Capitalism or Moral Enlightenment in Joseph Conrads Heart of Darkness :: Heart Darkness essays

Heart Of Darkness - Capitalism  or Moral Enlightenment   Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness is about a seaman named Charlie Marlow and   an experience he had as a younger man. Early in the novel it becomes apparent that there is a great deal of tension in Marlow’s mind about whether he should profit from the immoral actions of the company he works for which is involved in the ivory trade in Africa.   Marlow believes that the company is ignorant of the tension between moral enlightenment and capitalism. The dehumanization of its laborers which is so early apparent to Marlow seems to be unknown to other members of the Company’s management. In this story Marlow’s aunt represents capitalism. Her efforts to get him a job are significant because of the morally compromising nature of the work of which she seems totally ignorant. When Marlow expresses doubts about the nature of the work, she replies, â€Å"You forget, dear Charlie, that the labourer is worthy of his hire† (12). It is clear that Marlow has mixed feelings about the whole idea. At one point, trying to justify his actions to himself, he says, â€Å"You understand it was a continental concern, that Trading Society;   but I have a lot of relations on the living continent, because it’s cheap and not so nasty as it looks they say† (12).   Marlow finally takes the job, however, and tells himself that the pain and unusually harsh treatment the workers are subjected to is minimal. During the tests and the requirements that he has to undergo before entering the jungle Marlow feels that he is being treated like a freak. The doctor measures his head and asks him questions such as, â€Å"Ever any madness in your family†(15)?   In this part of the story Marlow is made to feel small and unimportant.   Any feelings or concerns that he has are not important to the company, and as a result, he feels alone. It is only logical that Marlow would have been second guessing his decision and feeling some kinship with the other (black) workers who are exploited, but he does not reveal any such understanding. Upon reaching his destination in Africa, Marlow finds that things are just   the same. At the point when he is denied rest after traveling twenty miles on foot he sees things are not going to change.   Marlow then tells of how disease and death are running wild through-out the area, and the company does nothing in the way of prevention other than to promote those who stay alive. Capitalism or Moral Enlightenment in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness :: Heart Darkness essays Heart Of Darkness - Capitalism  or Moral Enlightenment   Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness is about a seaman named Charlie Marlow and   an experience he had as a younger man. Early in the novel it becomes apparent that there is a great deal of tension in Marlow’s mind about whether he should profit from the immoral actions of the company he works for which is involved in the ivory trade in Africa.   Marlow believes that the company is ignorant of the tension between moral enlightenment and capitalism. The dehumanization of its laborers which is so early apparent to Marlow seems to be unknown to other members of the Company’s management. In this story Marlow’s aunt represents capitalism. Her efforts to get him a job are significant because of the morally compromising nature of the work of which she seems totally ignorant. When Marlow expresses doubts about the nature of the work, she replies, â€Å"You forget, dear Charlie, that the labourer is worthy of his hire† (12). It is clear that Marlow has mixed feelings about the whole idea. At one point, trying to justify his actions to himself, he says, â€Å"You understand it was a continental concern, that Trading Society;   but I have a lot of relations on the living continent, because it’s cheap and not so nasty as it looks they say† (12).   Marlow finally takes the job, however, and tells himself that the pain and unusually harsh treatment the workers are subjected to is minimal. During the tests and the requirements that he has to undergo before entering the jungle Marlow feels that he is being treated like a freak. The doctor measures his head and asks him questions such as, â€Å"Ever any madness in your family†(15)?   In this part of the story Marlow is made to feel small and unimportant.   Any feelings or concerns that he has are not important to the company, and as a result, he feels alone. It is only logical that Marlow would have been second guessing his decision and feeling some kinship with the other (black) workers who are exploited, but he does not reveal any such understanding. Upon reaching his destination in Africa, Marlow finds that things are just   the same. At the point when he is denied rest after traveling twenty miles on foot he sees things are not going to change.   Marlow then tells of how disease and death are running wild through-out the area, and the company does nothing in the way of prevention other than to promote those who stay alive.

