1006G[REBORN FROM THE ASHES组]备考日记 by windandrain2004——机会永远只有一次

windandrain2004UID：2597690

自己的一篇issue 一篇 argu～

windandrain2004UID：2597690

转载，by ddcm519原帖https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/thread-988435-1-5.html


浮躁光年——杂感当下AW风气

本帖最后由 ddcmj519 于 2009-7-25 22:47 编辑 昨天跟某聊天的时候还扯到，说谁谁谁一天到晚疯狂模考。当时还打着将信将疑的心理，至于么？当然也许是由于我淡定过头了= = 结果今天一上Q，就发现官群在讨论每天该花多少时间在AW上。6小时？15小时？ 着实有些汗颜。。 确实。AW是个无底洞。想要得到多少，就必须付出相应甚至更多的代价。 Question：1.等同代价                 2.更多代价 而Equivalent，只是一个理想化的概念而已。 所以，所谓的付出与收获等同，也只不过是心理上的平衡而已。 可能，某人每天狂写狂练，end in 3.5。 不公平哇~~每天那么多那么多的时间花在里面~~背了那么多那么多的例子~~写了那么多那么多的字儿~~~为什么3.5? 因为这不是一个以量来衡量的考试。 就这么简单。 以量来衡量的，叫 manual work。 不要以为一两个XDF老师忽悠着说“GRE是体力活~~”就真的以为 GRE全是体力活。 至少AW不是。 AW是小白领的活——脑力活。 体力活的话。有且只有背单词这一项吧。有一得一。纯正的付出等同收获。100%的值。 （所以抓紧背单词吧~） 当然作为脑力活，自然对于咱聪明的中国人就是有机可图了。 谁叫咱聪明？ 背、抄、临摹、改词换句、偷梁换柱…… 捷径有的是，版上类似的帖子相信也不是没人看过。 （当然我个人看这种东西很是不爽，所以如果看官属于此类范畴那么请找到上面的返回版面按钮，以免我后面的文字惹的您鸡飞狗跳人仰马翻。。） 北美范文，好东西哇。有人背有人抄有人挖词换例子。 牛人习作，更是精品中的精品，捡到是运气，考到是福气。 于是乎，北美&XDF所推崇的各篇文章通通变成重灾区，凡是被某某书提点过的提纲成为重点雷同对象。。 这样的付出确实能得到好果子，就是有人通过这样的方法4.5， 4…… 记得看过一篇帖子就是说这样拿到4.5的。还不满足，复议。结果贬谪至3.5 …… （这叫啥，假金怕火烧。。。） 理性的想想。这样的付出是否值得？基于别人的观点自己拼命练习打字儿，一个考试是否值得我们用人格去拼？ 当然这话说的比较重，但事实却是如此。 论文抄袭已经不是一天两天的新鲜事儿了。其本质也不过就是个借别人的内核裹自己的界面的事儿。 一朝偷袭成功，总想坐享大成。 殊不知终有一天会因果报应。阿弥陀佛。。 这种脑力活。无非是种浪费。 浪费脑力体力。浪费自身素质。 =========================== ======又去官群晃荡了下=========== =========吐血归来============= =========================== 可能确实是因为我太过淡定。平淡的上考场平淡的敲了2小时。平淡的回窝。平淡的继续生活。 所以我从来没有思考过什么值得不值得的问题。 就算我只拿个3分。我也会觉得值。 因为我从这个准备的过程中学到了思考，找到了自己适合的思考方式。 kind of 找到了自己思维的存在感。 我还学到了反思。对着自己的成品半成品呼啦啦的删，改时的淡定。 因为我知道我所做的每一件事情都在让我真实的进步。 问我考前那几天怎么过的？ 野外实习。天天在田里晒得筋疲力尽。每天大概就敲1个小时的键盘保持手感。 思考。看题。总结我思维的习惯。寻找适合我的表达方法。 讨论。交流。思维碰撞弥补相互补足，找到新的提升空间。 还有。看官方说明。一再明确我的目标及不足。 别的不是我不想做。时间不够精力不够。 所以时间和精力够or 不够的同学们啊。 please： 自重，自信，自爱。 自重：尊重自己的劳动成果，对自己的能力有正确的评估。 自信：基于以上一点，相信明天是美好的…… 对自己的需求正确评估。 自爱：基于以上两点，身体重要……别要分不要命…… ok，我又胡言论语了一通。 还是那句话。 爱生活，爱思考，爱寄托。 爱生活，issue & argument 无处不在哇。（不才某人经常从手机报上抠例子 = = ）            issue 不用多说，其考查的基本就是大家的世界观认识论。看大家能否从一个点发掘出其在社会背景中的无限联系。（不才某跟同学练嘴的时候就经常发现能够扯到题目上。。）            argument 一方面是教我们如何辨别广告真伪= = 。另一方面是作为反面例子教我们如何取信于人。（同样，不才某经常在跟同学练嘴时利用Argument的方法辩驳。。。） 爱思考，will power。受用终生。不仅开启XX的大门，更是自我发现的航标。            出来混，迟早要还。            写个issue的思考都不肯下功夫，以后写论文做研究的思考还愿意下么？ 爱寄托，嗯。这个就不说了。嘿嘿。对得起我04年注册的ID……            既然有缘让你看见这篇好死不死的帖子~            那么就爱下这个让你看见它的论坛吧~~~ Bless. 在路上的各位。加油。 这个夏天很是燥热。 请大家千万不要浮躁。 不要被虚幻的模考迷住双眼。 请一定抓住本质。 迷茫的时候，请停下。 思考

