Quality Of Life, Livelihood And Poverty In Pakistan

Quality Of Life, Livelihood And Poverty In Pakistan Pakistan has been in existence for nearly 64 years and has been evolving ever since. Since the partition, many people lost their livelihoods and had to reconstruct their mode of living from scratch. The refugees faced severe accommodation problems in the beginning resulting in confusion and chaos in early periods of the migration. This instance greatly affected the newly established economy of Pakistan as new businesses initiated and the 1st government had to support these new establishments as well as old settlers in order to accomplish stability and control in the region. This inflow of aid from the managers of the newly established region lacked efficient allocation and as we can assume that no one is fair and greed runs deep within this tough exterior of the skin. There came an income gap between the rich and the poor. Hence the known problem of the developing nations emerged from within, poverty. The quality of life is not the same in Pakistan. It encompasses many varying sects of society which involve different ideologies and perspectives hence different measures of quality. Being agriculture based country; naturally income is not high in the sector; therefore little livelihood and more mouths to feed causes imbalance in the order of things. Lack of resources creates a flutter of panic amongst the people and causes disturbance in the society. This is the quality of life in Pakistan where the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. However Pakistan is trying hard to minimize this gap by undergoing massive policy changes and development expenditures to create more jobs and to be able to educate people to the level of helping to eradicate poverty from this nation. Poverty is like a quicksand, once you set foot in it all your efforts pull you towards it. Development and equal resource allocation is the key to alleviating poverty however it may seem extraordina rily hard but it is not impossible. Historic evolution of different types of poverty Poverty is a state of severe deprivation of basic necessary needs, which includes food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It is dependent not only on income but also on access to services. It also comprises of lack of income and resources to ensure sustainable livelihoods. Poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon and is not a single line of ants. Rather it is the effect that occurs when you obstruct a single line of ants and they have multidirectional effects. However some may assume the concept of poverty to be one-dimensional. There are advantages and disadvantages to both aspects. One-dimensional approach based on income poverty is relatively simple to use. It encompasses most though not all of the issues around poverty. Multidimensional measures produce a much broader perspective on the complex nature of poverty and a possibly richer array of clues on how poverty can be tackled. By type Poverty is the hand where there is no food, poverty is the mind where theres no thought, it is the hand with no money, it is the land with no order, and poverty is the nature when theres no life. Whenever we think of poverty only the monetary definition comes to mind. Poverty is not only the lack of funds that cast us down to that level when we may be called impoverished, it is not only when one lacks basic necessities but poverty can be of various types. Some poverty types are economic poverty, bodily poverty, mental poverty, food poverty, cultural poverty and political poverty. Economic poverty deals with the fact when one lacks resources or monetary terms that keep them from attaining the basic necessities of life such as food, cloth and shelter. The economic poverty only deals with the linkage of monetary terms and basic necessities. Continuing bodily poverty is when one lacks the physical health status and also is deprived of access to healthy living conditions. Mental poverty deals with the lacks of thought that arises due to poor or no educational standards hence the quality of education. Food poverty is when malnutrition occurs in a society due to lack of food variety and/or demand. Cultural poverty is the lack of togetherness that results in a society and which further separates the relations that hold us together in a community. It is basically the lack of mutual understanding in events and cultural gatherings. Political pov erty is when there is lack of knowledge of how the system works. The basic lacking variable is the knowledge of how to cast a vote and effectively elect a leader. By classification

