The AIDS SCARE

This is an age of science and technology.  Scientists all over the world are trying to fight diseases.  They have certainly succeeded to a large extent.  Human life is certainly longer today than what is used to a few decades ago.  Much however, still remains to be done.  A number of terrible diseases continue to stare the scientists in the face and the men of science stand just bewildered and confused.  A rather recent discovery in this list of incurable diseases in AIDS (Acquired Immuno- Deficiency  Syndrome) which has created a terrible scare in the world.  It has already taken a toll of several thousand lives in America and Europe.  It has been reported that  the disease has, in mild forms, entered India also.  It might soon appear in a big way spelling doom and disaster.  The Government of India has launched a big offensive against  the terrible disease.  Although there is no reason  for immediate alarm yet the public is being educated about the symptoms, causes, remedies, precautions etc. concerned with this fell disease.
It is mainly an STD (sexually transmitted disease). comment below if you want to know about this and other sexually transmitted disease. I'll post another article with pictures for this topic.

Bird Flu

Bird flue is a serious illness that affects that affects birds, especially chickens, that can be spread from birds to humans and that can cause death. Recently the breaking out of bird flue has taken us aback. We could never think of such kind of problem in our country.

However thanks to the almighty that it could not break out in an epidemic form because of the timely intervention of the government and people’s consciousness about the matter. The cause of bird flue in our country could not be detected. It was thought that it might have been carried and spread by the imported chickens from our neighboring countries like Thailand and china-because the breaking out of bird flue in an epidemic form has been seen in china and Thailand. Poultry farming has had a positive effect on the socio-economic condition in our country. It helped many rural poor women to break the chain of poverty and fee better days in their lives. But the recent breaking out of bird flue has shadowed their smiling faces into gloomy ones and clouded their foreheads. It has emptied their fertile farms and turned the firms into barren lands. We have seen the heart-rending cries of the people both male and female. Their caries have pierced our hearts. However, it is heartening that our government has taken all-out efforts to give loans to the people engaged in poultry farming on easy terms to keep their income generating industry on and to bring about better days and see the gloomy faces glowing with beatific smile and keep their heads above all consuming poverty.

THE HONOR KILLING OF WOMEN AND GIRLS

Honor killing and honor crime involve violence against women and girls, including such acts as beating, battering, or killing, by a family member or  relative. The attacks are provoked by the belief or perception that an individual’s or family’s honor has been threatened  because of the actual or perceived sexual misconduct of the female. Honor killings are most common in traditional societies in the Middle East, Southwest Asia,  India, China, and Latin America. Honor killing of a woman or girl by her father, brother, or other male relative may occur because of a suspicion that she engaged in sexual activities before or outside marriage and thus has dishonored the family. Even when rape of a woman or girl has occurred this may be seen as violation of the honor of the family for which the female must be killed. Wives’ adultery and daughters’ premarital “sexual activity,” including rape, are seen as extreme violations of the codes of behavior and thus may result in the death of the female through this so-called “honor” killing. Honor  killing/crime is based on the shame that a loss of control of the woman or girl brings to the family and to the male heads of the family. According to  criminologist Linda Williams, men consider honor killings culturally necessary, because any suspicion of sexual activity or suspicion that a girl or a woman was touched by another in a sexual manner is enough to raise questions about the family’s honor. Consequently, strict control of women and girls within the home and outside the home is justifi ed. Women are restricted in their activities in the community, religion, and politics. These institutions, in turn, support the control of females. Williams believes that the existence of honor killing is designed for maintaining male dominance. Submissiveness may be seen as a sign of sexual purity and a woman’s or girl’s attempts to assert her rights can
be seen as a violation of the family’s honor that needs to be redressed. Rules of honor and threats against females who “violate” such rules reinforce the control of women and have a powerful impact on their lives. Honor killings/crimes serve to keep women and girls from “stepping out of line.” The manner in which such behaviors silence women and kill their spirit has led some to label honor killings/crimes more broadly as “femicide.”