windandrain2004UID：2597690

看了米饭袜子写的《你真的准备考AW么？？？》觉得写的很好，很有感触。的确，我们考AW，很多人都只是为了去应试。这的确是一场考试，但是准备一场考试而提升自己的能力才是最重要的，有的时候我们会很功利地对待它，其实收效反而不好。每个人都希望用最少的时间去获得提高，但是捷径往往是不存在的。只有踏踏实实地努力，摆正心态才是正解。

windandrain2004UID：2597690

今天翻译的东西，先贴过来～

151
以下是一封给Atticus City报纸的编辑的一封信
“前任市长Durant应该向Atticus市道歉。连接着Atticus和Hartley两座城市的River Bridge的损坏和长期困扰着我们的桥上的交通问题实际上都是20年前Durant一手造成的。无论如何，是他批准了桥梁的建造。如果他能够批准建造一个更宽而且设计得更好的桥，同时花费与现在这个几乎相同的来自公众的钱，桥梁的损坏和交通问题都不会出现。但现在，River Bridge在过去20年间的损坏得比上游另外一座长得多的Derby Bridge迅速得多。尽管近几年的冬天气候确实比较恶劣，但这也不是为Durant的过失和浪费开脱的借口。”

152
以下是一封给Tria岛旅游局局长的一封信
“海岸沙滩被侵蚀这件事对于我们Tria岛和我们的旅游业而言是个严重的威胁。为了停止侵蚀过程，我们应该对使用海滩的人收费。尽管这一解决方案会在短期内触怒一些游客，它将会减少使用海滩的人数并筹集补充沙子的资金。像临近的Batia岛为了保护岛上的建筑而补充沙子一样，补充沙子将会有助于我们保护沿岸建筑，从而减少这些房屋在强烈的风暴中进一步受损的危险。并且由于这么做会使得沿岸地区更具吸引力，海滩将会受到保护，本地区的旅游业也将会得到长期的发展。”

erosion:
1 a : the action or process of eroding b: the state of being eroded
erode:
1 to diminish or destroy by degrees:  a : to eat into or away by slow destruction of substance (as by acid, infection, or cancer)  b : to wear away by the action of water, wind, or glacial ice  *flooding eroded the hillside*  c : to cause to deteriorate or disappear as if by eating or wearing away  *inflation eroding buying power*

153
以下文段来自本地的报纸“ Midvale Observer”上的一篇社论
“自从20世纪50年代电视开始进入平常家庭以来，Alta的青少年犯罪发生率也在稳步增加。这种青少年犯罪的增加和电视中暴力镜头的增加相对应。根据几个全国调查，那些看了大量含有暴力镜头的节目的很小的儿童比那些不看暴力节目的儿童在家庭环境中表现出更多的暴力行为。而且，在一次由Observer所举行的调查中，超过90％的回应者是那些指出黄金时段的电视节目（晚上7点－9点的节目）应该少播放暴力的家长。因此，为降低Alta的青少年犯罪率，电视观众应该要求电视节目管理者减少黄金时段暴力镜头的播出数量。”
（注，此篇感觉之前的翻译已经比较到位，只有小变动）

windandrain2004UID：2597690

今天的文章和我的comment

America's health-care bill

Nearer and nearer

Dec 21st 2009 From Economist.com

A procedural vote in America's Senate brings Barack Obama's health-care reforms closer


IT NOW looks certain that Barack Obama will get what he wanted for Christmas—a health-care reform bill passed out of the Senate, probably just a few hours before Santa begins his rounds. Republicans, who have been fighting tooth-and-nail to block passage of the bill seem to have given up the fight, and have given warning instead that this will be a wish that he comes to regret.

Shortly after 1am on Monday December 21st, the health bill cleared the first, and the most difficult, of the procedural hurdles it has to leap in order to secure passage through the Senate. Technically only a motion to end debate on a “manager's amendment” put together by the Senate's majority leader, Harry Reid, what the vote really represented was a crucial exercise in nose-counting. The result was a vote on precisely partisan lines, with all 40 Republicans opposed, and all 58 Democrats plus the two independents who are grouped with them voting in favour. Since 60 votes is the precise number needed to avoid a filibuster, there was no room for error whatsoever, the reason why the procedural motion had taken so long. But with all 60 members of the “Democratic caucus” now signed up, the final vote, on Christmas Eve, looks like a formality.

From the point of view of the Democrats, this victory has come at a high price. The health bill has been stripped of something very dear to many of then: a “public option” of a government-backed insurance scheme that would compete with private insurers in order, supposedly, to keep costs down and guarantee access. The version of the bill already passed by the House of Representatives does contain just such a public option, one of several reasons why final passage of a reconciled bill is still a way off. Some Democrats hope, however, that a public option can be added later on, after the initial bill has gone into effect.

Still, the Senate version does tick most Democratic boxes; it obliges everyone to have health-insurance, and sets out a generous system of subsides to help the uninsured obtain coverage, along with a system of government-regulated exchanges that should encourage competition among private insurers. It fines employers who do not offer health cover to their workers. And it makes it illegal for insurers to refuse people coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions, as well as putting strict limits on the way that premiums are allowed to increase with age. The hope is that tens of million of Americans currently without coverage will now be able to get it, and many tens of millions more, who have insurance but fear losing it through redundancy or ill-health, will have those worries lifted from their shoulders.

Republicans, however, hate the bill, mostly on the ground of cost. The advertised price-tag of the Senate bill is a bit under $900 billion over the next ten years, but Republicans contend that the numbers will be much higher than that, as the cost of subsidies has been underestimated and predicted savings will not materialise. Even at the stated number, this is a large bill at a time when America is running huge deficits that it urgently needs to tackle. The Senate bill is "paid for", but only in the sense that it provides for large charges on the most expensive private insurance policies, and because it factors in deep cuts to Medicare the health-insurance scheme for the elderly. Republicans say these will never be enacted. Past history provides them with evidence to back up that claim.

