Fighting in sports

Should fighting in sport be banned?

          
        Watching sport is a fun and entertaining, especially if there is some fist fight inside. Many of people who watches sport like hockey are expected to see a brawl once or twice in the game. Fighting in hockey makes the game more exciting to watch and fights is why so many people are attracted to watch hockey, but on the other side, fighting in sports has a very dark side. Fighting in sport is usually a fist to fist fight, mostly targeted on the head since it is the biggest target both physically and visually. When a person suffers a huge force to the head, they usually suffer a condition called concussion. Concussion is when the brain hits the side of the cranium. Usually this action damages the brain. When this happen people get nausea and will be prone to headache. Other side effect is nervous damage. The nervous damage is why concussion is dangerous to sport. Nervous damage causes depression which most of the time leads to suicide. In sports, fighting is still there is because the audience love it and the sports team have to keep it going to attract and not loose any customer. But fighting in sport is causing death to the player. Few years ago, three hockey players who were involve in a lot of fist fight during their career died. Usually they death is from suicide and/or alcohol/drug abuse. Asking the question, so is it necessary to ban it? If it was ban then the player have longer career span but the drawback is less people watching. If it wasn’t ban then it vice versa. In conclusion fighting should be ban or at least tightly control so ones favourite player can have a longer and better career span.

Wolf's problem

Should wolf be re-introduced into the wild?

           If you take a walk in a wood anywhere in world you won’t see many wild wolf. This scarcity of wolf is due to humans taken them out fearing they’ll harm them. In the past 20 years humans have started to understand wolfs, and knowing that they’re not that dangerous as they previously thought. So the question people is asking, should wolfs be re-introduced back in to the wild. There are some good and bad parts in these topics. First off, the wolf population isn’t very dense so it makes sense to reintroduce them back into the wild where they belong. Removing wolfs is such quantity from the wild is disrupting the food chains of the wild. The prey of the wolfs has grown in to a massive population due to lack of predator and this is starting to ruin the wild’s food chain. If the wolfs are reintroduce into the wild, the wolfs can tame the population on animals such as the deer. To add to the fact wolfs are actually helping those animals by only eating the sick and the old in the heard. Due to that if wolfs are reintroduce back into the wild food cycle can be balanced and animal population such as the deer can remains healthy. But considering the last point if wolfs are to be reintroduce back into the wild it might pose some threat. Wolf loves farms animals. If wolfs are to be reintroduce back into the wild they might prey upon farms animal and result of money losses. In conclusion wolf should be reintroduce back into the wild to balance out what the nature intend the wolfs to do.

Pitcairn Island's government

Since earlier I posted about the Mutiny of Bounty I got interested in an island of Pitcairn especially about it unique government. 

Pitcairn Island's Government

          

         Pitcairn can be said the smallest place with a democracy. Since Pitcairn is considered overseas territory to the United Kingdom, so it government consist some kind of democracy system that has the loyalty to the queen. The Pitcairn has governor which is the official that represents the queen. His office is located in New Zealand. The ruling council consist a mayor and a council. The mayor is in charge of the ruling council, but sometimes the council takes over that job. Like the  right now, where the tension between the council and the mayor is high. The council is responsible for almost everything in Pitcairn except defense. The Pitcairn council required the person must live in Pitcairn for three years and above 18 to vote. Running for an office must require a minimum of certain year living in Pitcairn. A new constitution has been offered and that will change the constitution of the 1970. The constitution are said to be more suited for modern life. 

Are you alone?

My worst nightmare

          When I was seven years old I encountered my worst nightmare, which involved in talking octopus and falling from great height. The dream started when I was in my house. As usual I climbed up to the fifth floor to find my sister. But instead seeing a normal scene, like my sister playing with her toy, I see her being captured by a weird looking octopus. The octopus has a black skin and a purple sucker. It has a grey skinny head and hair made out of fire. I was shocked! Then suddenly the octopus saw me and say “you can’t save her,” with a taunting voice. Then he pushes me off the stair. For some reason I ended up all the way in the basement. So since it was my twin sister in distress I decided to save her. So I climbed up the stair. The weird part is I didn’t walk up, I crawl up. What seem like forever and a pain in the back I finally reached fifth floor. The octopus seems like it was expecting me. He grabbed me with his long tentacle. During that I noticed my sister was gone. Before I can react the octopus extends its arm and threw me off the window. I fell and hit the ground. That is when I woke up. I woke up full with sweat and was scared pretty bad. With a scary and weird dream like that it is hard to forget.

