that it is a drug. It has its affects on everyone and harms people around you and basically there are no positives. It is pointless and everything adds up, so why not quit?

Y 10202

Y07078

The pay difference between people in the race industry is unfair

It’s an outrageous that a race car driver sit’s on there backside for 2 hours. But they get paid these ridiculous sums. But the race engineer probably the most stressed out person at the race meeting.

Ok take, for instance with Michael Schumacher. He got paid $60 million with Ferrari. I bet his race engineer never got paid that much in all the years he worked in F1. We know that Michael won 6-7 world championship to his name but he wouldn’t have been able to do that without his engineer.

In 2009 the lowest paid F1 driver was Jamie Alguersuari and he was $0.5 million and that was the lowest and an engineer around $40,000 and $50,000 that’s probably a driver’s pocket money. Most of the drivers if they get fined the teams pay it for them how wrong is that. Personally I think you do the crime you should deal with the consequences.

Have you seen the sponsorships? And that just the driver there’s even more on the car I watched a NASCAR race the other day and was gobsmacked to see how much there was. By the time hew was finished people had forgotten who had won the race. It will be more money for the drivers back pocket.

Now by now you’re probably stating to think that I hate race car drivers. But that’s not true I have the most respect for them. What they can do in that car is amazing you put an average Joe in there and he would probably crash. Here’s is an example for you Sebastian Vettel they way he made his tyres last for 61 laps when they are only meant to last around 45 laps so that’s about 16 laps more then they should of. It would be like driving on bald tyres for 16 more laps and he still won the race. So I can kind of see why they get paid more but they could find some place in the middle.

Usually a season last about 16 race meetings but a race engineer last from about January to maybe middle of December. The drivers have it so easy with there sponsor events. While the engineer is still the looking over data have a de-brief and organise people for the rebuild of the car the engineer would be the first one there and the last one out of there at night time.

So you have read my argument about the unfairness in the racing industry. I hope you have the same amount of outrage as I do and I hope that this will make a little difference in the pay but even if it doesn’t. It won’t stop me trying to become a race engineer.

Q07114

Nuclear energy. Everyone has heard of it , but do we really know the full effects of nuclear energy on the enviroment. Nuclear energy is harmfull to the enviroment it releases radiation, it warms streams that’s water are used to cool the reactors core, it also is said to release no carbon dioxide, this is true but cabon dioxide is releasd in mining the uranium and it is released in storing and trucking of the waste products.

Chernobyl the name of the city destroyed by nuclear radiation its memory scorched into earth and our memorys. Japan 2011 a tsunami hit the fukushima nuclear power palnt  and radiation has split out in all directions . radiation  harms the enviroment because it changes “dna” this can cause cancer ,trees to rot  and animals to die . it can get into food  and cause and can cause a family to have genetic mutations for many decades. Currently  the only way to stop radiation is  by encasing the source in lead .however as seen at chernobyl once radiation has been able to escape the effects can take hundreds of years to revearse fully.the radiation can also be caught in couds and form “acid rain” this can melt throught roves and stautes and many more things

However human lives are not the only lives being lost in the struggle against nuclear power. When the atoms of a nuclear are collided or split it creates a masive amout of heat  this heat is cooled down by sucking fresh cld water out of streams and pumped around the core  this water is then pupmed back out into the strem 27oc  hotter this heat is killing fish life , plant life and destroying the streams ecosyatems. This affect can snowball if nothing is done.

Carbon dixoide “greenhouse gas” Nuclear power is a clean green power it does not release carbon dioxide . True but deceving although the actual generating of power does not emmit carbo dioxide , there are alot of things that the nuclear powerplant need tht do. Uranium is used in the reactor core this has to be mined and trucked or shipped. To power the machienes that mine, petrol is used . nuclear power plants have to be built this and all of the entity emit carbon dioxide , so can it really be said that a nuclear power plant does not emmit carbon dioxide.

Chernobyl , eco systems, carbon dioxide, all have or will affect the enviroment, nuclear energy is not clean energy that is made out to be. It has cost lives , money and the enviroment . I can leave you only with one question , is nuclear power worth the enviroment ?.     

Q07061

Invercargill Teenage Drinking

It is a widely known fact in Invercargill, Perhaps all of Southland that every weekend many teenage students attend parties all over the city. Many people often turn a blind eye to the “problem” of underage drinkers on the basis that they are dubbed “a waste of taxpayer money” causing problems and disruptions among society. Many people often complain about the irresponsibility of the teenagers attending these parties, but infact, the people who attend these parties do all they can do to keep them safe.