Less politically involved observers also note that it is unprecedented for such a substantive and expensive bill to have been forced through Congress on such a narrow vote. The bill passed the House on a margin of just five votes, and in the Senate it has no safety margin. With no bipartisan support at all, Democrats will be held solely responsible if the reform turns out to be a disappointment. Some studies have suggested that private insurance premiums could rise substantially in response to the new burdens being placed on insurers.

Completion of work on the bill is by no means a formality, though it does now look more or less certain that the Senate will vote the bill out before Christmas. The next difficulty will come in producing a single “reconciled” version from the very different bills that the Senate and House have produced; that reconciled bill then has to go back for final clearance by both chambers. The public option is one big stumbling block. It is clear that the Senate cannot pass any version of a bill that contains a public option, so the House will have to give ground, which is going to require a lot of presidential arm-twisting in January. And the two bills are funded in very different ways, one with a tax on the rich, the other with an insurance-policy surcharge. As of today though, health-care reform, expensive and imperfect though it is, is looking a lot more likely.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15150424


Words and sentences:
1. just a few hours before Santa begins his rounds.
2. tooth-and-nail
3. that reconciled bill then has to go back for final clearance by both chambers.
4. hurdles

hurdle n.
1 a : a portable panel usually of wattled withes and stakes used especially for enclosing land or livestock  b : a frame or sled formerly used in England for dragging traitors to execution
2 a : an artificial barrier over which racers must leap  b plural   : any of various track events in which a series of hurdles must be surmounted
3 : BARRIER, OBSTACLE


Comment:
In my opinion, public insurance is always an problem that makes the government headache. The popularity of the government will increase if well-planned insurance policy is performed. People could get plenty of convenience, such as health care, education, and so on. Insurance is especially important for children, the elderly, the disabled, and the low-income. But social farewell needs dollars. Increasing tax rate or adding a surcharge will of course cause satisfactory among the taxers. The government needs to pay for the bill also. The economic condition is quite bad now and it’s hard to pay for such a great bill. Then it is a big challenge for the government to balance all of them and it is also a good test that assess the ability of the current government.

windandrain2004UID：2597690

好多天没更新了，居然看自己的帖子都查不到，只能搜索。
从今天开始要努力每天更新。

windandrain2004UID：2597690

[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][01.08]

今天发一篇关于政治的，选自<political crime>一书的conclusion.

文章可能比较长，不求大家对文章里面的每一句都理解；发这篇文章的目地是因为这篇文章的语言非常好。我比较喜欢这篇文章里面的排比，例如：“Liberty is not to be imposed by the guillotine; fraternity is notestablished by the extermination of its adversaries; the reign ofjustice and equality is not founded by popular or judicial massacres.”
而且文章中还有一些拟人化的用法，也比较好，比方说：A lofty sentiment does not spoil politics.

文章中还有很多很好的语言，大家看看就知道了。

==========================================================

Political Crime
Chapter XI Conclusion

By Louis Proal

Politics have become discredited by the employment of culpableexpedients and the adoption of immoral maxims; for their reputation tobe retrieved they must be brought into accord with morality. Afterhaving resorted for so long to cunning and falsehood, to intrigue andviolence, politics, were it only for the novelty of the thing, shouldtry the effect of fair dealing, tolerance, and justice. Today, morethan at any period, novelty is liked. And what greater novelty couldthere be than politics conducted on moral lines? It is possible thatpeople will end by recognizing that in public as in private lifehonesty is the most effective and the most skilful policy. Not onlyshould Machiavellism be loathed by honorable people, but it should beregarded as fatal to the true interests of nations. A great policycannot be immoral. Craft and violence may score ephemeral successes,but they do not assure the greatness and prosperity of a country. Thesuccesses achieved by an immoral policy are not lasting; sooner orlater nations, like individuals, politicians, just as private persons,are punished for the evil or rewarded for the good they do. Politicalcrimes are punished more often than is supposed. Those who put theiradversaries to death by poison or upon the scaffold often undergo alike fate; those who send others into exile are exiled in their turn.

There is more immorality than profoundness in Machiavellism. It was nota shifty and violent policy that was pursued by Saint Louis, L'Hopital,Henry IV., Sully, Turgot, Franklin, or Washington. Their example showsthat it is possible to be a great King, a great Minister, a greatcitizen, and at the same time an honest man. On the other hand, mightygeniuses have been the ruin of the peoples they have governed, becausethey despised justice and pursued a Machiavellian policy. Napoleon I.,who was solely guided by reasons of State, lost his senses in the endand embarked upon the war in Spain and the Russian campaign. Danton andRobespierre, who did not lack talent, brought the Republic to ruinthrough trying to save it by the Terror. Liberty is not to be imposedby the guillotine; fraternity is not established by the exterminationof its adversaries; the reign of justice and equality is not founded bypopular or judicial massacres.

The disciples of Machiavelli declare that politicians should resort toviolence and even to crime, if to do so be necessary for the safety ofthe people, but what they call the safety of the people is oftennothing more than the safety of their rule. The authors of the 18thFructidor, who carried out that coup d’état（政变）under pretext of saving the Republic, violated the law solely with aview to escaping a personal danger; and far from saving the Republic,by demanding the intervention of a general they created a precedent forthe 18th Brumaire. The public safety is an excuse for all violence andevery iniquity. Moreover, when a political crime is really committed toassure the safety of the people, there is no proof that the crime isnecessary, or that the people might not have been saved by other means.The safety of the people lies rather in respect for legality than inits violation. A people that does its duty can await the future withconfidence; if it suffers for the moment in the cause of justice it israre that the day of reparation does not dawn, for in the case ofnations, as in that of individuals, it is virtues that elevate them andvices that debase them.