A TAle of Two Cities :: essays papers

A TAle of Two Cities In every great novel there is a theme that is constant throughout the story. One of the better known themes portrays the fight of good verses evil. Different authors portray this in different ways. Some use colors while others use seasons to show the contrast. Still others go for the obvious and use characters. But what makes them all so different is the authors point of view. In Charles Dicken's A Tale of Two Cities, he portrays good and evil in somewhat of a unique way. Dickens shows this difference by using characters, although we sometimes have to think about the difference between the good and the evil and wonder if they are not the same in the long run. Good and evil differs with the characters in this novel, yet sometimes coincides. One way Dickens portrays a good and evil character contrast is with Sydney Carton and John Barsad. Carton being the good and Barsad the evil. For instance, when Carton tells Lucie he would "do anything for her" it is a promise that he keeps until the end. Carton is a very trustworthy man and would do anything for someone he cares about. Anything including giving up his own life. Barsad, on the other hand, is a spy that doesn't care what he does or whom he hurts. Barsad is definitely not trustworthy for the simple fact that he has dedicated his life to deception. Also, he would do anything to save his own life. This is one way that Dicken's contrasts good and evil using characters. However Dickens also has those characters that are supposed to be good and evil except the reader can't always tell which is which, this happened with the peasants and aristocrats. At first the peasants are supposed to be the good and the aristocrats the evil, yet when the peasants have control they are just as bad as the aristocrats. When the aristocrats had all of the power they were bloodthirsty. They would "sentence a youth to death" for not kneeling for monks. This was a very bad time and this seems and is extremely evil. It seems as if the peasants were good, yet when the tables turned they acted the exact same way as the aristocrats. The peasants had "eleven hundred defenseless prisoners killed just because they could. So the peasants were just as evil as the aristocrats, even though both thought they had just cause. A TAle of Two Cities :: essays papers A TAle of Two Cities In every great novel there is a theme that is constant throughout the story. One of the better known themes portrays the fight of good verses evil. Different authors portray this in different ways. Some use colors while others use seasons to show the contrast. Still others go for the obvious and use characters. But what makes them all so different is the authors point of view. In Charles Dicken's A Tale of Two Cities, he portrays good and evil in somewhat of a unique way. Dickens shows this difference by using characters, although we sometimes have to think about the difference between the good and the evil and wonder if they are not the same in the long run. Good and evil differs with the characters in this novel, yet sometimes coincides. One way Dickens portrays a good and evil character contrast is with Sydney Carton and John Barsad. Carton being the good and Barsad the evil. For instance, when Carton tells Lucie he would "do anything for her" it is a promise that he keeps until the end. Carton is a very trustworthy man and would do anything for someone he cares about. Anything including giving up his own life. Barsad, on the other hand, is a spy that doesn't care what he does or whom he hurts. Barsad is definitely not trustworthy for the simple fact that he has dedicated his life to deception. Also, he would do anything to save his own life. This is one way that Dicken's contrasts good and evil using characters. However Dickens also has those characters that are supposed to be good and evil except the reader can't always tell which is which, this happened with the peasants and aristocrats. At first the peasants are supposed to be the good and the aristocrats the evil, yet when the peasants have control they are just as bad as the aristocrats. When the aristocrats had all of the power they were bloodthirsty. They would "sentence a youth to death" for not kneeling for monks. This was a very bad time and this seems and is extremely evil. It seems as if the peasants were good, yet when the tables turned they acted the exact same way as the aristocrats. The peasants had "eleven hundred defenseless prisoners killed just because they could. So the peasants were just as evil as the aristocrats, even though both thought they had just cause.

Greed and Power…The Death of a Society Essay -- Literary Analysis, Jon

In his satiric essay, A Modest Proposal, Jonathan Swift proposes eating children in order to highlight the fact that other plausible measures for fixing Ireland’s economic problems are being ignored. Swift implies that a nation’s most significant problems stem from the greed of the wealthy. He asserts this through his use of diction, satire, and ethos. Diction is used by the author in order to imply that those who are financially blessed generate a nation’s biggest problems. Swift’s choice of formal yet derogatory diction projects his own perspective on how the rich view the poor. He uses the word â€Å"scheme† to describe his plan although he criticizes â€Å"several schemes of other projectors† (Swift 4). This is one of the first clues that helps to indicate that even Swift dislikes his idea, one aggressively bolstered by the rich who have money to gain. Words like â€Å"sacrificing†¦innocent† and â€Å"crucified† depict a savage death, usually in return for something that will benefit the greater good like that of Christ or a soldier dying when returning to a bombed area to save a small child (5 and 18). However, in this case, rather than sacrificing themselves, Swift explains that the rich will unfeelingly allow the poor to suffer unmentionable deaths in order for the rich to make enough profit to account for the â€Å"expensiveness of [their] idleness (28).† His choice of belittling diction through the words â€Å"savages† and â€Å"reserved for breed† points out the condescending way in which those of the upper class view the masses (10). These words show them as little more than uncivilized animals to be sold at the market, which through his proposal, would become a reality. Swift’s choice in diction helps to emphasize the widening schism between the rich a... ...the country of Cavan† within his essay (18 and 6). Swift’s use of ethos assures the reader that there are people other than him who concur with his ideas. Ethos helps to give readers a sense of security, a â€Å"Hey, if he likes it, it must be good† type of mentality. However, when scrutinized, one will notice that all those Swift cites are presumably wealthy people of the upper class. The essay contains no ethos from those of the lower class. Thus in effect Swift’s use of ethos also slyly places blame and reproach on the greed of the wealthy while also increasing the validity of his argument. Swift’s use of diction, satire, and ethos asserts that the gluttony from the wealthy procures major problems for a nation. Although a satire was needed for the people of old Ireland to realize this, for the people of the modern world, such knowledge came with little persuasion.

