Showing posts with label caroline geroyan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label caroline geroyan. Show all posts
Sunday, 29 September 2013
Playtime Is Not Just for Kids
Camp counselors Doug (Lucas Connelly) and Sally (Grace De Morgan)
Remember when you were a kid, and the world was your playground? You had no fears and no inhibitions. Having fun was not an option, it was a necessity, and lets face it, your biggest worry was whether there was going to be fairy bread at the upcoming party.
Well at Camp Super Happy Sunshine Fun, camp counselors Doug (Lucas Connelly) and Sally (Grace De Morgan) wind the clock all the way back. Set in the Newtown Neighborhood Centre as part of the 2013 Sydney Fringe Festival, they aim to restore your childhood memories and experiences by recreating an outdoor camp scene (fake bonfire and all) where adults of all ages immerse themselves in activities that they took part in when they were kids.
Camp founder and director, Maya Sebestyen, got the idea to start this “adults only summer camp” whilst she was working as a camp counselor in the US.
“All the other camp counselors were really childlike. The kids would go to bed and we would be like thank God they have gone to bed, but then we would be like so dodge ball?”
Camp Super Happy Sunshine Fun runs for one and a half hours. During this time all of the participants take part in various games and activities that you would have done at summer camp including dodge ball (with marsh mellows rather than big heavy balls), tunnel ball, pirate hat making, potato Olympics and of course reciting camp cheers and chants around the bonfire. And yes, at the very end there is an honorary medal ceremony rewarding those who performed exceptionally well.
“I guess I thought that we stop doing this stuff when we are kids but it never actually stops being fun, Sebestyen says. “I think it is those teenage years where you try to grow up as fast as you can, and then you are grown up and you forget what it is like to actually be a kid.”
Kevin Acquard, a 25 year-old camper admits that when he initially realised what he was in for at Camp Super Happy Sunshine Fun, he was displeased and on the brink of turning around and heading out to the nearest bar instead.
“I was dragged to come and at the beginning I was thinking to myself what was I doing here. I just wanted to leave and go drink next door. But as soon as it all started I really got into it. The team structure of the games made them really fun and competitive and I found myself lost in them because I wanted to win. I forgot how fun they were. I had not played for years.”
There has been much sociological research on the importance of childlike play for adults, especially in today’s fast paced world.
“Our society tends to dismiss play for adults,” says psychologist and associate editor of The Importance of Play for Adults, Margarita Tartakovsky M.S. “Play is perceived as unproductive, petty or even a guilty pleasure. The notion is that once we reach adulthood, it’s time to get serious. And between personal and professional responsibilities, there’s no time to play. But play is just as pivotal for adults as it is for kids. Play brings joy. And it’s vital for problem solving, creativity and relationships.”
“It is really fun to play and I think it is really important,” continues Sebestyen. It comes really naturally to me but I know it does not come as naturally to other people but I think if you put people in this kind of environment they latch on really quickly. Even Kevin (Acquard) was like what is this, but once he got in there he was in the zone and it all totally comes back to you.”
Caroline Geroyan
Families Of Homicide Victims To Receive Nothing
At 4:30am on the 30th of May the NSW government forced through legislation, replacing the existing “Victims Support And Rehabilitation Act 1996.”
Families of some of NSW’s most gruesome homicides have been waiting for up to 2.5 years to receive the compensation amount of $50,000 that they had applied for under the NSW Victims Support Scheme. But the change of policy and new criteria means that some of these people have been caught up in the “retrospect.” A few are only eligible for a mere $15,000, whilst others stand to receive nothing.
Speaking on behalf of the NSW Homicide Victims Support Group, counselor Denise Day verifies the strife and anguish families of homicide victims are further experiencing as a result of this decision.
“We look like liars. We advised these families, in good faith, and they made decisions in good faith. Now we are forced to explain that there is no money coming and there is not a thing anyone can do about it. This good faith stands for nothing, and that is the issue.”
The new scheme offers compensation only to family members who were financially dependent on the victim. It also allows for the re-imbursement of immediate expenses directly related to the crime, such as travel costs to and from police stations or court houses, but as Denise states, applying for this is timely and many people cant even afford the initial monetary outlay to produce the invoices.