Compare the Wars and All Quiet on the Western Front Essay

During World War I, many soldiers were impacted by the mental and physical effects that have changed their lives in positive, but mostly negative ways. There are two novels that talk about two men in World War I, however each tells a different story on their struggles on the battlefield. On one of the books, The Wars by Timothy Findley, focuses on the protagonist Robert Ross, a Canadian soldier that joined the war. Robert Ross mainly joined to war because it was his way of isolating himself after his sister’s death, while on the other book, All Quiet on The Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque, in which the story is about a teenager named Paul Baumer. Paul Baumer is a German soldier who was influenced from his teacher that going to war was a courageous decision. War focuses us to sacrifice our humanity in exchange for survival, which leads us to our self-destruction, where we become like animals for the sake of our survival. The meaning behind this is that wars take our feelings and human instincts thus replacing them to animal instincts to survive. In the end, life becomes difficult to come back to which leads to our own destruction. The aspect from both novels is about â€Å"men who were destroyed by war† (Remarque 12) even when they have escaped the horrors of the war. Both authors express that they do not want to tell us about the experiences in the war, at least not just the war, but rather the destructive impact on the soldier; such as the inability of young people to go back to their life exactly like before the war. There is no doubt that the entire generation has been ruined by war and were unable to function afterwards. Paul Baumer returns home on his seven day leave, and describes those seven days as unhappy personal experiences. He fails to see an old major on the street, he is forced by another officer to go back to the major and salute him according to the etiquette of military soldiers. Paul feels as though it is petty harassment. For Paul it’s already embarrassing for his father to tell him to wear his uniform so that he could proudly show it to all his acquaintances. Just to show his uniform to all his father’s acquaintances, Baumer finds it as though as they are getting the wrong idea of what the reality of war was. Paul’s father wants him to use his experiences of the war as a demonstration but insists that it is to â€Å"dangerous† to remind him of the war because he cannot manage as though he was on the front-lines like before. This goes the same as for The Wars; many soldiers were destroyed after seeing how the war was like. †¦frozen fingers of nameless rivers, heralded by stream and whirling snow, the train returned him to his heritage of farms†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Findley 46) The steam from the train could have signified the anger from all the soldiers after witnessing the death from all their fellow troops and just leaving their corpse unburied, while they move on to the hopes of winning the war. The topic of destruction in the novels is also caused by the older generation. The younger generations believed that the eld er ones had greater insight and wisdom but was later on destroyed by the first sight of the war casualties. The sight of how they have been betrayed, the soldiers also notice that it is the older generation that declares war and never physically fight in it; however it is the younger soldiers that are risking their own lives for them. An example of betrayal is also seen in The Wars, when Robert is betrayed by Taffler, whom was seen as a manly strong soldier to follow; however after the incident, Roberts view of him immediately shattered. Robert states that all the soldiers have been raped by their so called leaders. It has to be there because it is my belief that Robert Ross and his generation of young men were raped, in effect, by the people who made the war. Basically, their fathers did it to them. † (Findley 150-151) â€Å"Fathers† would be the people that are in powers who controlled the younger generation but who were also told to slaughter their so called enemy. All Quiet on the Western Front also contradicts the older generation because Paul feels as though he was betra yed by his own teacher. â€Å"For us lads of eighteen they ought to have been mediators and guides to the world of maturity†¦ to the future†¦ in our hearts we trusted them. The idea of authority, which they represented, was associated in our minds with a greater insight and a more humane wisdom. But the first death we saw shattered this belief. We had to recognize that our generation was more to be trusted than theirs†¦ The first bombardment showed us our mistake, and under it the world as they had taught it to us broke in pieces. † (Remarque 78) In this quote Paul learns that the educators who were supposed to guide the younger generation to the â€Å"right† direction into the