Otzi

Click Picture for more information about Otzi the Iceman.

Another side of Columbus

The other side of Columbus

         
          As stated in history textbooks, Christopher Columbus in 1492 sailed the ocean blue. He was the one that discover the America, the person who colonized it first and who convinced Europe that the earth is round. This all is true. But the history textbook also said he was a kind person to his crew and the natives. But is that fact true? 

       Columbus is actually an atrocious man. First of all, he was not an honest man and lied to Queen Isabella. After the first voyage, Columbus told her that he found a lot of gold and spices on the island he found, asking for second voyage. In truth, he found no spices, and the only gold he saw were ornaments on people ears, neck etc. 

       Secondly, due to his ideology of finding gold, riches, and God, he acted cruelly to achieve his three goals. Columbus thought that every non-Christian go to hell; thus he wanted to convert the Natives to Christianity thinking that Christians have elite status in the world. He converted them by brute force forcing them to be baptised and to go to church. If they didn’t, they would have a dire effect afterward. But he took no pity in this, thinking that he is enhancing the natives’ life. On the gold ideology he was even worse. Due to his trip, he needed to pay back the money he owes to the Monarch of Spain, the people who sponsored him. When he reached the West Indies, he found no gold. He thought that he can get some gold by using the locals. So he used a cruel way to do this by forcing anyone fourteen years and older to find certain of amount of gold every day.  If they did, they would receive a bronze token. Any natives without the token were to have their hand cut off immediately. Any native who tried to advocate his rights was immediately suppressed and put down. Those who tried to escape were hunted down by dogs. This act razed many villages. This clearly shows that he is a flagrant person. 

 For the short supply of gold, he has an idea to replace that. Which is slavery. Starting the hundreds of years of slavery in North America. His acts bring a great deal of turmoil in the West Indies, and to add to that he is not even nice to his fellow crewmen. He will cut of his sailor ears if they start complaining . He also said that he will give put prize to anyone that saw land first. Someone saw it first, but he claimed that he sawed it first, thus taking away the prize.

         Columbus is a cruel man, but we shouldn’t strip out some of his title he accomplishes. Like he discovered America which brought a lot of positive thing. But we shouldn’t forget the cruel things he did. And how those cruel thing is still affecting now or recent past.

Mutiny!!

Myself I enjoyed reading about the mutiny of Bounty. This essay is about the court testimony of Bounty's captain, William Bligh.

Bligh’s Court Testimony

         Back during the day a mutiny is a crime for the captain during Bligh’s period. According to the rules back then, mutiny happened because the captain couldn’t watch over his crew. But the question is why the navy let Bligh off the hook. After studying some historical papers, there is an explanation.

         A letter was sent from Timor to the British Admiral written by Lieutenant Bligh. This letter described the mutiny aboard HMS Bounty, the voyage across the sea, and the landing in Timor. This letter stated that he was caught off guard while he was sleeping. This letter also stated that Christian was leading the mutiny. In Bligh’s second letter, he mentioned William Purcell to the court. William Purcell is a carpenter and is loyal to him. He proved that Bligh was actually a nice person instead a cruel hearted one. In that letter he stated that Purcell was ill-behaved but he never punished anything but a day in his cabin. He also stated that he did not mistreat his fellow sailors, and what will be 25 slashes punishment he only gave him a lock in a key.

         Through his letters and his testimony, Bligh said that he shouldn’t deserve the punishment. The easy way to say Bligh was stating that the crew rebel not because of him but because of the paradise Tahiti and what the Tahitian offered. 

         So under this, Bligh made the point that he was not a cruel captain, not cruel to his fellow sailor, and not responsible for this mutiny that Christian planned out to keep the crew in Tahiti because of the comfortable life there.

          In conclusion, the navy let Bligh go due to the amount of evidence supporting the fact that Bligh was not at fault for the mutiny. The navy could only let him go because of the lack of evidence against him. Due to this evidence, the navy sent a battleship to capture the mutineer. The capture mutineer was brought to court and two were set free and one is hanged, and Bligh went on to become a rear admiral and a sea captain.