“In the old scheme a lump sum of $50,000 went to the immediate family members and dependents. It covered things like funeral expenses and travel costs. They decided how they were to spend the money. In the new scheme you need to send in invoices which means things need to be paid for upfront and some families just don’t have that kind of money. Funerals, for example, can cost up to $15,000 which is a large amount for most families.”
Sylvia Minas, whose nephew Marc Zatarian was killed by a knife wound to the heart in May 2011, had been promised a compensation amount of $50,000. After waiting two and a half years to now learn she is to be awarded nothing, Sylvia is convinced that the government has deceived her.
“The law sucks. They simply do not want to pay. Victim’s families are being hurt and being victimized even more. We have been hit with expenses and were promised money to compensate. It is not even about the money. A member of our family has been killed and this money is help for something that was not anticipated. My sister and her family have had to travel overseas numerous times to be at Marc’s funeral and court hearing, spending over $20,000 that they do not have.”
As another example of people caught in the retrospect, Executive Director of the HVSG, Martha Jabour, explains how only six families out of the eleven people of who were murdered in the 2011 nursing home fires were paid the full amount of $50,000. Because the remaining five was caught up in the backlog they now stand to receive nothing under the new scheme.
“One incident, one perpetrator. They all had their forms in at much the same time. Some families were paid in the old scheme and others have been caught up in the new scheme and get nothing. Exactly the same murder. How ludacris, how absolutely ludacris.”
“This is the issue of the retrospectivity.” Denise says.
“On the expectation of an official form that was part of the attorney general’s department, people signed it following the information they had in front of them that this will be the outcome, but with the change of government this is not the case and they have been left stranded.”
carolinegeroyan
caroline geroyan
Families of some of NSW’s most gruesome homicides have been waiting for up to 2.5 years to receive the compensation amount of $50,000 that they had applied for under the NSW Victims Support Scheme. But the change of policy and new criteria means that some of these people have been caught up in the “retrospect.” A few are only eligible for a mere $15,000, whilst others stand to receive nothing.
Speaking on behalf of the NSW Homicide Victims Support Group, counselor Denise Day verifies the strife and anguish families of homicide victims are further experiencing as a result of this decision.
“We look like liars. We advised these families, in good faith, and they made decisions in good faith. Now we are forced to explain that there is no money coming and there is not a thing anyone can do about it. This good faith stands for nothing, and that is the issue.”
The new scheme offers compensation only to family members who were financially dependent on the victim. It also allows for the re-imbursement of immediate expenses directly related to the crime, such as travel costs to and from police stations or court houses, but as Denise states, applying for this is timely and many people cant even afford the initial monetary outlay to produce the invoices.
“In the old scheme a lump sum of $50,000 went to the immediate family members and dependents. It covered things like funeral expenses and travel costs. They decided how they were to spend the money. In the new scheme you need to send in invoices which means things need to be paid for upfront and some families just don’t have that kind of money. Funerals, for example, can cost up to $15,000 which is a large amount for most families.”
Sylvia Minas, whose nephew Marc Zatarian was killed by a knife wound to the heart in May 2011, had been promised a compensation amount of $50,000. After waiting two and a half years to now learn she is to be awarded nothing, Sylvia is convinced that the government has deceived her.
“The law sucks. They simply do not want to pay. Victim’s families are being hurt and being victimized even more. We have been hit with expenses and were promised money to compensate. It is not even about the money. A member of our family has been killed and this money is help for something that was not anticipated. My sister and her family have had to travel overseas numerous times to be at Marc’s funeral and court hearing, spending over $20,000 that they do not have.”
As another example of people caught in the retrospect, Executive Director of the HVSG, Martha Jabour, explains how only six families out of the eleven people of who were murdered in the 2011 nursing home fires were paid the full amount of $50,000. Because the remaining five was caught up in the backlog they now stand to receive nothing under the new scheme.
“One incident, one perpetrator. They all had their forms in at much the same time. Some families were paid in the old scheme and others have been caught up in the new scheme and get nothing. Exactly the same murder. How ludacris, how absolutely ludacris.”
“This is the issue of the retrospectivity.” Denise says.
“On the expectation of an official form that was part of the attorney general’s department, people signed it following the information they had in front of them that this will be the outcome, but with the change of government this is not the case and they have been left stranded.”
carolinegeroyan
caroline geroyan
Children's Health Up In Smoke
Cooper Cruize has been smoking since year 7. Now in year 12, he explains how he walked into the same convenience store before school every day and buying packets for himself and his friends. No questions asked.