world have failed miserably. The older generation that is constantly mocking the younger generations for cowardice signs but even the older generation hasn’t actually experienced the reality of war and what the feeling of fighting is actually like. The younger generation need to make their own choices instead of always relying on the older ones between whether something is right or wrong whilst the older generation has been proved incapable of doing so. In the midst of wars many soldiers strive to survive and will do anything just for the sake of survival. Robert Ross does a good job on surviving the war on the battlefront; however, it is ironic to see the very same allies he fought with end up killing him. Robert doesn’t die in action but dies in a burning barn. He continuously sees destruction all around him wherever he goes and is always afraid that he may not live â€Å"On the far side he could see that the men and the wagons and the rest of the convoy were drawn up near fires and he just kept thinking: warm, I am going to be warm. † (Findley 82) This is desperation in order to remain alive. Similarly to The Wars, Paul and his friends also strive just to survive the war. In the first chapter Remarque jumps into the war action: â€Å"We were at rest five miles behind the front† (Remarque 3) He does not clearly specify whether or not the German army or Paul’s friends. Unlike The Wars where the main characters are athletic, strong like Robert and Taffler, Remarque doesn’t describe his characters as complete developed characters. Each of them is described as people who have regular human qualities. An example would be Tjaden who is the biggest eater and Westhus who continuously thinks about women. They feel as though, to survive they need to form a brotherhood that strives as much as possible to survive an arena of death. All other expressions they may show are unable to be shown as the only thing that you’re able to show is the sake for surviving the war. Hunger is a part of survival in All Quiet on The Western Front. Many soldiers that don’t come back to the camp receive the dead ones share of food from the first chapter. Because the soldiers were really happy to see the extra food and wasn’t sad or angry about the death of their comrades means that food was very uncommon. Dehumanizing is a necessary tool in order to survive the war. Dehumanizing is depicted in both The Wars and All Quiet on the Western Front, however, Robert is having trouble going to the stage of being dehumanized through the book, and isn’t until later he is to his limits and snaps making him do awful things; like shooting Captain Leather in the face. Referring back to All Quiet on The Western Front, Paul describes the psychological transformations that soldiers have when going into battle such as this quote. â€Å"We have become wild beasts. We do not fight, we defend ourselves against annihilation. It is not against men that we fling our bombs, what so we know of men in this moment when Death with hands and helmets is hunting us down†¦ We feel a mad anger. No longer do we lie helpless, waiting on the scaffold, we can destroy and kill, to save ourselves, to save ourselves and be revenged† (Remarque 113). The soldiers stop being good people and become beasts later on, so they may survive. It is necessary to sacrifice the thoughtful and logical part of their minds in order for them to become like animals to survive. However for Robert dehumanization becomes a problem. He is too sensitive for these sorts of things and this is seen through his thoughtfulness of the animals. Robert tries to find a role model to become manlier but doesn’t happen until he sees the horses being bombed, in which changes him. Robert has held in such anger to the point where he kills captain leather but the interesting thing is that Robert went to the point of becoming an animal himself in order to save animals. â€Å"His anger rose to such a pitch that he feared he was going to go over into madness. He stood where the gate has been and thought: ‘If an animal had done this – we would call it mad and shoot it’ and at that precise moment Captain Leather rose to his knees and began to struggle to his feet. Robert shot between the eyes. † (Findley 178) Wars had a huge impact to the younger generations and the physical involvement of war changes a person immediately. â€Å"I am young, I am twenty years old; yet I know nothing of life but despair, death, fear and fatuous superficiality cast over an abyss of sorrow. (Remarque 267) Soldiers such as Robert and Paul realize that they themselves have changed from the impact of the war experience, they are alienated, a feeling of no belonging, an inability to connect to the past. And feel as though they need to go back to the trenches because nothing else connects to them anymore. And so the broken soldiers, Paul and Robert, return to the frontlines and become an animal again, only this time, survival is short live d.