Sources: Linda M. Williams, “Honor Killings,” in  Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Violence, eds. Claire M. Renzetti and Jeffrey I. Edelson (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007); Dan Bilefsky, “How to Avoid Honor Killing in Turkey? Honor S uicide,” New York Times, 16 July 2006, p. 3; Nadera  Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 

Crimes Against Humanity

On May 26, 2006, James Paul Lewis, Jr., the former director of Orange County, California–based Financial Advisory Consultants (FAC), was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for running a massive Ponzi scheme that raised more than $300 million and caused more than 1,600 victims to lose more than $156 million of their hardearned money. What exactly did James Lewis do to earn a 30-year prison sentence? He offered investors opportunities to invest in two mutual funds. Through false and fraudulent brochures and other promotional material issued by FAC, he told investors that they would earn annual rates of return of up to 18 percent in an Income Fund, which claimed to generate revenue from the leasing of medical equipment, commercial lending, and fi nancing insurance premiums, and 40 percent annual returns in a Growth Fund, which claimed to generate revenue through the purchase and sale of distressed businesses. Instead of investing the investors’ money as promised, Lewis used the funds to purchase homes in Villa Park, Laguna Niguel, Palm Desert, San Diego, and Greenwich, Connecticut. He also used investors’ money to purchase luxury automobiles for himself, his wife, and his girlfriend. Among other schemes, he used investor money to trade currency futures, managing to lose at least $22 million. To conceal the scheme at FAC, Lewis ran a Ponzi scheme: he took the money of new investors (and new purchases of those who had already bought into the funds) to pay the rates of return promised to investors. In other words, he used the principal to pay the interest! That is, until the money ran out. At one point nearly 3,300 investors had a total balance of $813,932,080 in the funds, but FAC and Lewis’s bank accounts held only slightly more than $2 million. At Lewis’s sentencing hearing, United States District Judge Cormac J. Carney ordered him to pay $156 million in restitution. Because many of this victims were elderly, Judge Carney described the scheme as a “crime against humanity.” Several victims told the court about their losses, which included life savings and college funds. Many victims described being forced back to work after losing their retirement savings in the scheme. How would Gottfredson and Hirschi explain Lewis’s ongoing criminal activities? Can someone so calculating lack self-control?


Sources: Department of Justice press release, “Operator of Orange County– Based Ponzi Scheme that Caused More than $150 Million in Losses Sentenced to 30 Years in Federal Prison,” May 30, 2006, 

When being GOOD is BAD!