“They knew how old I was. They knew I was a kid. It was never a hassle.”
According to ASH Australia, over 100,000 Australian school children smoke regularly and majority of smokers take up the habit well before they are adults. In response, the anti-smoking laws in Australia have been designed to make buying cigarettes impossible for people under 18. So how are so many so many kids taking up this deadly habit? Where are they getting the cigarettes?
Cooper recalls how the shopkeepers would deviously sell to him, even though they were well aware that he was an underage school student.
“They gave the cigarettes to me in a brown paper bag, like a lunch bag. The shop was in the middle of a big shopping centre and I guess they didn’t want people seeing them sell to a 12 year-old kid in a school uniform. I used to go in so often that every time they saw me they would quickly get it ready or sometimes ask me to come around the counter so that I can put it in my pocket before I walk out.”
The Cancer Council NSW is aware that tobacco retailers, especially those near schools are cashing in on the health of children like Cooper.
“This is a problem because we know from research that more people are likely to smoke when there are more places to buy tobacco. Tobacco retailers near schools make it more likely that kids will smoke.”
Ken Lin, a senior student who began buying cigarettes in year 8, describes how there is a “smoking culture” at his prestigious Northern Beaches private school.
“All the kids get their cigarettes from the same newsagent. Everyone at school knows about this place. It is so close and very convenient and very accessible. They never ask about our age even though we wear our uniforms and blazers with the school emblem on them. And the kids who buy the most are the young ones, the ones in year 7 and 8, the ones who reckon smoking is cool.
Lisa Kruize, Cooper’s mother, is undoubtedly shocked at the way these convenience stores, especially the ones near schools, are exploiting the health of children to increase their profits.
“I can’t believe it. I didn’t know Cooper smoked so young. I thought that the laws would stop him from buying cigarettes, and I don’t smoke so he couldn’t get them from me. The fact that anyone would sell to a 12 year old is beyond belief, and highly illegal!
caroline geroyan
carolinegeroyan
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
Sport Shoes Are Such a Waste of Money
Sport Shoes Are Such a Waste of Money
By: Caroline Geroyan
If you have just purchased a new pair of sport shoes I highly recommend that you stop reading now! I mean, I don’t know how Usain Bolt started his running career, but I am quite confident he was not splurging on $250 Nike Max Airs. As a matter of fact, I am certain that he was running around on the dry Jamaican land bare foot, and it doesn’t seem to have done him any harm, in fact it has had the opposite effect.
When you walk (or run) into North Sydney Indoor Sports Centre you can always hear the screeching sounds of rubber sliding against the polished wooden floors. On one particular visit, this sound was interrupted by a loud “AAARGH”. A member of the senior men’s team was lying on the ground as he had twisted his ankle. Funnily enough he was wearing what looked to be an expensive pair of Nike basketball shoes. “Take off his sneakers,” yelled the first aid guy as he came to the rescue, “tool box” and all. Once he had reached the injured player he threw aside his shoes, as though blaming them for the casualty.
Ah yes, the smell of brand new sport shoes comes like a cool whiff of air when the box is opened for the first time, especially when you have paid hundreds of dollars for them. But why would someone do that when so much research has been done, proving that they don’t do us any favours? Gassia Hovagimian, a representative basketball player for the North Sydney Bears explained to me (whilst wearing flashy AND 1 basketball shoes I might add) that sneakers “[don’t] make that much of a difference on your physical performance but more on the psyche.” What she means by this is that wearing a prestigious pair of $200 sneakers heightens an athlete’s confidence so that they “feel” as though they are playing better. Just think of that scene in the 2002 basketball flick Like Mike, when Lil Bow Wow looks down at his sneakers before his basketball game, and whispers “make me like Mike.”
The first modern running shoe was created by Nike in the 1970’s, so its only logical to think that they would have been revolutionised to the point of perfection by now. After all, Adidas has $300 shoes on the market with microchips in them and Asics has spent about $3 million and eight years (three more years than it took to create the first atomic bomb) to invent the Kinsei, a shoe that boasts 'multi-angled forefoot gel pods', and a 'midfoot thrust enhancer'. Each season brings an expensive new purchase for the average runner.