The Potential of Medical Marijuana :: Marijuana Medicine Treatment Essays

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Marijuana is one of the oldest cultivated plants in the world (7). Since it became illegal in 1967 (5), there have been many questions of whether or not it is good for medical purposes. Debates between people that are for and against the use of marijuana in medicine have been heated and in recent years, referendums have been brought up in several states to make it available for medical treatment. Personally, I think that marijuana has the power to be a significant help with certain aliments, however, I think that more research is needed to prove its' medical potential.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The first people to introduce the healing properties of marijuana, were the Chinese. About five thousand years ago, the people of the plains of Central Asia, just north of the Himalayas, began cultivating the plant. Though it is not exactly certain what cultivation of the plant was for, whether it was for its oil, fiber or medical properties, most experts believe that it was for its fibers. The fiber of the plant is so strong that it can be used to make thick, sturdy ropes. Its seeds also contain oils that can be used as a varnish. In some countries the seeds are used as bird and cattle feed and also in the manufacturing of soap. Something else that you may not know is that the seeds can be roasted and eaten as food. It is actually the flowers of a certain type of the plant that is used for its medicinal and intoxicating property. I say "a flower from a certain type of the plant" because from my personal experience, many people believe that there is only one type of marijuana. Actually, marijuana is such a wild plant, that it easily adapts to any soil and new varieties it then emerge. This is when the plants with the strongest fibers, most superior oils, and a more potent drug content are selected. Only around 1000 B.C., in India and Southeast Asia, when the plant started to grow in that region, the intoxicating features were recognized and appreciated (7).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  So when was the plant introduced to the Western Hemisphere? There is archeological evidence that the plant was brought toWestern Europe from Asia at around 1500 B.C., by the Scythian invaders and later reached the Mediterranean region. However, the people of western Europe didn't begin cultivating it as a plant crop in their area until about 500 A.

What Extend Was the Religious Settlement of Elizabeth’s Own?