Often around midnight complaints roll into the police station about youth being to loud and disruptive, but these people who complain can not see what is going on behind the fence of the party, which, is very responsible as the hosts of the parties will often tell people to get back inside the gate or leave the party and get off the street. The owner of the party will then tell everyone there to stay in the gate or leave now, keeping the party under control, but before the complainers can get the chance to see all this the police are rung and many people who are following the rules and having a good time are forced to leave, often by force when explaining there point to the police. The owner, who is often very responsible takes the blame although it was ruined by a few people who could not wait that extra five minutes to see the people loitering at there gates or footpath by there house either leave the party or re enter the gate.

Many people will complain that the tax money they pay is wasted on youth drinking as their money is wasted on police patrolling the parties “keeping everything in line” as they will say. This is simply not the case as many incidents that occur at night time at these parties is often started by the police who barge onto the property with no warrant and start to grab people with a fair amount of force and drag them back to their police cars, throw them inside the car and then walk off to go and get the next unlucky victim. If the police asked people to leave the parties instead of technically assaulting and harassing them they would be surprised to see that 95% of people asked would leave the party and not complain about it. The real waste of tax payer money is not the people attending these parties it is how they are being patrolled. A simple solution for this would be to have the police know in advance when a party is going to be happening and they must receive a set amount of complaints before they come to the parties and even then instead of using force asking politely for the people in attendance to “move along”. The results would be very shocking as many of the teenagers would leave and go home without any fuss.

The people in Invercargill are very mean when it comes to making assumptions about things they have no knowledge about. While it is true that teenagers drinking is not the sort of image that we want the rest of the nation and perhaps world to see, do we want the nation and rest of the world to see a nation where the police are often brutally treating the teenagers trying to have a good time? The fact of the matter is that teenage drinkers are often responsible when it comes to drinking, look out for one another and do not cause a nuisance, those who do cause a nuisance to the public will usually be walking home talking to there friends loudly and the noise passes after a few seconds so there is nothing to say that the people drinking are irresponsible as they travel in groups, keep each other in line and go out of there way to avoid trouble.

In conclusion, do we really want to be the world wide face of police brutality? The public needs to be aware that teenagers are extremely responsible when it comes to drinking and that they go out of their way to keep everyone happy and each other in line, teenager’s show respect day in and day out, show them some respect and leave teenagers alone.

Q9139

Should New Zealand Rugby Players Be Eligible to Play for New Zealand If they Play Their Club Rugby Overseas

Should New Zealand rugby players be allowed to play their rugby overseas and still be eligible to play for the All Blacks? Some people say they should and some people say they should not. But of course they should not be allowed to, if all New Zealand’s best rugby players head overseas to earn some big money what is going to happen to our provincial competition? Should the NZRU be paying bigger money or should we just let them play overseas and still play for the All Blacks?

Dan Carter, Richie McCaw, Sonny-Bill Williams and Ma’a Nonu have all gone overseas but are all still eligible to play for New Zealand and Conrad Smith, Kieran Reid, Cory Jane and Tony Woodcock will go. They are earning great money and still get to play for New Zealand. What good is left in New Zealand? Well there is still provincial rugby but who wants to watch that when there is no All Blacks playing? If the All Blacks all go overseas and still play for New Zealand it is going to leave the provincial competition in tatters and therefore what money is the NZRU getting? The crowds are not turning up and the moneys not going into the NZRU pocket. If this happens New Zealand will have no world class stadiums for the All Blacks to play in, we won’t be able to pay for decent coaches and therefore we will not be winning games.

Dan Carter gets a 4 million dollar contract and gets to choose when he wants time off, he even gets to go on a sabbatical and play for an English rugby team. But what is the point in giving him all that money? Yes, he is a great rugby player, but we are paying him millions of dollars for him to play his rugby in New Zealand, we are not paying him for time off and to go and play rugby over in England. Then there is Sonny-Bill Williams he is earning close to 1 million dollar’s a year and he is also aloud to take on a semi-pro boxing career. What’s going to happen if he gets injured in the ring and can’t play in the world cup? Hes here to play rugby isn’t he, so will he still get paid, of course he will but what price could the NZRU pay?