A Machiavellian policy is not a great policy; to practice it a greatgenius is not necessary. It is easier to govern by expedients than byprinciples. What is more, there has ceased to be any necessity for apolicy of this sort in modern societies. It is comprehensible thatMachiavelli's prince, that is to say, an absolute sovereign, shouldfind it to his interest to sow division among his subjects in order torule them; on the other hand, the maxim, "Promote division in order toreign," is out of place in a free Government that is supported byopinion and whose interest it is to unite and not to divide thecommunity. Terror may be an instrument of government for a popular ormilitary dictator, but it becomes inapplicable under a government ofopinion. This being the case, instead of saying, as under the oldsystem of politics, "Cunning, still cunning, and always cunning;audacity, again audacity, and always audacity," the watchword ought tobe under the modern system of politics, "Straightforwardness, stillstraightforwardness, and always straightforwardness; justice, stilljustice, and always justice."

Diplomatic dissimulation becomes more difficult with the publication ofparliamentary debates. This publicity, which has its inconveniences,offers the advantage that it is profitable to morality. It isimpossible for a Minister to confess in a public discussion that heharbors unjust projects. Moreover, as public opinion becomes moreenlightened, and acquires greater weight, its sound common sense takesthe place of the finessing of the diplomatists. A crafty policy is notalways the most skilful. Henry IV. did not have recourse to craft. Adiplomatist who is in &not;the habit of resorting to falsehoodceases to inspire confidence and at once loses the greater part of hisauthority.

A policy based upon immorality is antiquated and unworthy of modernsociety; it pre-supposes contempt for humanity, and an antagonism thatought not to exist between those who govern and those who are governed.The policy of free peoples ought not to resemble the policy of absolutesovereigns; it is founded upon the respect of legality.

Whatever the skeptics may say, craft and violence are not necessitiesof politics. As society becomes more enlightened, politics may attainto greater perfection. Corruption is not an indispensable method ofgovernment: liberty can exist without license, it is allowable to hopefor a state of things in which the administration will be impartial,the legislation equitable, the elections sincere, and in which industryand merit will be rewarded. The European Governments show better faithin respect to their financial engagements at the present day than inthe past; they are conscious that it is to their interest not to tamperwith their coinage, and not to go bankrupt, and for the reason thatpublic confidence in their credit is their principal force. Why shouldthey not arrive at understanding that they ought to have the samerespect for liberty and human life as for the public debt?

The progress of public reasonableness is most of all to be counted uponto render politics more straightforward and more in accordance withequity. Politicians, assemblies, and sovereigns, knowing that they willbe called upon to give an exact account of their conduct before thetribunal of public opinion, will become more circumspect in theemployment of expedients of a kind to arouse public indignation.Politics should serve an educational purpose as well as maintain orderand protect material interests. Men are governed by ideas andsentiments as well as by appeals to their interests and to force. Alofty sentiment does not spoil politics. The great advances made in thesphere of politics have been advances of a philosophical order and havebeen due to an application of Christian philosophy. Unprincipledpolitics are Pagan politics, and their result is not the progress ofsociety. The true policy consists in an application of reason to theaffairs of the State.

Skepticism has brought into existence at the present day a generationof politicians who set more store upon palpable realities than uponprinciples. A policy of expedients and of vulgar satisfactions is theoutcome of skepticism. The change that has taken place in our politicalmorals has deep and remote causes. A people that used to be chivalrous,that despised money, that was fired with ardor for noble causes, nowfor political liberty, now for military glory, does not becomepositively skeptical, indifferent to principles, and attached tomaterial interests in a day. This change of character is the result ofthe numerous deceptions it has experienced, of the frequent revolutionsit has undergone, but also of the weakening of spiritual beliefs.

"When a republic is corrupt," says Montesquieu, "none of the evils thatcrop up can be remedied, except by removing the corruption andreinstating principles; any other corrective is useless or a freshevil." The suppression of the parliamentary regime would not be aremedy; the establishment of a dictatorship would be a fresh evil and aworse evil. The true remedy consists in a return to principles.Politics, like human life, need to be spiritualized unless they are tofall into the mire and to remain there. To change the persons composingthe political world would be insufficient, unless a moral reform beaffected at the same time. Clearly if the new politicians were asdevoid of principles as the old, all that would have been done wouldhave been to exchange fat for lean kine, who in turn would wish to waxfat. Between fatted skeptics and lean skeptics the difference is butslight, or if there be any difference it is rather in favor of theformer. Obviously satiated skeptics are less dangerous than skepticswhose appetites are keen, because it may be hoped that, having lookedafter their own interests, they will at last look after those of thecountry. This, according to Saint Simon, was the cynical remark made byMaison when the direction of the finances was taken from him. "They aremaking a mistake," he exclaimed, "for I had looked after my owninterests and was going to look after theirs."

A return to principles and moral beliefs and the substitution of ideasfor appetites are, in consequence, the true remedies for that hideousmalady political corruption. It is only in the power of great passionsto drive petty passions from the field. As long as noble sentiments,love of country and of liberty and purifying beliefs, are not revivedin a country the parliamentary atmosphere will remain vitiated.