The Little Prince Essay

Lee Hyeon Ju Ms. Sarah Jane ELSEO November 23, 2012 The little prince The little prince has symbolism, it reminds people about meaning of life. Anthoine de Saint Exupery uses symbolism to teach the reader. Firstly, the king symbolizes how power is useless. The fox symbolizes love and the desert flower is meaning of religion. Antoine de saint Exupery uses symbolism to teach the reader meaning of life. He uses the king to represent about power is useless, the fox to teach love and the lower to symbolize religion. The king symblizes how power is useless.The first reason why power is useless for the king is because he lives alone on a planet. Even when the king tires to control the sunset the little prince realizes he can not control it. In order for someone to have power they must have subjects who listen to them. therefore power is useless because no one is under his control unless they decide to be. The fox symbolizes love. The first reason why the fox symbolizes love is because he le t little prince knows how to tame each other. The little prince knows how interaction is important in a elationship. The fox taught him to know invisible things more important than visible in our eyes. â€Å"What is essential is invisible to the eye. † Because the fox and, little prince could remember when they see same colour of them they can reminds each other. The desert flower symbolizes religion. The first reason why the desert flower symbolizes love is because the flower roots meaning of belief . Belief is makes people strong their mind it is not invisible to outside, but it effected so much just like plant’s roots.Also, the desert meaning of the hard life. †but never knows where to find them. The wind blows them away. † The flower had once seen a caravan passing ,the seven men blowed away because they did not have roots like a flower. In conclusion, the little prince make people know about meaning of life. First, the king teach people about useless o f power and the fox teach love, and desert flower is symbolizes of religion. Many people would know how meaningful to read this book because they find important lesson from it.

Aaron Zuniga-Bennett Essay

In the early 1980s, the American people elected Ronald Reagan as President of the United States of America. Many people claim that Reagan was one of the greatest presidents of all time, while others believe that the country would have been much better off had Reagan never been elected. Regardless of their political preferences, it is undeniable that Ronald Reagan changed the world in the 1980s and his work as president will be forever remembered in the countless books of history. Ronald Reagan ran as a Republican and was the absolute spirit of a conservative. He worked to bring forth the ideal of conservatism in America and successfully captured and isolated that belief in the presidency. As president, Reagan worked to bring the ideal of American exceptionalism back to the country, to set the economy on the right track, and to end the Communist threat that had been present since the end of World War II. For all practical purposes, Ronald Reagan was a president who accomplished more t han he set forth to do and did so famously; some would say infamously. Nonetheless, Reagan accomplished more in his eight year presidency than most presidents of the 20th Century. He is widely hailed as the man who ended the Cold War and will forever be remembered as the man who led to the conservative resurgence in America. He was a man of profound ability and charm and America is better off for having Reagan as the Commander-in-Chief during the latter portion of the 20th Century. Ronald Reagan was born on February 6, 1911 in Tampico, Illinois. His mother, Nelle, was a homemaker; and his father, Jack, was a traveling salesman (Ronald Reagan). The Reagan family moved often as Jack searched throughout the state for work and Ronald Reagan grew up in a very poor family. Despite the hardships his family encountered, Reagan graduated from high school in Dixon, Illinois and earned a football scholarship to attend Eureka College (Reagan, â€Å"American Life† 43). After graduating from Eureka, Reagan pursued a career in Hollywood where he starred in over fifty movies and eventually became the president of the Screen Actors Guild. As president of the Screen Acto rs Guild, Reagan worked to remove all suspected Communists from Hollywood; all the while encouraging conservative values in the liberal slanted film industry. In 1964, the former actor, Ronald  Reagan, delivered a nationally televised political speech on behalf of conservative presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. The speech became one of Reagan’s most fundamental speeches that completely changed his life. In his speech, Reagan presented the country with his ideals of a perfect country, supported by his conservative values. He also spoke about how America needs a strong national defense, a reduction of taxes, and the need to defeat the Communist threat in the Soviet Union. He also stated, â€Å"We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope for man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness† (Reagan, â€Å"Speaking† 36). After his speech, Reagan was approached by many influential Republicans who urged him to run for Governor of California. His speech, on behalf of Barry Goldwater became one of his greatest triumphs. Reagan initially refused when he was asked to run for governor; nevertheless, many influential Republicans got together and formed a fundraising group called â€Å"Friends of Reagan.