October 13th Morta Ramoskaite Y12 History. Homework. Essay. To what extend was the Religious settlement of Elizabeth’s own choosing? There, in Britain, were many changes which occurred in religion between 1558 and 1629. These changes happened because of famous Britain queen Elizabeth the 1st . This Queen was born to be a Protestant all her life. So, this is because all the Catholics were against her. She had to think a lot how to do that the Protestants and the Catholics could live together in one country and be friendly to each other.All these events did that Elizabeth made new Religious settlement such as rules for the English Protestants and Catholic and also she was pushed to do some settlements for instance because of difficult 1st passage suggesting the 2nd settlement was a compromise. But, I think that extend the Religious settlement was Elizabeth’s own choosing because she was a Protestant, the Catholics were against her and she wanted to be sure that nobody wil l not make troubles in her career as a queen. First of all, the most important thing was that she was born in a Protestant family.Her father – Henry VIII king of England had six wives, it was illegal in Catholic Church. Elizabeth was his and Anne Boleyn child. Anne was the third wife of Henry VIII they had not had mirage in Catholic Church. So she was a Protestant since she born. This was the main problem in her life like a queen. She made a lot of new settlements in period 1558 – 1629. She made that in her county would be two religions. Also, because she was a Protestant all of Protestants were for her so she was not afraid of them. So, this the reason she helped for them.For example, Protestants had two prayer books written by Edward. One was written in 1549 and another in 1552. In these books communion prayer is said twice: ‘’In memory’’; ’’This is the body’’. In the same way Protestants had only English hymns n ot Latin and the word of god was English. Elizabeth also change that Protestant got new communion tables and alter were replacing with them. The most important thing for her was Church’s and priest’s image. One of her settlement is saying that walls in Protestant Churches have to white wacked, and windows have to be from plain glass not from colorful.Priests had to wear Vestments. However, she did not let them married so they were still in celibates. All these settlements let for Protestants think that they are better than Catholics because they had more freedom. So, Catholic Church was really angry on Elizabeth. But she made this because she was Protestant and it was better for her that Protestants took better position than Catholics. Protestants protected her from ‘’war’’ with Catholic Church. I think that it was good choice because with these settlements she made new country which was better and more loyal for her like a queen.However, Que en Elizabeth the 1st did not forget the Catholic Church and changed some roles for them too. I think that the main reason why she created new settlements for the Church of Catholics was that all Catholics were against her. They could not understood you the Queen of England can be Protestant, they wanted new king or queen. So, this was the sign that Elizabeth has to do something with them. She made new roles like that, that the Catholics had to be happy that they are not presented (‘’ Won’t make windows into men souls’’).She banned some of the Catholic’s practices for example, some of the sacraments were banned, relics, fake miracles, even candles were banned. I think that she hated Catholics because of them not loyal thinking about her. But she tried to find a compromise with them so this is because she let still have fundamentally in transubstantiation, and clerical vestments – celebrate priests. On the other hand, she agreed with Hie rarchy of Catholic Church that the queen is in the top of hierarchy.So, I think that all these new settlements for the Catholic Church was her own choosing, because she tried to make all England loyal for her but not against her. In my opinion these roles were good for Catholic Church because without it I think now England would have really strong Catholic Church life, but because of Elizabeth and because of some events, which were happened in her life’s time like a queen, we have Anglicans in England not Christians. Finally, I think that Elizabeth’s settlements were really clever and this is because she was thinking all the time how to find the best choice.Although she was a Protestant Queen all her time of changing the settlements she was thinking not only about the Protestants but also she was thinking about the Catholics. As we know she was trying to find the best suggest for both of Religions. She was really very careful when she was trying to find a balance betwe en two of different Religions that these two Religions could live together in one country without fights, and in country which has one queen and all of this country citizens would be loyal and good for them queen.It was the hardest thing in her live and also it was like a goal in all her queen’s life. However, in these settlements and rules was some kind of things that were understood only by queen nobody could not understood what she wanted to say with this settlement. Some of the settlements shows that they are in a control by queen and did not matter how they look like she was happy with that and she really did not want to change it. For example it can be that Vestments were controversy in period of year 1564- 1566.Also, she had opportunity to say for the Protestants when they can go to Jaw Christians. So, she was really queen inside her body because she was doing everything that all country would be in her hands. To sum up, I think that these changes of Religions settleme nt in England was Elizabeth’s the 1st own choosing. Because of herself . As we know she was a Protestant so she made for the Protestant’s Church more better settlements that for the Catholic’s Church. So, we can say that she tried to make her career as a queen the best as it possible and it worked.