So I guess manufacturers and marketers are onto something here, as despite sport shoes having no physical benefits it has become a $20 billion industry. Just recently my friend Anita decided to buy running shoes, so I thought I would accompany her whilst she looked for a pair. Our first stop was Footlocker. Rachel the sales rep bombarded us with 5 different shoes, each one with a longer, more “sophisticated” name than the last. The price tag on one of them screamed out to me; $279.95, a price I would consider selling my soul for. I nudged Anita, pointing to the tag. Her eyes too popped out of their sockets.
“Why are these ones so expensive?”
“Ahh these are the Asics Gek Kayanos. They’re top of the range, brand new.”
Rachel had nothing else to say. Anita and I stood there, obviously wanting to hear more about this supposed marvel.
“Let me call my supervisor, he can talk to you more about it.”
“They provide extra support and comfort,” he reassured as he paced towards us. Anita looked baffled.
“Uhh okay but don’t all shoes do that?”
“Well these are new and they fit the exact contours of your feet, do you want to try them on?” She didn’t, and walked out of the store very confused.
Two sales representatives from Nike went to watch a cross-country training session at Stamford University. Their job was to determine what type of sole the runners preferred, but to their surprise they found that they preferred…well…nothing.
When they questioned this, industry renounced coach Vin Lannana answered, “…I believe that when my runners train barefoot they run faster and suffer fewer injuries.”
So, the very best runners are given the “very best” shoes, but they choose not to wear them. Even Gassia, who is made to wear “top of the range” sneakers by her coaches, told me that “during every training session or game atleast one player twists their ankles or hurts their knees.” As a matter of fact, every year between 60 and 85% of runners suffer an injury as a result of wearing “top of the range” shoes.
Dr Craig Richards, who has spent a lot of time studying the pros and cons of running shoes, thinks that it is the way companies differentiate their products through clever marketing that makes their “features” attractive.
“They’ve been very careful. No major shoe company has ever said these shoes will decrease your risk of injury. It’s all based on perception…”
This is rather interesting considering what Ashleigh Walden, a fit technician from the Athlete’s Foot, a specialist shoe retailer, has to say. When I asked her what she thinks about all the reports stating that sport shoes don’t provide any paediatric benefit, her initial response was “that’s rubbish!” She told me how “comfort and longevity” are factors in the pricing of a shoe, as well as performance.
“Differences between a cheap shoe and expensive would be amounts the cushioning material, whether it has some kind of traction control system, support…”
But that does not make much sense to me because all shoes claim to have that type of support. Also, paediatricians claim that it is shoes in general that are causing our feet damage, not only sport shoes, so whatever we wear, no matter how many high tech missiles, microchips and memory cards are jammed into them, they are of no benefit to us!
So whats the best type of shoe to run with, if any at all? If they arent doing us any favours, and sporting organisations do not let you run bare foot what do you do? Dr Richard’s answer to this is “ Shoes that let your foot function like you're barefoot - they're the shoes for me.'” Luckily for him (and anyone else who feels the same way) Vibram, an Italian peadiatric company has created the FiveFingers, a shoe that is more like a cross between a glove and a sock. Yeah okay, it sounds like kind of an ugly shoe, but Dr Richards, who recently ran in a cross country marathon, noticed that 3 people other than him were wearing them, so it is approaching the mainstream.
And guess what?
Theyre only $100!
By: Caroline Geroyan
If you have just purchased a new pair of sport shoes I highly recommend that you stop reading now! I mean, I don’t know how Usain Bolt started his running career, but I am quite confident he was not splurging on $250 Nike Max Airs. As a matter of fact, I am certain that he was running around on the dry Jamaican land bare foot, and it doesn’t seem to have done him any harm, in fact it has had the opposite effect.
When you walk (or run) into North Sydney Indoor Sports Centre you can always hear the screeching sounds of rubber sliding against the polished wooden floors. On one particular visit, this sound was interrupted by a loud “AAARGH”. A member of the senior men’s team was lying on the ground as he had twisted his ankle. Funnily enough he was wearing what looked to be an expensive pair of Nike basketball shoes. “Take off his sneakers,” yelled the first aid guy as he came to the rescue, “tool box” and all. Once he had reached the injured player he threw aside his shoes, as though blaming them for the casualty.