In neutralization theory, Sykes and Matza claim that neutralizations provide offenders with a means of preserving a noncriminal self-concept even as they engage in crime and deviance. Sykes and Matza’s vision assumes that most criminals believe in conventional norms and values and must use neutralizations in order to shield themselves from the shame attached to criminal activity. Recent research by criminologist Volkan Topalli fi nds that Sykes and Matza may have ignored the infl uential street culture that exists in highly disadvantaged neighborhoods. Using data gleaned from 191 in-depth interviews with active criminals in St. Louis, Missouri, Topalli fi nds that street criminals living in disorganized, gang-ridden neighborhoods “disrespect authority, lionize honor and violence, and place individual needs above those of all others.” Rather than having to neutralize conventional values in order to engage in deviant ones, these offenders do not experience guilt that r equires neutralizations; they are “guilt free.” There is no need for them to “drift” into criminality, Topalli fi nds,  because their allegiance to nonconventional values and lack of guilt perpetually leave them in a state of openness to crime. Rather than being contrite or ashamed, the offenders Topalli interviewed took great pride in their criminal activities and abilities. Bacca, a street robber who attacked a long-time neighbor without provocation, exemplifi ed such sentiments: Actually I felt proud of myself just for robbing him, just for doing what I did I felt proud of myself. I didn’t feel like I did anything wrong, I didn’t feel like I lost a friend ’cause the friends I do have . . . are lost, they’re dead. I feel like I don’t have anything to lose. I wanted to do just what I wanted to do.
Topalli refers to streetwise offenders such as Bacca as “hardcores,” who experience no guilt for their actions and operate with little or no regard for the law. They have little contact with agents of formal social control or conventional norms because their crimes are not  directed toward conventional society— they rob drug dealers. Most hardcores maintain no permanent home, staying in various residences as their whim d ictates. Their lifestyles are almost e ntirely dominated by the street ethics of violence, self-suffi ciency, and opportunism. Obsessed with a constant need for cash, drugs, and alcohol in order to “keep the party going,” on the one hand, and limited by self-defeating and reckless spending habits on the other, they often engage in violent crime to bankroll their street life activities. They do not have to neutralize conventional values because they have none. Rather than neutralizing conventional values, hard-core criminals often have to neutralize deviant values: they are expected to be “bad” and have to  explain good behavior. Even if they themselves are the victims of crime, they can never help police or even talk to them, a practice defi ned as snitching and universally despised and discouraged. Smokedog, a carjacker and drug dealer, described the anticipated guilt of colluding with the police in this way, “You know I ain’t never told on nobody and I ain’t never gonna tell on nobody ’cause I would feel funny in the world if I told on somebody. You know, I would feel funny, I would have regrets about what I did.” Street criminals are also expected to seek vengeance if they are the target of theft or violence. If they don’t, their selfimage is damaged and they look weak and ineffective. If they decide against vengeance, they must neutralize their decision by convincing themselves that they are being merciful, respecting direct
 appeals by their target’s family and friends. T-dog, a young drug dealer and car thief, told Topalli how he neutralized the decision not to seek revenge by allowing his uncle to “calm him down.” The older man, a robber and drug dealer himself, intervened before T-dog could leave his house armed with two 9mm automatics: “That’s basically what he told me, ‘Calm down.’ He took both my guns and gave me a little .22 to carry when I’m out to put me back on my feet. Gave me an ounce of crack and a pound of weed. That’s what made me let it go.” In other cases, offenders claimed the target was just not worth the effort, reserving their vengeance for those who were worthy opponents. Do these fi ndings indicate that neutralization theory is invalid? Topalli concludes that the strength of the theory is its emphasis on cognitive processes that occur prior to offending. He suggests that neutralization theory’s current emphasis on a conventional cultural value orientation must be expanded to accommodate the values of the street culture.

Jealousy Is a Wasted Emotion

We all get jealous, don’t we? Actually, no, not everyone experiences jealousy as an
emotion.

 I don’t get jealous. That’s a weird thing to read, isn’t? Well, it’s a weird thing to
say, too. But it’s true. I don’t experience jealously as an emotion. I experience sadness,
happiness, anger, euphoria, and a plethora of other emotions, but not jealousy.
 Why? Because, unlike many emotions, I can choose to not experience jealousy.
 After years of observing people getting jealous in myriad ways, I understand that
our culture is riddled with jealousy and envy and greed, all of which are by-products of
our competitive, consumer driven culture.
 What’s worse is that it’s far more pernicious than we think. Competition breeds
jealousy, though we often give to prettier labels like “competitive spirit” or “stick-to-itiveness” or “ambition.”
 But the truth is that jealousy leads to certain cultural imperatives—e.g., keeping
up with the Joneses, as it were. Thus, we envy Mr. and Mrs. Jones for their money and
their large house and their luxury cars and their big boat and their weekend retreat and
their fancy vacations and all of their stuff—all of the trappings of our heavily-mediated
society.

But we don’t get jealous solely over material possessions. We also get jealous over 

our relationships. We think our friends don’t spend enough time with us, our lovers 

don’t care about us as much as they should, our customers aren’t loyal enough. It all 

revolves around us. He doesn’t spend enough time with me. She doesn’t care enough 

about me. We think this way because it’s hard to back away from ourselves, it’s hard to 

realize I am not the center of the universe.

