stuff the tigers Essays

stuff the tigers Essays stuff the tigers Essay stuff the tigers Essay Dear Editor, Im a regular newspaper reader. Recently I stumbled upon Jeremy Clarksons article about tigers. Upon reading it I discovered that I strongly disagree with some of his ideas and points of view and the way in which he writes them. On a personal level I am also fond of these wild animals, which gives me reasons to criticise this article. I can understand that it is difficult to find a rather engaging topic for the readers, especially for the younger audiences. However, this article crosses all of the delicate boundaries that a newspaper is expected to adhere to. It is clear to me, and I am sure o many of your other loyal readers, that the author expresses his views in an offensive way and belittles this sensitive issue by using inappropriate sarcasm. This can clearly be seen from the beginning of the article; the title Stuff The Tigers not only shows Mr. Clarksons personal attitudes to all living creatures and the world itself but also uses language to create humour to address a topic that is clearly not humorous. By using a pun on the word stuff he is making an insensitive start to his article. While this may appeal to a younger audience, those more educated will find it offensive. I am not against his article, every person is allowed to have her or his own opinion. However, the author talks about the animals as if they are non-living objects. Is it a correct point of view? I do not believe so. Animals are living creatures that are a part of our environment, not as Clarkson thinks as irrelevant as the death of a faraway star. They deserve to be treated with respect. All creatures on this planet have their own purpose and it is not up to us to decide whether they live or die. As the most developed and intelligent species, it is our duty to preserve nature. What is more, it is not that hard to save the tigers from xtinction, but clearly Mr. Clarkson cares nothing for their disappearance and the little effort it would take to make a difference. Extinction of any species is a global, environmental problem and one of the most important issues to face the world. It should be concerning all countries. However, from the opening line Jeremy Clarkson places blame mostly with particular countries i. e. China without a reasonable cause; As the population of China becomes more wealthy. Clarkson also suggests that it is generally thought that traditional Chinese medicine involves killing tigers 600million Chinese people believe will cure any umber of ailments. Even if this is so, why doesnt he admit the Chinese also contribute significantly to wildlife conservation? Or that this is a decreasing problem? Mr. Clarkson also writes; Apart from for a few impotent middle-class Chinamen, the extinction makes not the slightest bit of difference if Johnny tiger dies out. The author makes his feelings crystal clear, and it is a sad state of affairs if he is correct. Clarkson makes extinction seem unimportant. He implies that it is not even our concern; l nave never seen any numDer 0T creatures tnat I Know to exlst. so wny should I care if my children never see a tiger?. Here I disagree entirely. If we let all creatures die, who would maintain the essential balance that our planet so badly needs? Personally I do not have an answer. Probably Jeremy Clarkson with his despicable article knows He also mentions that the tigers provide business opportunities; demand for illegal tiger parts is booming. However, I understand that poor communities might feel the need to hunt as the way to survive which is more than Clarkson seems to acknowledge. More often then not, though, this is done because of greed and enormous profits and it is this that we need to prevent in order to prevent the xtinction of tigers. Here is another interesting point Clarkson raises which leaves me divided; Animals become extinct naturally like the brontosaurus. While I agree that some animal deaths are natural, how can the extinction of tigers be natural, if the creatures are being poached? This is not an understandable reason for their disappearance as whole. When the animals do not die naturally, they are not able to breed which leads to the extinction of the species. This is man-made problem not a natural one. Although many of his arguments are presented as questions, And what e supposed to do exactly? , Mr. Clarkson might have influenced your opinion on this issue by his presentation of the issues in a friendly tone, So why should I care if my children never see a tiger? , and humorous manner, eco mentalists. Probably he wants to manipulate us using his humor and the way of writing and I am surprised at your newspaper for allowing this to happen when it concerns a serious topic. He also uses exaggeration ( we are told the polar bear is now at risk and as a result were all supposed to kill ourselves) and these methods create the biggest impact on eaders, making them believe his arguments are more trustworthy than they are in reality. The only creatures that really matter are those in our social group said Jeremy Clarkson. He persuades the readers that nothing wrong and awful will happen if one type of species becomes extinct. However, we are all part of a balanced eco-system that relies on each aspect to survive effectively. If animals become extinct there will not be the required recourses for human beings because animals are needed for products and life support. Despite all of my criticism I agree with; Between 1900 and 1919 Eco-mentalists ignore the fact that we lost most of young men in Europe and prattle on about the passing of the passenger pigeon Nothing can be worse than closed eyes on many human deaths, especially young peoples but it is not part of the argument over saving tigers; these are separate issues. In my opinion The Sunday Times should think about the opposition to Jeremy Clarksons article and consider extinction as an issue for humanity as a whole. ? «You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty?  ». -Mahatma Gandi

First and Second Triumvirates of Rome

First and Second Triumvirates of Rome A triumvirate is a system of government wherein three people share the highest political power. The term originated in Rome during the final collapse of the republic; it literally means the rule of three men (tres  viri). The members of a triumvirate may or may not be elected and may or may not rule in accordance with existing legal norms. The First Triumvirate An alliance of  Julius Caesar,  Pompey  (Pompeius Magnus) and  Marcus Licinius Crassus  ruled Rome from 60 BCE to 54 BCE. These three men consolidated power in the waning days of Republican Rome. Although Rome had expanded far beyond central Italy, its political institutions established when Rome was just one more small city-state among others failed to keep pace. Technically, Rome was still just a city on the Tiber River, governed by a Senate; provincial governors largely ruled outside of Italy and with few exceptions, the people of the provinces lacked the same dignity and rights that Romans (i.e., people who lived in Rome) enjoyed. For a century before the First Triumvirate, the republic was rocked by slave revolts, pressure from Gallic tribes to the north, corruption in the provinces and civil wars. Powerful men more powerful than the Senate, at times occasionally exercised informal authority with the walls of Rome. Against that backdrop, Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus aligned to bring order out of chaos but the order lasted a scant six years. The three men ruled until 54 BCE. In 53, Crassus was killed and by 48, Caesar defeated Pompey at Pharsalus and ruled alone until his assassination in the Senate in 44. The Second Triumvirate The Second Triumvirate consisted of Octavian (Augustus), Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and Mark Antony. The Second Triumvirate was an official body created in 43 B.C., known as Triumviri Rei Publicae Constituendae Consulari Potestate. Consular power was assigned to the three men. Usually, there were only two elected consuls. The triumvirate, despite a five-year term limit, was renewed for a second term. The Second Triumvirate differed from the first insofar as it was a legal entity explicitly endorsed by the Senate, not a private agreement among strongmen. However, the Second suffered the same fate as the First: Internal bickering and jealousy led to its weakening and collapse. First to fall was Lepidus. After a power play against Octavian, he was stripped of all of his offices except for  Pontifex Maximus  in 36 and later banished to a remote island. Antony having lived since 40 with Cleopatra of Egypt and growing increasingly isolated from the power politics of Rome was decisively defeated in 31 at the Battle of Actium and thereafter committed suicide with Cleopatra in 30. By 27, Octavian had retitled himself  Augustus, effectively becoming the first emperor of Rome. Although Augustus paid particular care to use the language of the republic, thus maintaining a fiction of republicanism well into the first and second centuries CE, the power of the Senate and its consuls had been broken and the Roman Empire began its nearly half-millennium of influence across the Meditteranean world.