Doubtless to exercise authority it is not sufficient to be abovereproach; a clear intellect, tact, and experience are necessary.Talent, however, without morality is insufficient, and mereintelligence is no preservative against moral backslidings. Nobodywould entrust his daughters or his fortune to the care of a clever butdissolute and extravagant man. Why then confide the country and thepublic fortune to the care of men of pleasure, who easily develop intomen whose sole concern is money? When a money- and pleasure-loving mandeclares himself a friend of the people, who can believe in hissincerity? Affection is not proved by words, but by acts. The truesentiments of politicians are not to be judged by their professions offaith or their humanitarian speeches, but by their character and theirhabitual conduct. The probity expected of the head of a Governmentinvolves not only his own personal integrity, but the choice on hispart of men of integrity for his Ministers. "If we would pass for menof integrity," says Cicero, "we should not only display probityourselves, but exact it of those about us."

Statesmen would avoid many political errors if they were morerespectful of justice; their political errors are often moral errors;their good sense and their skillfulness suffer in proportion as theyswerve from the dictates of equity: they abandon themselves to passionsthat cloud their intelligence. Just ideas and wise resolutions areinspired by an upright conscience, whose qualities influence theintelligence. To be a man of good sense it is sufficient to be anhonest man.

By again becoming moral, politics would be brought back into unisonwith common-sense, and would be cured of two serious diseases calledthe Socialist madness and the Anarchist madness that are the result ofthe sophisms by which we are inundated, and of the letting loose ofevil passions. We lack reasonableness at the present day; our brainsare disordered; our good sense, a quality that used to be particularlydistinctive of the French, has been affected by innumerablephilosophical, economical, and political sophisms that reach us fromGermany, Italy, England, the East, and even from India. Good sense hasceased to guide our thoughts and actions since we have adopted Germanpessimism and socialism, English evolutionism, Italian skepticism,Russian Nihilism, and Asiatic Buddhism. Let us become Frenchmen againand Christians, let us return to the school of good sense and morality.

The malady from which contemporary society suffers is a moral diseaserather than a political or economical disease. It is doubtless usefulto improve institutions and to reform abuses but how much morenecessary it is to reform morals and to give tone to men's minds byhealthy ideas and moral beliefs. If society is to be saved from thecorruption by which it is invaded, and from the revolutionary barbarismby which it is threatened, spiritualist teachings must be restored tothe place they formerly occupied in men's minds and in politics; thisis the only way to save them from the clutches of envy and hatred.

The sentiment of duty and of personal responsibility must bere-established in the public mind and in the education of the young. Itis necessary to fight against the sophisms which lead to the absorptionof the individual by the State, and to the conversion of every citizeninto a part of a colossal machine that produces wealth and distributesit according to each man's needs. The true remedy for the crises we aretraversing is a return to the old morality, which teaches thatworking-men in common with their employers are intended to do theirduty, and to labor, and have their responsibilities. What otherdoctrine will teach the rich the spirit of sacrifice, and the voluntaryrenunciation of what is superfluous, and the poor the obligation ofpersonal effort, the merit of patience, and respect for legality?

It is not by encouraging atheism and materialism that a Governmenteffects an improvement in morals, that it stills passions and relieveswretchedness. Hostility to religion is contrary to sound politics.Merely from the utilitarian point of view the blindness and perversityare incomparable of those incredulous fanatics who would rob theirfellows of the beliefs in which they find consolation. Who can denythat the religious sentiment conduces to morality? The more religiouscitizens there are in a State, the fewer are the restless spirits, theSocialists and the Anarchists. In a period of skepticism, materialism,positivism, evolutionism, and nihilism, who can dream of denying theimmense services rendered by Christianity in inculcating the dignity ofhuman nature and the obligatory character of duty, and in opposing theworship of an ideal to the worship of the golden calf? In a society inwhich there is talk of nothing else but of the struggle for life, ofthe rights conferred by might, of the elimination of the weak, of thedisgrace of poverty, of the all-powerfulness of wealth, religionteaches self-sacrifice, respect, and love for the poor, andresponsibility before God and before the conscience. At a period inwhich Socialism, grown more and more threatening, demands that theState should be omnipotent, Christianity again performs a useful workin standing out for the rights of the human being and the rights of theconscience, and in setting limits to the action of the State. Ifspiritual beliefs were not regaining &not;their hold over men'sminds one would be forced to tremble for the future of society, for"there comes a day when truths that have been scorned announcethemselves by thunder-claps."

Nations, too, in their mutual relations, have every interest not toseparate politics from morality. A sound policy, no less than morality,dictates to them justice and charitableness, which are alone capable ofpreserving peace and with it the benefits it carries in its train. Thepolicy that teaches nations that they should envy, hate, and injureeach other, that their conduct should be solely guided by theirinterests, and that the difficulties that crop up between them shouldbe settled by force alone, such a policy is criminal and mistaken. Thestatesmen who counsel this narrow and egoistical, this envious andmalevolent policy, are shortsighted, they are merely alive to theinterests of the moment that are a source of division, but they areblind to the interests which the peoples have in common, and above allto the disastrous consequences of antagonism and war; they do not keepin view the benefits of peace and the horrors of war.

How far preferable to an envious and ambitious policy that dividesnations would be a just, friendly, and moderate policy that would bringthem together! How far happier the nations would be if they would ceaseto lend themselves to a revengeful and high-handed policy! What a pitchof prosperity Europe would have reached if, realizing the project ofHenry IV., it had applied to politics the rules of good sense andChristian morality. The aspect of the world would be changed if thenations, considering themselves members of the same family, wouldbanish violence and craft from their councils. The policy of Christianpeoples is still Pagan: it must become Christian if the world is toenjoy peace.