 There is good news though. Like our televisions, we can chose to turn it off. We 

can choose to remove jealousy from our emotional arsenal. And like TV, it’s not always 

easy to turn off (it sure seems interesting sometimes, doesn’t it?) But turning off 

jealousy can significantly improve one’s emotional health. Because, at the end of the 

day, jealousy is never useful. Many negative emotions can be useful—pain tells us 

something is wrong, fear tells us to look before we leap, etc.—but jealousy, no matter 

how jealous we get, will never help.

But How?

The easiest way to turn jealousy off is to stop questioning other people’s intentions. We 

often get jealous because we think a person meant one thing by their actions, when they 

meant something totally different. And the truth is that you’ll never know someone’s 

real intent, so it’s a waste of time to question it.

 If you’re struggling with questioning someone’s intent, you can do one of two 

things:

1. Ask them what they meant by their actions/words.

 2. Accept that you will never know their true intent, no matter how much you 

question it.

The bottom line with jealousy: You can turn it off. You can stop questioning other 

people’s intent. A better life is waiting on the other side of jealousy.

International Women’s Day seminar held More power to women

KARACHI: The International Women’s Day seminar was designed and organized by the women action forum Pakistan (WAF) on the topic of women discrimination and harassment; in university of Karachi, department of mass communication-seminar hall on March 22, 2017 at 4pm.

Social activists, psychologist and women representing different fields including Noora Sheerin, Qurat Mirza, Asha and others participated in the event.

They said that women are making tremendous contribution in every sector but society and government do not acknowledge it in terms of giving justice to their sacrifices in their economic fields.

They give a detailed description of their organization WAF; Noora Sheerin described the milestones of the organization and their journey from last 35 years.

Then Qurat Mirza elaborated the goals of WAF and the laws established by government against women harassment. Asha, a psychologist, discussed the topic of sexual harassment in the light of human psychology.

After all women, Mr. Usama ends the note by recalling the Islamic history and role of women according to Islam and spoke positive on the power of women.

Willem Bonger, Ralf Dahrendorf, and George Vold on Crime

Willem Bonger
Bonger believed that society is divided into have and have-not groups, not on the basis of people’s innate ability, but because of the system of production that is in force. In every society that is divided into a ruling class and an inferior class, penal law serves the will of the ruling class. Even though criminal laws may appear to protect members of both classes, hardly any act is punished that does not injure the interests of the dominant ruling class. Crimes, then, are considered to be antisocial acts because they are harmful to those who have the power at their command to control society. Under capitalism, the legal system discriminates against the poor by defending the actions of the wealthy. Because the proletariat are deprived of the materials that are monopolized by the bourgeoisie they are more likely to violate the law.

Ralf Dahrendorf
Dahrendorf argued that modern society is organized into what he called imperatively coordinated associations. These associations comprise two groups: those who possess authority and use it for social domination and those who lack authority and are dominated. Society is a plurality of competing interest groups. He proposed a unifi ed confl ict theory of human behavior, which can be summarized as follows:
❚ Every society is at every point subject to processes of change; social change is everywhere.
❚ Every society displays at every point dissent and confl ict; social confl ict is everywhere.
❚ Every element in a society renders a contribution to its disintegration and change.
❚ Every society is based on the coercion of some of its members by others.

George Vold
Vold argued that laws are created by politically oriented groups who seek the government’s assistance to help them defend their rights and protect their interests. If a group can marshal enough support, a law will be created to hamper and curb the interests of some opposition group. Every stage of the process—from passing the law, to prosecuting the case, to developing relationships between inmate and guard, parole agent and parolee—is marked by confl ict. Criminal acts are a consequence of direct contact between forces struggling to control society.


Sources: Willem Bonger, Criminality and Economic Conditions, abridged ed. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969, fi rst published 1916); Ralf Dahrendorf, Class and Class Confl ict in Industrial Society (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1959); George Vold, Theoretical Criminology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958).