† They raise d a great deal of money and in 1966; Reagan defeated the needed Democrat Governor of California (What Would Reagan Do?). At that moment, his political career began and in 1981, Reagan assumed the role as President of the United States of America. Throughout his presidency, Reagan set America on a course to defeat the Communist threat in the Soviet Union, to boost military funding, to cut taxes, and to return optimism to the American people. Reagan worked relentlessly to accomplish his goals and in the process changed the world. Many of his critics view the 1980s as a decade of unmitigated wealth and greed; and they praise Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for ending the Cold War. From the beginning of his presidency, Ronald Reagan worked to end the Cold War, not to appease the Soviets. Former presidents had worked to open relations with the Soviet Union. President Nixon had formed compromise and Carter worked to appease the Communists. However, â€Å"Reagan rejected Communism, dà ©tente, and containment, and set us on a course to win – not manage – the Cold War†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (The Great One). Reagan met several times with General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union, and together they worked to compromise and create treaties that would eliminate the threat of short range nuclear weapons. Many of the meetings with Gorbachev were productive, yet Reagan’s ideal of foreign policy was not as clearly defined as many of his critics may have wished.  The Reagan Administration dealt with foreign policy on the manner of â€Å"Peace through Strength,† they worked to isolate any world menace and to direct all immediate attention to that threat. This ideal of foreign policy worked to threaten the Soviet Union and to make them aware that any danger they may pose would be dealt with in a quick and decisive manner. In 1983, Reagan ordered the United States Marines to invade Grenada. A coup d’à ©tat was taking place and a revolutionary group was trying to take control of the government to align with the Marxist Soviet Union (Reagan, â€Å"American Lifeà ¢â‚¬  449). Although the troops were only in Grenada for a short period of time, they did suppress the threat of a Communist uprising and Reagan shocked the world with his tough stance on global threats. During his presidency, Reagan increased federal defense spending by 35 percent and began building nuclear weapons at an unprecedented rate (Ronald Reagan). In 1986, one American serviceman was killed in a bombing in Berlin that injured 63 other members of the American military. It became evident within hours that the terrorist attack had been planned and carried out by Mu’ammar Qadhafi, the leader of Libya. Reagan was quick to order an air raid on key ground targets in Libya. The strike was a success and many important buildings were destroyed. Reagan addressed the nation shortly after the air raid and made several comments that were illustrative of his firm stance against terrorist actions. He said, â€Å"When our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in this world†¦ we will respond so long as I’m in this Oval Office,† and to terrorist leaders around the world he said, â€Å"He [Qadhafi] counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong† (Reagan, â€Å"Speaking† 288). With that speech, Reagan imposed his views upon the world and he let the country know that he would not succumb to any foreign national threat. For all practical purposes, nearly all of the military actions of the 1980s were directed in some manner towards the Soviet Union. The preemptive attacks on Grenada and Libya were used as threats against the Soviet Union and were meant to be symbolic of the fact that America would not hesitate to act. Reagan used his strong military presence as a threat against the Soviets and many of Reagan’s naysayers still believe he used force in a manner contradictory to the astute power of the President of the United States. However, the Reagan Administration used their military ability to inflict fear into all Communist threats worldwide. The political  philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli, speaks of powerful leaders, he writes, â€Å"†¦it is much safer to be feared than loved†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Machiavelli 66). Therefore, regardless of what criticizers may say, it would seem that Reagan’s use of military force throughout the world was effective and that Gorbachev feared his American equivalent. Reagan used his superiority to his advantage when he met with Gorbachev to discuss the reduction of nuclear missiles. During the 1980s, Reagan increased the defense spending more than any president had done before; it was a part of his â€Å"Peace through Strength† foreign policy. During this time, the production of nuclear missiles surged and the United States found itself in a mini-arms race with the Soviet Union. In principle, the Reagan Administration outspent the Soviets in defense and nuclear weapon production. In an effort to compete, the Soviets bankrupted themselves and had no choice but to dismiss their Marxist values. Between the years of 1985 and 1988, Reagan met with General Secretary Gorbachev four times; in