Ah yes, the smell of brand new sport shoes comes like a cool whiff of air when the box is opened for the first time, especially when you have paid hundreds of dollars for them. But why would someone do that when so much research has been done, proving that they don’t do us any favours? Gassia Hovagimian, a representative basketball player for the North Sydney Bears explained to me (whilst wearing flashy AND 1 basketball shoes I might add) that sneakers “[don’t] make that much of a difference on your physical performance but more on the psyche.” What she means by this is that wearing a prestigious pair of $200 sneakers heightens an athlete’s confidence so that they “feel” as though they are playing better. Just think of that scene in the 2002 basketball flick Like Mike, when Lil Bow Wow looks down at his sneakers before his basketball game, and whispers “make me like Mike.”
The first modern running shoe was created by Nike in the 1970’s, so its only logical to think that they would have been revolutionised to the point of perfection by now. After all, Adidas has $300 shoes on the market with microchips in them and Asics has spent about $3 million and eight years (three more years than it took to create the first atomic bomb) to invent the Kinsei, a shoe that boasts 'multi-angled forefoot gel pods', and a 'midfoot thrust enhancer'. Each season brings an expensive new purchase for the average runner.
So I guess manufacturers and marketers are onto something here, as despite sport shoes having no physical benefits it has become a $20 billion industry. Just recently my friend Anita decided to buy running shoes, so I thought I would accompany her whilst she looked for a pair. Our first stop was Footlocker. Rachel the sales rep bombarded us with 5 different shoes, each one with a longer, more “sophisticated” name than the last. The price tag on one of them screamed out to me; $279.95, a price I would consider selling my soul for. I nudged Anita, pointing to the tag. Her eyes too popped out of their sockets.
“Why are these ones so expensive?”
“Ahh these are the Asics Gek Kayanos. They’re top of the range, brand new.”
Rachel had nothing else to say. Anita and I stood there, obviously wanting to hear more about this supposed marvel.
“Let me call my supervisor, he can talk to you more about it.”
“They provide extra support and comfort,” he reassured as he paced towards us. Anita looked baffled.
“Uhh okay but don’t all shoes do that?”
“Well these are new and they fit the exact contours of your feet, do you want to try them on?” She didn’t, and walked out of the store very confused.
Two sales representatives from Nike went to watch a cross-country training session at Stamford University. Their job was to determine what type of sole the runners preferred, but to their surprise they found that they preferred…well…nothing.
When they questioned this, industry renounced coach Vin Lannana answered, “…I believe that when my runners train barefoot they run faster and suffer fewer injuries.”
So, the very best runners are given the “very best” shoes, but they choose not to wear them. Even Gassia, who is made to wear “top of the range” sneakers by her coaches, told me that “during every training session or game atleast one player twists their ankles or hurts their knees.” As a matter of fact, every year between 60 and 85% of runners suffer an injury as a result of wearing “top of the range” shoes.
Dr Craig Richards, who has spent a lot of time studying the pros and cons of running shoes, thinks that it is the way companies differentiate their products through clever marketing that makes their “features” attractive.
“They’ve been very careful. No major shoe company has ever said these shoes will decrease your risk of injury. It’s all based on perception…”
This is rather interesting considering what Ashleigh Walden, a fit technician from the Athlete’s Foot, a specialist shoe retailer, has to say. When I asked her what she thinks about all the reports stating that sport shoes don’t provide any paediatric benefit, her initial response was “that’s rubbish!” She told me how “comfort and longevity” are factors in the pricing of a shoe, as well as performance.
“Differences between a cheap shoe and expensive would be amounts the cushioning material, whether it has some kind of traction control system, support…”
But that does not make much sense to me because all shoes claim to have that type of support. Also, paediatricians claim that it is shoes in general that are causing our feet damage, not only sport shoes, so whatever we wear, no matter how many high tech missiles, microchips and memory cards are jammed into them, they are of no benefit to us!
So whats the best type of shoe to run with, if any at all? If they arent doing us any favours, and sporting organisations do not let you run bare foot what do you do? Dr Richard’s answer to this is “ Shoes that let your foot function like you're barefoot - they're the shoes for me.'” Luckily for him (and anyone else who feels the same way) Vibram, an Italian peadiatric company has created the FiveFingers, a shoe that is more like a cross between a glove and a sock. Yeah okay, it sounds like kind of an ugly shoe, but Dr Richards, who recently ran in a cross country marathon, noticed that 3 people other than him were wearing them, so it is approaching the mainstream.
And guess what?
Theyre only $100!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)