Alpha DOG (Crime story)

Twenty-five-year-old Jesse James Hollywood (his real name) was living a comfortable life in Brazil, teaching English and living in a fashionable neighborhood, when he was arrested in November of 2005 and sent back to California, where he faces charges of kidnapping and  killing a 15-year-old boy. Though Hollywood never held a job, by age 19 he was able to purchase a Mercedes and a $200,000 house in West Hills, California. His place became a popular spot for local kids who came and went at all hours of the day. Jesse was a popular guy, an outgoing kid who, despite being short in stature, was an excellent athlete. How was Jesse able to do all this? Unbeknownst to many, he was a largescale marijuana dealer. Jesse’s world began to unravel when he came up with a scheme to get money owed to him by Benjamin Markowitz, 22, one of his customers. Hollywood went to Markowitz’s family home on August 6, 2000, in order to kidnap him and hold him for ransom. According to authorities, on the way there, Jesse and his friends spotted Markowitz’s 15-year-old stepbrother, Nicholas, whom they forced into a van and transported to the home of another accomplice. After being held captive for a few days, Nick Markowitz was made to walk a mile into the Los Padres National  Forest before being shot nine times with a high-powered  assault rifl e and  buried in a shallow grave. His body was discovered four days later by hikers. While four other kids were tried and convicted in the case, Hollywood e scaped and became the subject of an  international manhunt, his mug shot plastered on the FBI’s website. He wound up in Brazil, where he used fake papers that identifi ed him as Michael Costa Giroux, a native of Rio de J aneiro. In 2005, Brazilian authorities d eported him as an  illegal alien. A 2007 fi lm, Alpha Dog, starring Bruce Willis, Justin Timberlake, and Sharon Stone, is based on the case. He is currently a waiting trial for the m urder. Jesse James Hollywood grew up in an affl uent family and seemed to be popular and successful. How could he have become involved in an awful, violent crime? How would a control theorist explain his actions?


Sources: Tim Uehlinger, “The Long Hunt for Jesse James Hollywood,” Dateline, April 12, 2006, (accessed June 9, 2007; Ted Rowlands, “ ‘Hollywood’ Faces Murder Charge,” April 19, 2006, (accessed June 9, 2007).

A LIFE IN THE DRUG TRADE

In summer 2004, a dramatic murder trial took place in New York City that aptly illustrates how lower-class cultural concerns—the code of the streets—clash with the rules and values of American culture and how deviant cultures can exist side by side with middle-class culture. Two Bronx men, Alan Quiñones and Diego Rodriguez, were accused of heroin traffi cking and killing a police informant. The trial hinged on the testimony of one of their confederates—Hector Vega, a key government witness who had previously pleaded guilty to taking part in the murder. He described in vivid detail how he watched the defendants beat the victim, Edwin Santiago, as he lay handcuffed on the fl oor of a Bronx apartment. He told the jury how the defendants Quiñones and Rodriguez spit in Santiago’s face to show what they thought of police informants. Santiago’s body was found mutilated and burned beyond recognition on June 28, 1999. During the trial, Vega gave the jury a detailed lesson in retail drug operations. In the Bronx, beatings, slashings, and shootings are routinely used to enforce what he called “the drug law”: “If people deserved it, I beat them up.” He showed them a tattoo on his upper right arm that meant “Money, Power, Respect.” Vega, 31, also told the jury that he headed a group of heroin vendors who did business from his “spot,” his sales area, between Daly and Honeywell Avenues in the Bronx. He said he had learned the trade from a stepfather, a building superintendent who he said had a second job as a narcotics entrepreneur: “I always knew about the drug business. I was raised around it.” As a mid-level drug dealer, Vega received heroin on consignment from big-time drug wholesalers and turned it over in $100 packages to people he called his “managers,” who in turn found “runners” to sell it on the street. His job was to “make sure everybody is working, and I will make sure everything is running correctly.” Vega received a “commission” of about 35 percent of all sales in his organization; he estimated that he made a total of at least $500,000 in the fi ve years before his arrest. Vega told how he used strict rules to run his organization. He did not sell between 1 and 3 P.M. because of “school hours.” He did not allow anyone to sell at his spot without his approval, or steal drugs from him, or pass him a counterfeit bill, or taint the quality of drugs sold under his name. If that happened, he said, “I’d be looking like a fool. The drug spot will go down.” When Manny, one of his workers, stole one package of heroin, Vega slashed his face with a box cutter. When the wound did not immediately bleed, “I didn’t see nothing cut, I didn’t see anything I did, so I did it a second time,” he said, until he saw blood. Angered by a counterfeit bill he received from a crack addict, “I punched him in the face, I kicked him, I threw him on the fl oor and kicked him again.” He disciplined one stranger who cheated him by hitting the man in the back of the head with a three-foot tree branch. Police informants were given special treatment. “In the drug world, in the drug law, we say that snitches get stitches,” he said. “In jail you cut their face. In the street, you beat them. You kill them.” Vega testifi ed that the defendants Quiñones and Rodriguez were heroin wholesalers and that he began buying drugs from them a few months before Santiago’s death. After he learned that Quiñones suspected Santiago of working undercover for the police, he helped him lure Santiago to the apartment of a girlfriend where the beatings and murder took place. For his cooperation, Vega faced a 15-year sentence rather than the death penalty.