It’s a large talking point in New Zealand at the moment. Should we be letting our top players go and play there rugby over in other countries and still be aloud to play for the All Blacks? Of course they should not be aloud to, if all our best rugby players go over and play in England then our great running style game that New Zealand is so well known for will be thrown out the window, and the only style of rugby will be  the boring sort of rugby like non stop rucks and mauls and the game will revolve around the set piece play which nobody likes to watch, if we can keep all of our players in New Zealand we can keep that fast flowing game style going and New Zealand will always be one of the stronger nations in world rugby.

New Zealand rugby players should not be allowed to play rugby for New Zealand if they play overseas because it will destroy our provincial rugby competition, our game style will change to that boring style of rugby which the English love so much and if all our top flight players go overseas the crowds wont turn up to the games and the NZRU will lose money and would the All Blacks keep winning?

Q7102

Should Southland Boys High School use methods of detention such as Saturday Morning detentions?

Saturday Morning Detentions

Your cold, bored and silent, sitting in a room at nine o’clock on Saturday morning. You sit there silently for three hours till the teacher allows you to leave. Is this a reasonably and fair punishment for something as little as not having a blue pen? Are Saturday morning detentions going to resolve issues such as misconduct, bullying, verbal and physical violence? Is it worth stopping your child from playing sport for him to sit quietly and do nothing for three hours? Saturday morning detentions are a waste of time and an inconvienience to parents, teachers and students. They should not be used as a method of punishment or used to resolve issues.

Teachers can be very unreasonable at times, giving students unfair punishments. Teachers have given students punishments for things such as not coming to class with the correct equipment, this could be as little as not coming to class with a blue pen. It is not fair to be punished for something as lttle as this. Sitting in a cold, silent and boring room is not a fair or resonable punishment because of a teachers frustration with the class has been taken out on you.

Saturday morning detentions are not going to resolve issues that students have with teachers or bullying, verbal and physical abuse. Issues such as these are not going to be resolved by giving the student a Saturday morning detention that consists of sitting in a cold room for three hours. Issues like these are only going to be resolved by talking about it after class with the students or student. An issue could be that a student has a problem with another student in class that could be of bullying and verbally abusing the other student. Punishing the student to do a Saturday morning detention will not resolve this issue, the issue will only escalate into an after school physical fight on Monday. To resolve this issue properly the issue should be talked about and resovled after class between the students and teacher after class. Saturday morning detentions do not resolve issues but make the perpetrator angrier and the victim then is greater effected.

Sport is a great way to socially interact with friends and is also very good for a student health. A Saturday morning detention takes away this great physical activity, for a student to sit in a room for three hours doing nothing and wasting time of the teacher supervising and the students parents. As well as wasting time it also is an inconvenience to family members, parents and teachers. Students need sport for building pair skills and team work, and because of something as little as not turning upto class with a blue pen, the student misses out on such great skills that are needed in life. A Saturday morning detention effects students health and social life and should not be used as a method of punishment.

Saturday morning detentions are not a fair and resonable punishment to give to students at Southland Boys High School. Saturday morning detentions will not resolve issues. It is not worth stopping a student from playing sport to sit in a room for three hours doing nothing but wasting time. Saturday mornings are for recreation and relaxation with friends and family. Saturday morning detentions should not be used as a method of punishment at Southland Boys High School.

P07029

Formal Writing

Assisted suicide can be justified

If your mother or father has been working in a blue collar job scenario in order to support a family for a generation, then is diagnosed with an illness such as multiple sclerosis that will leave them in agony for the few years they have left, is it correct, with your and their consent, to give them a peaceful ending to the miraculous lives that they have lived? Assisted suicide can be justified in few rare occasions, but it is on those occasions that it is needed most.

Take Dr John Pollock for example. Last year he was diagnosed with Terminal Cancer. An incurable life threatening disease that would left him in distress for the rest of his life. He had lived a very successful life as a General Practitioner. In his career he saved hundreds of lives. And now that he has been diagnosed with Terminal cancer, he believed that his life was complete and was ready to depart from earth in a painless and humane manner. However Pollock was refused the power to decide his own fate as it is technically against the law. his entire family was in favour of his decision and were prepared to accept his wishes. When Pollock was refused assisted euthanasia, he appealed to New Zealand via the TV1 show Close Up. It was there that he made a plea to New Zealanders and the Government to legalize assisted euthanasia. During the interview with Close Up, Pollock quoted “I don’t really fancy the idea of becoming so emaciated, so withered, that my vital organs just stop working”. Pollock’s attempt failed and passed away on the 19^th September 2010. His family, however, has continued the fight to legalize assisted euthanasia and will keep persevering until their goal is reached.