Carried away by his somewhat excessive enthusiasm for military glory,M. Thiers has remarked: “What purpose would the strength of nationsserve if it were not expended in attempts to gain the mastery over eachother?" It seems to me, however, that the strength of nations might bemore usefully employed than in realizing dreams of conquest, which areso dearly paid for in money and blood, and which end in disasters andcatastrophes. Every time that a nation has sought to conquer othernations, it has caused torrents of blood to flow without profit toitself. All those who have entertained dreams of conquest have met withfailure. To establish their supremacy Charles V. and Napoleon I. causedmillions of men to perish, and they were unable to attain their goal:the former died in a convent, the latter on the rocks of Saint Helena;Spain and France were ruined by their ambitious policy. To how manyconquerors may not these words of the Bible be applied: "The hammerthat shattered the nations of the universe has itself been broken inpieces."

A policy that aims at international equilibrium &not;is better thana policy of conquest. Empires that are too vast cannot last; theysuccumb, sooner or later, to a coalition between the other nations.That one nation should rule over another is always a danger to thecommon liberty, for a nation that is too powerful, like a too powerfulsovereign, has a difficulty in keeping within the limits of a wisemoderation. If the desire for domination be of value as a motive forcein politics, why should not moral domination achieved through science,literature, and institutions be made the object of the activity ofnations?

Skeptics are disposed to smile when they hear moralists express thehope that international wars will cease, and that arbitration will takethe place of recourse to force. Lord Salisbury, however, who at onetime considered this hope a dream, is now of opinion that it isrealizable. "Civilization," he has said, "has substituted law courtdecisions for duels between private persons and conflicts between thegreat. International wars are destined in the same way to give place tothe courts of arbitration of a more advanced civilization." In 1883Switzerland and the &not;United States pledged themselves to submitto a court of arbitration all difficulties arising between them duringa period of thirty years. In 1888 France contracted a similarengagement with the Equatorial Republic. In 1890 the plenipotentiariesof seventeen American Republics, assembled at Washington, admitted theprinciple of permanent arbitration.

It may be hoped, in consequence, that war will become rarer and rarerin proportion to the progress of civilization and of the moral andeconomical solidarity existing between different nations. The newengines of war, the destructive force of which augments every day, alsocontribute to the maintenance of peace, because peoples and sovereignsrecoil in terror from the frightful consequences of a war waged withsuch formidable engines of destruction. The tendency of public opinionis more and more to compel Governments to maintain peace. It may behoped in consequence that war, which is already more civilized, willbecome of rare occurrence.

Still, as peoples and sovereigns have a tendency to become intoxicatedby success, historians and moralists ought to unite their efforts tocombat their unruly impulses. Historians, who habitually admiresuccess, too often forget, when narrating wars, to inquire into theirmorality and utility; they almost always exalt the conquerors, and inthis way corrupt public opinion, by accustoming it to allow itself tobe dazzled by success. They should keep a little of the admiration theylavish upon conquerors for the upright men who have given evidence oftheir love of humanity and of their respect for human life.

As to the moralists, it is necessary that they should unceasinglycombat the sophisms of immoral politics by declaring that reasons ofState are the negation of reason; that the object of government is notto divide but to unite; that the lesser morality does not destroy thehigher morality, because there are not two moralities; that publicsafety lies in justice alone: that the end does not justify the means;that illegitimate means result in the end being unattained; that rightis superior to might; that justice is the supreme law; that the maximthat right is on the side of the strongest is a maxim good enough forwolves but not for men.

Science without conscience, Rabelais has said, is the ruin of the soul. Politics without morality are the ruin of society.

挑一些我比较喜欢的句子，正如大海所说，尤其是排比
1. if it suffers for the moment in the cause of justice it is rarethatthe day of reparation does not dawn, for in the case of nations, asinthat of individuals, it is virtues that elevate them and vicesthatdebase them.
2. Terror may be an instrument of government for a popular ormilitarydictator, but it becomes inapplicable under a government ofopinion.
3. Politics, like human life, need to be spiritualized unless they are to fall into the mire and to remain there.


Comment
People always consider politician as immoral. For a nation, politicianalways act as a role urging for money and power. And sometimes, evenall the time, public right is not that important to them, and politicalcrimes are committed.
Just as the author puts it, inside a nation, political immorality mayact as failing to serve the people, while outside a nation, we usuallyregard conquering as political immorality. The leader, the king, or theemperor, look conquering other nations as a pride. But what doesconqueror usually get?failure, soldiers' death, or even loss of power.
So, what is morality?Or, what kind of things are moral and others areimmoral?No one can clearly define this, neither does the author.Different persons have different definitions, different levels ofmorality, and what should be done is also various. even if we wantothers to be moral, we have no ability and also no right to use ourmorality to rule others, isn't it?

correct words
wrong        correct
conquor     conquer
politicist     politician
emporer     emperor

windandrain2004UID：2597690

昨天的comment任务
Illiberal politics
America's unjust sex lawsAug 6th 2009
From The Economist print edition

An ever harsher approach is doing more harm than good, but it is being copied around the world

IT IS an oft-told story, but it does not get anyless horrific on repetition. Fifteen years ago, a paedophile enticedseven-year-old Megan Kanka into his home in New Jersey by offering toshow her a puppy. He then raped her, killed her and dumped her body ina nearby park. The murderer, who had recently moved into the houseacross the street from his victim, had twice before been convicted ofsexually assaulting a child. Yet Megan’s parents had no idea of this.Had they known he was a sex offender, they would have told theirdaughter to stay away from him.

In their grief, the parents started a petition,demanding that families should be told if a sexual predator movesnearby. Hundreds of thousands signed it. In no time at all, lawmakersin New Jersey granted their wish. And before long, “Megan’s laws” hadspread to every American state.
America’s sex-offender laws are the strictest ofany rich democracy. Convicted rapists and child-molesters are givenlong prison sentences.