Source: Julia Preston, “Witness Gives Details of Life as Drug Dealer,” New York Times, 12 July 2004.

Criminal Profile

Andrea (Kennedy) Yates was born on July 2, 1964, in Houston, Texas. She seemed to have a successful, normal life, being the class valedictorian, captain of the swim team, and a member of the National Honor Society. She graduated from the University of Texas School of Nursing in Houston and worked as a registered nurse at a University of Texas–run facility. She met and married Rusty Yates, and the couple began to raise a family. Though money was tight and living conditions cramped, the couple had fi ve children in the fi rst eight years of their marriage. The pressure began to take a toll on Andrea, and her mental health deteriorated. On June 17, 1999, after attempting suicide by taking an overdose of pills, she was placed in Houston’s Methodist Hospital psychiatric unit and diagnosed with a major depressive disorder. Even though she was medicated with powerful antipsychotics such as Haldol, Andrea continued to have psychotic episodes and was hospitalized for severe depression. Her losing battle with mental illness culminated in an act that shocked the nation. On June 20, 2001, she systematically drowned all fi ve of her children, including her eldest, seven-year-old Noah, who tried to escape after seeing his siblings dead, but was dragged back into the bathroom by his mother and drowned also. At trial, Yates’s defense team attempted to show that she suffered from delusional depression and postpartum mood swings that can sometimes evoke psychosis. Though she drowned her children one by one, even chasing down Noah to drag him to the tub, did she really have any awareness that what she was doing was wrong? Postpartum depression affects about 40 percent of all mothers and in its mildest forms leaves new mothers feeling “blue” for a few weeks; more serious cases can last more than a year and involve fatigue, withdrawal, and eating disorders. The most serious form, which Andrea Yates is believed to have suffered, is a psychosis that produces hallucinations, delusions, feelings of worthlessness, and inadequacy. Though very uncommon, postpartum psychosis increases the likelihood of both suicide and infanticide if left untreated. Despite her long history of mental illness and psychiatric testimony suggesting she lacked the capacity to understand her actions, the jury found her guilty of murder on March 12, 2002, ordering a life sentence instead of the death penalty sought by the prosecution. Andrea’s conviction was later overturned when a Texas appeals court ruled that an expert witness, Dr. Park Dietz, made a false statement during the trial. (He claimed she might have been infl uenced by an episode of Law and Order, though no such episode ever aired; it was actually L.A. Law that dealt with a case of a mother killing her children.) At the time of this writing Andrea remains in a psychiatric facility. The Andrea Yates case illustrates the association between mental illness and crime. Who could claim that a woman as disturbed as Andrea chose to kill her own children? While the jury may have reached that verdict, it was constrained by the legal defi nition of insanity that relies on the immediate events that took place and not Andrea’s long-term mental state that produced this horrible crime.


Sources: “Andrea Yates: Ill or Evil?” CourtTV Crime Library, CNN, “The Case of Andrea Yates,” (accessed July 10, 2008).