Consistent polling in Britain shows that at present, 80% of the public want physician-assisted Suicide available to themselves in the circumstances where there lives have become unbearable without remedy. The Massey University Department of Marketing also constructed a survey between August and December 2008 that asked one thousand people if they believed they should be allowed, if a person has an incurable disease, to end there life if the person requests it. 70% said yes, 17% said no and 13% were unsure.  These statistics show that the majority of people in various locations are pro assisted euthanasia as long as it is done in a controlled and safe environment, with trained professional performing it.

There are 5 locations in the world of which assisted euthanasia is legal. These consist of The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and the American states of Oregon and Washington. When legislation was introduced into Oregon the Supreme Court backed up Oregon in there attempt to legalize assisted suicide in there state. Under section 179 of the New Zealand Crimes Act, 1961, the act of assisted suicide is deemed illegal. The law is still in effect to this day.  However, there are many groups and organizations across the country including VESNZ (Voluntary Euthanasia Society) actively protest against the law, trying to over turn it.

Assisted suicide should be legalized even if it is highly restricted and comes with distinct terms and conditions. The main reason for this is to give people the option of being put to sleep in a humane way rather than suffering in pain and discomfort for the remaining length of their lives.

Y07006

Books VS Cell phones and Computers

            

There are pros and cons to Books vs Cell phones and Computers.

Cell phones and computers are better in some ways because, they are easier to carry than books. They are better for people with busy life styles because you can find more information in the same time as searching one book. You can use cell phones and computers to message people. They take up less space than books. You can use them in the dark because of the lighted screen and keys.

Cell phones and computers have down sides because, you have to pay hundreds for them before you can access information on them, on top of that cost you have to pay for internet (computers) and internet/texts/calls (cell phones) then you can search for information or message people. The computers and cell phones have to have a charged battery or be plugged into a power cable/charger to be able to use them. If you get a flat battery or power outage you can not use them. If you get them wet they will short out and you will have to pay more money to get a new one.

Books are better in some ways because, you do not have to pay hundreds for something before you can read anything out of it. You do not have to rely on it working it always will. Books give people a more in-depth feeling than cell phones and computers. They are easier to access at school. They are better for your mind.

Books downsides are if they get wet the pages will go soggy and the ink will run, pages will stick together and the book will be ruined. They are bulky and heavy to carry around. A book you have to search harder to find the equivalent or less information than you could get at one website from a computer. You can not message/ring people like you can on cell phones.

My honest opinion on the subject books vs. cell phones and computers is that if you are doing something like an assignment for example, most people would use a computer rather than a book because its faster and easier but if you wanted to read something, go for a book because they are easier to read than computer screens and better for your eyes. I recommend using both things equally, because if you rely on computers and cell phones to much one day they will crash and we will have to go back to the basics while they are being repaired.

By Brendan Allan

Y07042

AS. 1.5A        

Why are schools not digital?

Schools should go digital. We are in the digital age and technology is changing. Laptops and other portable devices are getting smaller, lighter, more compact and they can be used for multiple years levels and classes. They also minimize waste and can be more efficient.

In 2011 we are in the digital age and technology is getting smaller, lighter faster and more user friendly. The old style books (printed) are getting less popular as they are expensive. But digital readers cost approximately $150 and the books are as cheap as $20. This is lot cheaper and in the long run can reduce the cost of studying.

Another advantage of a digital book or laptop is that they could be used in ways which minimize waste. If a school went digital there would be no need for lots of photocoping. Everything in a document could be sent by email or Bluetooth almost instantly and for free. Another advantage is that they could be used in the years to follow instead of binning them at the end of the year like you would with most books.

Many people can type faster than they can write by hand; it may be that they have moterskill problems or that they are just slow. For that reason using a digital device could also be faster. With the availability of operating systems like Windows 7 and programs like OneNote searching is also more efficient. For example if I was to type something into the search bar the computer will automatically search the right places and display results, and in office 2010 hyperlinking is very easy.

One thing that you can not do with books is back them up quickly and for free. On a digital device if you have the right hardware you can make multiple copies of any document almost instantly and for free. Because most documents are small you can fit hundreds into a 1GB pen drive, and with the availability of SD cards, pen drives, external hard drives and networking you can backup file almost anywhere even into cyberspace.