Switzerland, Iceland, Washington D.C., and Moscow (Reagan, â€Å"American Life† 545). The meetings between the two world leaders were dramatic and Reagan walked out of the meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland after Gorbachev failed compromise. The tensions were high during all of the meetings and many people feared that any mistake could lead to an immediate nuclear Armageddon. Fortunately, no nuclear weapons were launched and the Reagan Administration triumphed over the Soviet Union. In 1987, Reagan visited East Berlin and spoke at the Brandenburg Gate. During his speech, he called for an end to Communism and a strengthening of individual liberty. His speech as the Brandenburg Gate is often viewed as one of the most successful speeches of his presidency. While speaking to a crowd of thousands, Reagan said to the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, â€Å"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall† (Reagan, â€Å"Speaking† 352). Two years later, the Soviet Union agreed to tear down the Berlin Wall and within the year, Communist nations around Europe began to crumble. Many Democrats in Congress and the mainstream media admired Gorbachev for bringing peace to European countries; they praised Gorbachev for surrenderin g and for keeping the warmongering Ronald Reagan from leading the country on the road to a nuclear war. Many Americans who opposed the Reagan Administration were more than happy to give the credit to the Soviet Union; they believed Reagan was  too overpowering and heartless to have been so successful. Nevertheless, conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh writes, â€Å"The end of the Cold War and the defeat of Communism in the Soviet Union was a clear victory for American values, for the American way of life, for the republican, democratic, free-marked ideals of the United States of America† (Limbaugh â€Å"Ought to Be† 230). Therefore, it would seem that Reagan played a major role in bringing an end to the 40 year Cold War. Regardless of the beliefs and values one holds, Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War and suppressed the Communist threat worldwide. He changed the world! Although his greatest success may have been bringing closure to the Cold War, Reagan also accomplished a great deal in the United States of America. When he left office in 1989, the economy was breaking records and benefitting from the longest period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression (Ronald Reagan). People were making money in America and thanks to Reagan’s tax cuts; they were able to keep more of what they earned. The Reagan Administration began an economic policy that became identified as â€Å"Reaganomics† or trickle-down economics. Reaganomics was the belief that tax cuts for the rich, middle class, and poor would work to stimulate the economy. If the rich had more money, they would create more businesses and opportunity, the middle class would then be able to become business owners, and higher the poor. It is a social hierarchy of job creation and the nation experienced 96 months of peacetime economic growth (Limbaugh, â€Å"Told You So† 122). In 1990, George H.W. Bush disbanded the policy of Reaganomics and the 96 months of economic growth ended almost immediately. Many historians , to this day, view the 1980s as a decade of greed where the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. They also discredit the policy of Reaganomics because they do not believe the rich paid their fair share of taxes. However, economic figures are illustrative of how much the rich truly pay in taxes. It seems that the top 1% of income earners pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes in the United States (What Would Reagan Do?). Therefore, even if the 1980s were deemed as a decade of greed, it would seem that greed is good. Reagan worked to reduce onerous taxes in order to return the wealth to its rightful owners, the workers. The Reagan Administration did not hand out money; rather, they let people keep more of what they had already earned. In return, consumerism rose and the money was  immediately deposited back into the national economy. Therefore, it would seem that the tax cuts and policy of Reaganomics worked very well in the 1980s; the economic growth experienced in that decade has yet to be matched. Regardless of one’s political affiliation, it is undeniable that tax cuts work and the economic policy of the Regan Administration should be implemented into our system now, during th e present economic crisis. The implementation of tax cuts, both on income and corporations, provided working class Americans with the incentive to work and to achieve. No longer were people afraid of earning; the tax cuts prevented hard working Americans from being punished with difficult and total taxation. This era of economic growth restored a feeling of optimism in America, especially after the failures of the Carter Administration and the record setting unemployment rate of the late 1970s. Ronald Reagan’s policies, both foreign and domestic, made people proud to be Americans once again. During the 1980s, Americans were not being villainized and condemned, they were being praised. Reagan restored the feeling of confidence in America and brought forth a generation of strong, nationalistic Americans. Ronald Reagan was a success as President of the United States, not only because of his charisma