Ban Fire Crackers

Diwali is celebrated with great vigour all across the nation. Bursting firecrackers is a tradition on Diwali. Diwali is also known as Deepavali in India. Firecrackers! Just the term creates joy and excitement in one’s mind. The heart flutters with thrill and enthusiasm developed by the sight those colorful showers and sparkles from the fireworks in the sky. But is it all about fun? Have you ever wondered how many harmful effects and disadvantages do these fireworks create for the environment?. It is yours, theirs and everyone’s duty to take care of the environment, fellow humans and other living beings. You may wonder why and how.You may be having a great time celebrating and enjoying, bursting those boisterous fireworks. But it need not be the same for the others around you! What about your neighbors? Your neighbor could be sick, or many may have an important appointment the next day. He/she could also be having a test or an exam the next morning and they may need some rest. Burning firecrackers late at night at odd hours disturbs everyone living in that community and disturb their sleep and make them less concentrated in their next day.Firecrackers produce very high level of sound and the vibrations can travel over a long distance. These are sometimes over 140 decibels! A human ear can bear a maximum of 85 decibels. Sounds above this limit create disability in hearing and causes permanent damage to the ears. Firecrackers when burnt release a large amount of very tiny toxic particles that can easily enter our lungs and damage the respiratory system. The smoke from firecrackers contain sulfur compounds, heavy metals and other toxic chemicals and harmful fumes of gases such as sulfur dioxide, ozone etc,. People with asthma, multiple chemical sensitivity and other breathing problems suffer largely due to the toxic emissions from these fireworks.Crackers are unnoticeably affecting all of us. We should understand what it’s doing & how itâ€℠¢ll threaten our very existence in future. Governments should take it very seriously & should:†¢ban the production of crackers †¢enforce laws on its production, sales, use, & advertisement †¢popularize the idea of not using crackers among publicThere’re a lot of causes of global warming & pollution. All the other sources are important for our living despite their ill effects. But cracker is absolutely nothing more than garbage. Be smart, be civilized, use your knowledge, don’t worry about what others think, don’t care about society, & DON’T USE CRACKER.Let each one of us take a pledge this Diwali to say NO to firecrackers and invest in a safer and greener future. Diwali is the festival of lights and we must enlighten our lives with the sparkle of joy and goodwill, forget past grievances and look ahead towards a brighter and happier future.

Oppressed Rights by the Oppressive Regime in Margaret Atwood’s the Handmaid’s Tale Essay

Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale delves well into the horrid nature of extreme control and immoral limitations in defining the corrupt theocratic government at large, and more specifically the effect this control has on the society’s women. In an age in which a newly emerged and merciless governmental system called the Republic of Gilead has â€Å"put life back to the middle ages,† sparked by a widespread panic of infertility, personal freedom and individuality have become unimaginably reduced (Genny 1). Handmaids selected to live in the houses of wealthy, well-respected couples go through a life entirely designed by the government for the sole purpose of bearing children. Caught between following the strict rules made for women by the Republic and breaking them in secret for the sake of her sanity, the protagonist Offred essentially but not purposefully offers close to nothing for her society’s benefit. Not allowed to read, write, speak her thoughts or even look another in the eye, the most she can offer proves to be occasional, well-monitored grocery errands and the slight possibility of providing the gift of life for an elite Commander and his Wife. Parallel to a dystopia in which Offred has been stripped of the most simplistic allowances, women in today’s various Middle Eastern societies find relatively equal difficulty in utilizing their strengths due to the severe suppression and forced structure of their daily lives. Regardless of the varying context of these two scenarios, they both present themselves problematically in light of women’s personal struggle to contribute in society—in both Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale and the modern Middle East, seemingly unethical yet extreme theocratic government exercises examples of such radically unformed control over its people that the exploitation and demeaning of the natural rights of women become prevalent. But on what grounds should the male citizens of the Republic of Gilead and those in today’s foreign communities be granted more liberation and opportunity while the women are held more captive of their own independence? As Offred finds herself trapped in such an unreasonably restrained living situation, she instinctively recognizes the current lack of available free will because she once knew what freedom looked and felt like. For example, in opposition of her training as a handmaid with the Aunts, she cannot help but wander her ind back to the pre-Republic days â€Å"thousands of years before,† when she and fellow females could actually go to school and watch â€Å"movies of the rest of the world† that even included â€Å"dancing[,] singing, ceremonial masks, [and music],† clearly taking place in a land where â€Å"people†¦were happy† (Atwood 118). Offred as well as other handmaids in her place inevitably suffer within their reality by trying to maintain a grasp on the memories of such privileges they once took for granted, such as real television to promote quality education. Instead of living the naturally liberal life of opportunity that was once available to Offred and existed in her home and school life, such a vision has been taken away by the government and exists now only in her memory, as the Aunts present to her and the other potential handmaids a government-approved film with â€Å"the title and [few] names blacked out†¦with a crayon so [they] couldn’t read them†Ã¢â‚¬â€another example of a ludicrous constraint, reading, that could have instilled fruitful possibilities in the mind of a woman (Atwood 119). In addition, as if the recollection of accredited education and other past events were not enough a cause of longing, Offred also recalls the fearless, empowering spirits of her late loved ones—particularly her mother whom she spots in the film, â€Å"wearing the kind of outfit Aunt Lydia told [the handmaids] was typical of Unwomen in those days† while â€Å"smiling, laughing†¦and raising [her] fists in the air† (Atwood 119). To witness such a wild and free spirit in action, that once was allowed for women but has been officially banned by the radical Christian followings of the Republic of Gilead, undoubtedly sparks a deep temptation within handmaids to rebel against this authority inflicting such â€Å"unacceptable losses of intellectual liberty†; however, such a temptation proves to be a challenge to pursue for some women today (Tolan 1). While the initial teachings of Islam attempted to improve living conditions for Muslim women by granting them some of the same rights as men in the seventh century, women become incapable of endorsing these rights when their society attempts to enforce the â€Å"laws† of the Islamic religion, described by the Columbia University professors who wrote At the Crossroads of the World: Women in the Middle East: Today, many Muslim women do not have the opportunity to enjoy rights once considered theirs by their religion. Women may be unaware of their rights or live in societies where these rights have been misinterpreted or misrepresented by individuals in power (be it the state, culture, or family). In Muslim countries around the world, there is a fundamental difference between what is prescribed by religious texts and what is actually practiced, a gulf between the ideal and the real (Esposito 1998, xiii). Often, the purportedly ‘religiously grounded’ restrictions placed on women within certain societies have little or nothing to do with the teachings of Islam. More often they are a function of socioeconomic and political factors. Recent examples of such restrictions included Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, which prohibited women from receiving medical attention from males and placed other restrictions on their movement in public (Revolutionary Association of the Women in Afghanistan)(Crocco, Pervez, and Katz 110). At most, these women are granted with the illusion that they possess legitimate freedoms, when in actuality their government prohibits this execution with the false justification that it simply conforms to the Islamic religion. The handmaids and all women alike governed by the Republic of Gilead correspondingly must follow the rules of the regime that claims to be operating in the name of the Christian faith in an attempt to validate its restrictive essence. Thus, no question exists as to how Offred becomes â€Å"increasingly reckless with her actions and behaviors,† or to why in the end â€Å"there is the strong possibility that her recklessness has cost her her life† (Genny 1). Most emphatically does Offred’s situation come off as unjust when she finally experiences a small taste of the natural freedom she once had but still deserves. Because it is obviously an â€Å"oasis of the forbidden,† she has to force herself to â€Å"hold†¦absolutely rigid† when the Commander invites her into his off-limits personal turf to play a game of Scrabble, something harmless, yet banned. Despite â€Å"[t]he fact that [she’s] terrified,† Offred still recognizes that â€Å"this is freedom[;] an eyeblink of it,† as if â€Å"he were offering her drugs† (Atwood 138-139). While Atwood implies in her novel that â€Å"feminist utopianism cannot avoid the taint of totalitarianism,† she employs the concept of defiance in that Offred can nourish her natural tendencies to actually enjoy herself through breaking the rules (Tolan 30). Similarly for the women in Iraq, the Ba’ath Party that emerged in 1963 sought provisions for women’s equality, including the liberties of education and employment; however, outside the major urban center of Baghdad, â€Å"the society still relegated Iraqi women to a very inferior position vis-a-vis men† (Brown and Romano 1). To maintain two adjacent communities with such contrasting ways of governing women is arguably contradicting and therefore, a cause for concern. Ultimately, women have simplistically natural rights that ought not to be rendered in the least, especially by illegitimate theocratic governments. Under no circumstances are the rights to thought, decision, reading, and writing, among many others, capable of being outlawed justifiably, regardless of gender. With such liberties, women carry great potential in contributing to society, despite the possibility of infertility or radically religious devotion—and in a lot of cases, that contribution can be imperative. Today in Iraq, a woman cannot own private property or hold any status, while forced to give up her education and marry a stranger. However, women still make up 65% percent of the population, and make up 70% of the agricultural workforce (Al-Jawaheri and Harris). Though they continue to fight for the equal rights and treatment they deserve while accepting their low circumstances, the crucial importance of granting women this moral blessing remains strong.