When released, they are put on sex-offenderregistries. In most states this means that their names, photographs andaddresses are published online, so that fearful parents can checkwhether a child-molester lives nearby. Under the Adam Walsh Act of2006, another law named after a murdered child, all states will soon beobliged to make their sex-offender registries public. Such rules areextremely popular. Most parents will support any law that promises tokeep their children safe. Other countries are following America’sexample, either importing Megan’s laws or increasing penalties: aftertwo little girls were murdered by a school caretaker, Britain hasimposed multiple conditions on who can visit schools.

Which makes it all the more important to askwhether America’s approach is the right one. In fact its sex-offenderlaws have grown self-defeatingly harsh (see article).They have been driven by a ratchet effect. Individual Americanpoliticians have great latitude to propose new laws. Stricter curbs onpaedophiles win votes. And to sound severe, such curbs must be strongerthan the laws in place, which in turn were proposed by politicians whowished to appear tough themselves. Few politicians dare to vote againstsuch laws, because if they do, the attack ads practically writethemselves.

A whole Wyoming of offenders
In all, 674,000 Americans are on sex-offenderregistries—more than the population of Vermont, North Dakota orWyoming. The number keeps growing partly because in several statesregistration is for life and partly because registries are not confinedto the sort of murderer who ensnared Megan Kanka. According to HumanRights Watch, at least five states require registration for people whovisit prostitutes, 29 require it for consensual sex between youngteenagers and 32 require it for indecent exposure. Some prosecutors arenow stretching the definition of “distributing child pornography” toinclude teens who text half-naked photos of themselves to their friends.

How dangerous are the people on the registries? Astate review of one sample in Georgia found that two-thirds of themposed little risk. For example, Janet Allison was found guilty of being“party to the crime of child molestation” because she let her15-year-old daughter have sex with a boyfriend. The young couple latermarried. But Ms Allison will spend the rest of her life publiclybranded as a sex offender.
Several other countries have sex-offenderregistries, but these are typically held by the police and are hard toview. In America it takes only seconds to find out about a sexoffender: some states have a “click to print” icon on their websites sothat concerned citizens can put up posters with the offender’s mugshoton trees near his home. Small wonder most sex offenders report beingharassed. A few have been murdered. Many are fired because someone atwork has Googled them.

Registration is often just the start. Sometimes sexoffenders are barred from living near places where children congregate.In Georgia no sex offender may live or work within 1,000 feet (300metres) of a school, church, park, skating rink or swimming pool. InMiami an exclusion zone of 2,500 feet has helped create a camp ofhomeless offenders under a bridge.

Make the punishment fit the crime
There are three main arguments for reform. First,it is unfair to impose harsh penalties for small offences. Perhaps athird of American teenagers have sex before they are legally allowedto, and a staggering number have shared revealing photographs with eachother. This is unwise, but hardly a reason for the law to ruin theirlives. Second, America’s sex laws often punish not only the offender,but also his family. If a man who once slept with his 15-year-oldgirlfriend is barred for ever from taking his own children to aplayground, those children suffer.
Third, harsh laws often do little to protect theinnocent. The police complain that having so many petty sex offenderson registries makes it hard to keep track of the truly dangerous ones.Cash that might be spent on treating sex offenders—which sometimesworks—is spent on huge indiscriminate registries. Public registersdrive serious offenders underground, which makes them harder to trackand more likely to reoffend. And registers give parents a false senseof security: most sex offenders are never even reported, let aloneconvicted.

It would not be hard to redesign America’s sexlaws. Instead of lumping all sex offenders together on the same listfor life, states should assess each person individually and includeonly real threats. Instead of posting everything on the internet, namescould be held by the police, who would share them only with those, suchas a school, who need to know. Laws that bar sex offenders from livingin so many places should be repealed, because there is no evidence thatthey protect anyone: a predator can always travel. The money that arepeal saves could help pay for monitoring compulsive molesters moreintrusively—through ankle bracelets and the like.

In America it may take years to unpick this.However practical and just the case for reform, it must overcomepolitical cowardice, the tabloid media and parents’ understandablefears. Other countries, though, have no excuse for committing the sameerror. Sensible sex laws are better than vengeful ones.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14165460&source=login_payBarrier

--------------------------------------------------------
相关AW题目：

17"There are two types of laws: just and unjust.Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just lawsand, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."

174"Laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead,they should be flexible enough to take account of variouscircumstances, times, and places."


Comment:
The author seems to agree to the reform of the laws on sex. it is truethat strict laws usually turn out to be ineffective, as the authorargues in the article, but i just think that this depends on the styleof society. Different nations have different culture and differentpolicies, strict law may be useful in a certain countries, but noteffective in other nations.
For example, in China, laws are always not that effective as theleaders' words. That means in most cases, it is the members of thelocal or the national government that decide whether a citizen is guiltor not, not the law. If you are rich, you could always be regard as"innocent", even if you are really guilt. Laws that are very strict andthat cancel the right of decision by governor are quite needed in suchnations, and there will be no fair in these societies otherwise.
Strict laws may be not valid in nations like America, as laws areusually the most important in cases. This time, i agree with theauthor. The current laws on sex should be redesigned to meet thepublic's really needs.
In my opinion, punishment are always not the final ways to reduce crimeand protect people. sometimes, or even in all cases, education is muchmore effective. Without harm to anyone, it more or less could getpeople away from attempting to commit crimes. What should be done, andwhat is forbidden could be discussed, as these things vary with agesand societies. but old laws need much more time to change, sometimesharming people's life.