and communication skills, nor simply because of his policies. Ronald Reagan was a success because the American people loved him. In 1984, during his campaign for a second term, the electorate illustrated their reverie for him and he won in the large st landslide victory ever recorded. He was unanimously re-elected in 49 of the 50 states (What Would Reagan Do?). His unprecedented victory astonished the world and many of his political detractors wondered how he could be so popular. Once again, the political philosopher Machiavelli offers insight into how a person should be a successful leader. Machiavelli wrote in 1513, â€Å"†¦he should inspire his citizens to follow their pursuits quietly, in trade and in agriculture and in every other pursuit of men, so that one person does not fear to adorn his possessions for fear that they be taken away from him, and another to open up a trade for fear of taxes† (Machiavelli 91). In essence, Reagan accomplished all of these aforementioned goals during his presidency. His policy of a strong national defense worked to make people feel comfortable and unafraid of a Communist attack, and his policy of Reaganomics allowed people to become entrepreneurs without a fear of being taxed out of  business. For all practical purposes, Reagan epitomized the values of a good leader as prescribed by Niccolo Machiavelli; he restored the power and the faith to the people while simultaneously ruling under the facade of being a decisive and fearful leader when handling foreign threats. In the end, it is apparent that Ronald Reagan accomplished a great deal during his administration. His most important accomplishments stem from restoring optimism in Americans, the total growth of economic prosperity, and bringing an end to the Cold War. Many of his political opponents still work to destroy the successes of his administration and they blame him for being too demanding and too dangerous. They thought his actions during the 1980s were detrimental to the growth and prosperity of America. On January 11, 1989, during his farewell address to the nation, he said, â€Å"My friends: We did it. We weren’t just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all† (Reagan, â€Å"Speaking† 418). The Reagan Administration was one of growth and success. During his presidency, he changed America, let alone the world, for the better. He had done what no president before him could, he set the nation on a course for unprecedented economic growth, and he led to the downfall of Communism and the Cold War. His opponents viewed him as a failure; however, his policies greatly impacted the world. If Ronald Reagan were alive today, he would still be the last best hope for this country. Reference Coulter, Ann. What Would Reagan Do?. http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=77. 21 September 2005. Web. 4 April 2014. Limbaugh, Rush. See, I Told You So. New York: Pocket Star Books, 1993. Limbaugh, Rush. â€Å"The Great One.† National Review 28 June 2004: 36. Academic OneFile. Web. 7. April 2014. Limbaugh, Rush. The Way Things Ought to Be. New York: Pocket Books, 1992. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Reagan, Ronald. An American Life. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990. Reagan, Ronald. Speaking My Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989 â€Å"Ronald Reagan.† http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan. Web. 7 April 2014.

Power breakdown in Pakistan

With drying of sea water, touching of oil prices to its peak, damaging of roads and streets, disappearing of electricity in cities is clearly giving idea of present condition of Pakistan. According to revolutionary Russian leader Lenin defined socialism as, â€Å"the electrifician of the whole country and the transfer of power to the people’s representatives† (cited by Kabir, 2002). For revolutionary development of any country, it is important that the country should be electrifying. As all industries and business which help to rise economy of country depends on energy in one form or another. Since many years, the looming energy crisis in Pakistan has covered us like spider net but, in recent months it has been increased and got a massive shape that could damage the economy and autonomy of the country. According to one report in The News, â€Å"this summer, the country faced an electricity deficit of over 2,500 megawatts (MW) †¦ it is feared that by 2010 the gap between demand and supply could reach up to 8,000 MW† (Asif, 2007). Breakdown of power supply to cities has devastating effects on economical and social aspects of country, which could reduce by some strategies and principles. According to environment report given by Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (2005), â€Å"Pakistan has 18 gigawatts of electric generating capacity. † This power generating capacity has been increased in few years with aids of foreign investors. Blackouts and transmission losses are still in tradition in some areas due to inefficient quality of infrastructure, illegal power supply (Kunda system), water shortage, poor co-ordination between power supply agencies, extraneous electricity decoration. There are only two main state-owned power sector in Pakistan i. e. Water and Power Supply Authority (WAPDA) and Karachi Electricity Supply Cooperation (KESC). Cooperation of these two sectors makes electricity able to transmit and distribute in all region of Pakistan.