So in conclusion text books are more expensive than digital devices in the long run, they can not be backed up without buying another copy and they can be wasteful. So why should schools not go digital?

Y09204

BATTLE OF THE CENTERS

Picking backs for the rugby world cup will be difficult this year as a wide range of players halved preformed consistently well in the super 15 seasons. A lot of new names that has popped up time and time again we are constantly hearing of these youngster playing out of there skins. These players are proving they are just as good as the senior players. Vie chosen to write about to very well known names that have appeared a lot this season. Robbie  Fruean and Richard kahui have both proven why they should pick for the All Blacks this year.  These players have very similar all round stats but different attributes for example Robbie Freuan is a very explosive ball runner and is very good at ruining angles of Sunny Bill Williams and is good at finding gaps but Richard is a show stopper with his on the spot tackles he has the ability to lift his teams intensity which has the effect to determined the outcome of the game.

One thing  Robbie Freuan lacks in is test match experience he has not proven he can perform his best at top level rugby he has been critcised that he is not constant I fell sympathetic for him as he hasn’t had a chance to prove these sports show host but still they look past this and are very pathetic his name is been highlighted as a stand out in the super rugby season with his blistering speed in my words “he rips up the opposition back line”.But personally I rate Robbie as one of the stand out players in the crusaders outfit.Richard Kahui has played a reasonable amount of test rugby but has not proved that he is consastintly at top grade football.

Y09204

P07076

Mining in New Zealands National Parks should not be allowed

New Zealand, a clean green country with scenery to die for. All over the world New Zealand is be marketed as 100% pure, or is it? In 2010 the New Zealand Government proposed exploration in conservation land for valuable minerals that would boost our economy. Would the Government tarnish our clean green image just to have a bit of money in its backpocket. Or does the voice of the people mean more than money in a modern day Democracy?

Tourism is a major part of the New Zealand economy and many tourists come for the picturesque views that our beautiful national parks offer. The tourism industry is worth 21.7 billion dollars compared to the mining industry which brought 2 billion dollars to the New Zealand economy in 2010. Minister of Energy and Resources Mr Gerry Brownlie stated that if the “7058ha went a head it could give New Zealand an estimated 194 billion dollars worth of minerals”. This would give the New Zealand economy a major boost. But if the proposal went ahead would the tourism industry be affected by New Zealand going back on their laurels of not being clean and green? In a TV One Colmar Brunton 48% of people questioned said they didn’t want mining on conservation land, this shows us that the New Zealand truly care about how they are percieved. “ Despite the public backlash” Prime Minister John Key still wanted to subsidise $4 million of prospecting in our protected areas. Would the Government be prepared to gamble in the Mininig Industry and damage their image and suffer in the Tourism Industry?

A reason why many tourists come back and spread the word about New Zealand is our natural beauty in our national parks. All seven sites proposed are protected by the Schedule 4 law. The land that is protected in Schedule 4 is owned by the state and mining is forbidden. But the thoughts of the National led Government are completely different as quoted by Mr Brownlie “ we National implemented that the whole concept of Schedule 4 would disappear”. In the Coromandal alone there is believed to be $18 million of minerals that would be removed from Schedule 4 land. But with high reward there is always high risk, such as scarring the landscape, destroying native forest or even harm our endangered native birds which are all things that money will never be able to buy. Would the Government be prepared to destroy priceless land and animals for a few extra bucks?

Its not all a disaster if the mining Schedule 4 land went ahead. Apart from the obvious of boosting the New Zealand economy their would be job opportunities created which is a positive in this time with the recession and not many jobs available. This could stem the flow of many Kiwis going to Australia who move for better opportunites in mines in a land rich in minerals. This would give some of these people a choice to stay close to their family and get similar amount of pay. Also there is an estimated value of $140 billion worth of minerals underground. This would allow the mines to be constructed underground out of the view of the eye. The land above would not be destroyed and many native animals would be able to stay in their natural habitat. Mr Key has stated that “ There will be mining on conservation area” so if the proposal did go ahead there would be benefits. If the 7058ha was a success the Government would be open to survey an extra 12400ha which would be considered for mining.

Critics believe that in the debate about the mining of Conservation land the negatives outweigh the positives. To think the New Zealand Government would even consider to touch our National Parks which defines the words of natural beauty is unbelieveiable. Our National Parks are a major asset and should be admired rather than dug up and create a massive eyesore. The people of New Zealand have made their thoughts loud and clear, leave our protected land alone.

By James Larsen