oft-told
  老生常谈的
repetition
  重复，反复；复制品
Paedophile  
  [Collins] a person who is sexually attracted to children
offender
  [AHD] One that offends, especially one that breaks a public law
Ratchet effect:
  [Collins] an effect that occurs when a price or wage increases as aresult of temporary pressure but fails to fall back when the pressureis removed
unpick
  [AHD]To undo (sewing) by removing stitches

issue 17 我写过了，感觉不是那么容易下手。

windandrain2004UID：2597690

今天的comments今天是我发的嘿嘿

Google Ends China Self-Censorship Policy, Threatens Exit From http://www.time.com Aly Song / Reuters, Customers inside an Internet café in Shanghai, China, Jan. 5, 2009 After years of struggling to build its China operations, Google has threatened to pull out of the country following a sophisticated cyber attack on its corporate infrastructure. The California-based Internet giant also announced on Tuesday that it will drop its self-censorship of its Chinese-languageGoogle.cn search engine, which the company had previously filtered to prevent it from returning results on topics that angered Chinese authorities. David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, wrote on the company's official blog that Google uncovered a broad hacking attempt in December that was targeted at more than 20 technology, finance, media and chemical companies. A primary target may have been the Gmail accounts of Chinese human-rights activists. "These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered — combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web — have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China," he wrote. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quickly issued a statementthat Google's allegations raised serious concerns. "We look to the Chinese government for an explanation," the Jan. 12 statement read."The ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace is critical in amodern society and economy." (See pictures of life in the Googleplex.) This morning in Beijing, Google.cn was returning results for sensitive topics like the Dalai Lama and the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement. Previously, a search for "Tiananmen" would only return results about the square itself, while noting that because of government restrictions some content was unavailable. Now Google.cn links to pages that include information about the bloody government crackdown in 1989, though the page appears to have fluctuated between uncensored and censored over the course of the day. Google has long struggled to expand its China operations. After its search engine was routinely blocked or slowed by China's system of Internet controls, it created the filtered Google.cn in 2006. The hope was that by censoring select results, it would speed up searches for Chinese users. But the decision to offer a censored search page prompted an outcry from human-rights activists and some members of Congress that the company was turning a blind eye to its "Don't be evil" motto for the sake of access to the lucrative Chinese market. "Google came into the market bending some of its own rules," says Mark Natkin, managing director of Marbridge Consulting in Beijing. "It was intoxicated with the prospect of this enormous and still just-beginning-to-develop market. I think it always knew it was already having a little bit of misgiving about being in the market, but it couldn't pass it up." In the end, Google's compromises did little to help its position on the mainland. Average Chinese Web users never warmed to the company's services, and it came under repeated attacks from the authorities and state media for providing links to pornography. "They were trying to find a way to compromise without completely bending over and it turned out they couldn't win," says Rebecca MacKinnon, an expert on the Chinese Internet. "Over the past year they've been under growing pressure from the government to censor more tightly and been condemned in the Chinese media for exposing children to porn." Baidu, a Chinese search engine with a Google-lookalike home page, has used its better relationship with authorities and its indigenous appeal as a domestic company to surge past Google. Baidu was the first choice for 77% of Chinese Internet users, compared to 13% for Google, according to a September 2009 survey by the state-run China Internet Network Information Center. (See pictures of the making of modern China.) By dropping its censorship, the company stands to regain some of the moral clout. Today, several Chinese bloggers delivered flowers to the company's Beijing headquarters to thank it for its new stand. "It's a public message that some people in China are picking up on," says MacKinnon. "A large Internet company, the largest in some ways and most influential globally, is saying publicly that the Chinese government's behavior is unacceptable, and that can't fail to resonate." Google says it will discuss with the government how it will go about running an uncensored search engine in China. "We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China," wrote Drummond, the Google executive, on the Google blog. Given the company's tempestuous four years in China, the odds the authorities will now compromise are slim. — With reporting by Jessie Jiang / Beijing http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1953248,00.html

Useful expressions:
1. After years of struggling to build its China operations, Google hasthreatened to pull out of the country following a sophisticated cyberattack on its corporate infrastructure.
2. Now Google.cn links to pages that include information about the bloodygovernment crackdown in 1989, though the page appears to havefluctuated between uncensored and censored over the course of the day.
3. But the decision to offer a censored search page prompted an outcryfrom human-rights activists and some members of Congress that thecompany was turning a blind eye(视而不见) to its "Don't be evil" motto for thesake of access to the lucrative(adj. Producing wealth; profitable) Chinese market.
4. By dropping its censorship, the company stands to regain some of the moral clout([MW]n. PULL, INFLUENCE <political clout>).
5. Given the company's tempestuous(tempest [MW] n. a violent storm) four years in China, the odds the authorities will now compromise are slim.

Comment:
It shocked me when I knew that Google is going to exit from the Chinese market. I'm a Gmail user, and I'm addict to it for the convenience it has brought to me. Other products powered by Google have also tried by me, such as Picasa, Google Docs, and Checkout. Although some disadvantages exist, most of the Google products are fun to use, and easy to play with.
I've just purchased a Nexus One phone by Google, which hasn't been delivered to me yet. I can't imagine one day Gmail was not accessible.
Every day, I use Google to search for my needed information. Explanations of various events, definition of some words, websites, news, and so on. How could Baidu be used for? Just searching for useless information and ads. Without Google, truth would be buried and we will be fooled by the government and Baidu all the time.
I feel quite sad. Now we will be taken off the right of searching for the true information. Maybe, one day, we would have to apply for the right of eating and sleeping. And whether we should live or die would be simply decided by the government.