A Dialogue with the Daughter Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

A Dialogue with the Daughter - Essay Example In his podgy, dirty hands, he held a small note that read: "Will stop by in the afternoon for visit. Sandy." SANDY. That name almost struck lightning in his chest. How long ago had he last called out that name How does she look like now In his mind ran thoughts about Sandy, his eldest daughter. How he missed her. He and his wife named her Sandy because of the color of her hair. She used to dance while he played "Old McDonald" in numerous versions for her. He remembered how Sandy cried when he left to try his luck in New York City. He never heard about Sandy or his family for a long time. They left the house and him for they did not understand that he left because of them --- because of his dreams for them.There was a soft knock on the door. The once immobile head jerked towards the sound. For the first time in many minutes, he showed obvious signs of nervousness and excitement. This was Sandy, for sure. Her soft knock did not change since she was young. When he was in his room, she u sed to knock softly at his door before entering to ask him to play music for her. He got up and moved quickly to the door to open it. "Dad," she says. "Come inside," he mutters, barely able to keep the excitement in his voice.There was a moment of silence. He could imagine Sandy taking in the view of their old home. Nothing has changed except for a couple of furniture that he supposed to have bought for them

How Children Playing Sports Contributed to a Well-Rounded Child Research Paper

How Children Playing Sports Contributed to a Well-Rounded Child - Research Paper Example The energy possessed by children needs to be fully utilized in co-curricular activities such as sports. Therefore, a well-rounded child can be viewed as that child, who has totally developed physically, socially and mentally thru playing sports from early childhood (Humphrey). Having children participate in sporting activities has over time led to controversies in opinions and as such a bond of contention between educational institutions and other stake holders. Some scholars hold contrary opinions on whether or not children should participate in sports. â€Å"Critics have condemned sport for fostering excessive violence, an overemphasis on competition and winning, and the exploitation of individuals. Sport proponents have extolled the value of sport as a contributor to health, personal fulfillment, and community integration.† (School sports, Encyclopedia of Education). It is vital to have a glance at how sport produces positive results in the education sector and other settin gs for young children. Among the reasons behind these controversies is the notion that if the sports are not well organized can pose a number of dangers notably; cognitive and psychological. Kirk Ericson in his article titled, â€Å"The Negative Effects of Youth Sports† asserts thus â€Å"competitive sports may be too stressful for children; therefore a need to control what sport children play otherwise sports can be injurious. Among the effects cited in the article include; physical injuries on the bones, sprains and strains on the muscles and tendons, injuries inflicted on growth plates and heat related ailments. The other effect justifying by Shields and Gilbert is why kids should not participate in sport activities is because of early burnouts, as a result of stress reaction caused by overstraining and too much play that can dehydrate the child’s body. The article further advocates for a creation of an environment where children will be able to participate and vie w sport as a source of fun and enjoyment. The other factor against sport activities by children is that in the event of competition and play kids use large amounts of energy and therefore the planners of children sport need to engage the services of the diet and nutrition specialists to help guard against inadequate nutrition otherwise sports for children will generate more harm than good. In the contrary opinion scholars and physical education specialists cite enormous benefits gained by children in sports. As stated in one of the articles, â€Å"Numerous studies by Shields and Gilbert support the positive relationship that exists between psychological well-being and regular involvement in physical activity, especially in the areas of reduction of anxiety and depression.† Physically, sport helps children develop a well-built structure of their bodies, for example, the muscles and bones. As Brewer, asserts child development demonstrates that children develop through shared ac tivities such as sports. â€Å"Children grow in and through connections with others† supports the fundamental importance of warm, trusting, supportive and close interpersonal sport relationships to overall well-being (Brewer). Sports therefore play a major role in the social development of a child; it is through play that virtues such as cooperation, team work, discipline, trust, just play and game skills are developed. Intellectual development of