1006G 备考日记 by qxn_1987——now

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

弱智的没有登录。。
强烈谢谢草木！！抱~嘻~
吃饭，然后自习去啦。。
明天还有考试。。
加油！！
加油！！
呵~

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

01.14
明天有考试，过来晃一下。。
加油！！
加油！！！

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

01.15
又是偏头疼！！真是。。
comments去了。。

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

01.15(comments)

Women’s economic empowerment is arguably the biggest social change of our times. Just a generation ago, women were largely confined to repetitive, menial jobs. They were routinely subjected to casual sexism and were expected to abandon their careers when they married and had children.

The second is that juggling work and child-rearing is difficult. Middle-class couples routinely complain that they have too little time for their children. But the biggest losers are poor children—particularly in places like America and Britain that have combined high levels of female participation in the labour force

with a reluctance to（不情愿地，勉强地）
maternity leave（产假）


Comments:

Obviously, the role of women has dramaticly and significantly changed during the past decades, though admittedly, there still exist some sexism to a ceratin extent in different area in the world. Whereas, besides the sexism, other dilemmas of women appear at the same time, that is juggling work and child-rearing.

Working-women, as far as I am concerned, endure higher pressure and more embrassment than men, who must assume the role of employees in their companies, as well as the role of mothers and wives in their homes, and what’s more, who are expected to perform well in all the roles. As a matter of fact, it so difficult to keep a balance between both roles. Allow me to coin a sentence in the article:” juggling work and child-rearing is difficult.”

======
拼写：
Wives
dramaticly

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

昨晚偏头疼，最终还是“倒下了”。。自责中。。
呼。。。
算了，加油！！！

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

刚刚看今天发的comments，又来长的了，赞~嘿。。
这两天一直做短的，刚好想调整一下做个长的呢，嘻。。
赞~

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

01.16
好快。。。
呼。。。
过来晃一下，把日志补一下。。
汇报一下今天的工作：
上午补昨天comments，汗。。
今天comments看过一遍。。
下午&晚上期末考复习。。
穿插2个list。。

撤了。。。

aladdin.ivyUID: 2596664

q注意身体，加油~！

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

01.17
先过来把日志写一下：
汇报工作：
几乎一整天C++
穿插2个list。。
01.16&01.17comments昨天词句标记了，不过还没写最后的comments，现在就去！
↖(^ω^)↗

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

刚爬起来。。呃。。。咕~~(╯﹏╰)b。。
先把昨天comments贴了，然后期末考自习去。。
加油！！
加油！！！
呵~

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

01.16&01.17(comments)

…even with President Barack Obama's hand stretched out to Iran, has been unsuccessful.
【Too often belligerent motives are ascribed to anyone who suggests the viability of the military option in resolving the international standoff over Iran's nuclear programme.】 However, the argument in favour of military action is not about what is preferred but rather about what might be necessary.

It would be foolhardy（愚勇的，有勇无谋的莽撞的） to argue that military action is the preferred policy option for stopping Iran's nuclear aspirations, which are strategically untenable for the United States. No American general is eager for war. There remain levers, such as biting sanctions, that have yet to be tried. They should be implemented immediately and given a chance to work. 【But, should all other options fail to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, a US-led military strike is preferable to an Israeli attack, and certainly preferable to a nuclear weapons-capable Iran.】Thus, I believe that maintaining and asserting publicly that military action is an option of last resort is the best hope we have for international security and peace. I have three main reasons for this view.

impudent（放肆无礼的，厚颜无耻的）
standoff
Given continuing Russian reluctance, Chinese indifference and EU apprehension, it seems unlikely that we will see internationally-backed biting sanctions soon, if at all.
Nor does the prospect of regime change strike me as a particularly likely solution to this problem. The Iranian government appears to have no compunction about using violence to quell protests. 【The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in particular, has so insinuated itself into Iran's economic and political structures that it has greater financial incentive to maintain power by deadly force than to make political concessions.】/ But even should the opposition somehow succeed in wresting power from the current regime, there has been no indication among some of its leaders that it would curtail Iran's nuclear programme.

Should such pressure prove insufficient, and only once all other policy options have been exhausted, the United States could and should launch a punishing strike against Iranian nuclear and military installations.

Additionally, with an effective nuclear deterrent（核威慑力量）, Iran will be freer to sponsor terrorism, wage proxy warfare, derail（出轨） the Middle East process and violently repress its burgeoning democratic movement.

We all hope for a peaceful resolution of Iran's nuclear ambitions. But should we fail to reach one, a US-led military strike will be the least bad option available to us.

Military strikes can play a certain role in dealing with states' illegal military-directed nuclear programmes, but only when carried out at an early stage and preferably with the element of surprise. For this kind of nipping in the bud（nip in the bud一开始即加以阻止，扼杀...于萌芽状态，防...于未然） strategy to work, the nuclear programme must be limited in scope, so that serious damage can be achieved with a single blow.

At the current stage of the international community's dealings with Iran, these conditions no longer exist. Military action will not eliminate the problem. With nuclear facilities spread throughout the country and Iran having prepared itself for years for this scenario by building up fortifications and defences, such a strike could at the very best delay the pace of its progress towards the bomb for a few years. And it would come at a relatively high price in terms of Iran's expected reaction; beyond the military response itself, it would open an account between Iran and whoever attacked it that would be very difficult to settle. Moreover, whether it was the United States or Israel that attacked Iran, the other would surely be implicated by Iran.

But there are additional reasons to reject the military approach. In conceptual terms, the major drawback of military attack as a tool of non-proliferation is that it focuses on denying capabilities, rather than altering states' motivations. Regardless of how successful a particular attack might be, it is less likely to become the basis for a long-term solution to the challenge posed by a determined proliferator than would be a negotiated bargain. We saw this in the case of Iraq.

Tactically speaking, use of military force in the case of Iran could also backfire.

Finally, there is an additional question of who would bomb? Would it be the United States? Israel? Practically speaking, there are no certain candidates for this job. 【Barack Obama has clarified that military action is not a realistic option, even though he continues to provide lip service（说得好听的话，空口的应酬话） to it by saying from time to time that all options are on the table.】 And while Israel might be more willing to carry out an attack on Iran's facilities, it is not clear whether it has the capability to do so, or whether it could or would act without a green light from the United States.
The challenge for the United States is to move from simply embracing diplomacy to devising a coherent and focused strategy for carrying out what will no doubt be a difficult negotiation with Iran.

Comments:

1. Chuck Wald: Chuck Wald who defends the motion that the world would be a safer if Iran’s nuclear facilities were bombed, reckons that the military action is necessary rather than perferred. He demonstrates his argument by giving three main reasons.

2. Emily Landau: In contrast with military action, from Emily Landau’s opinion who opposes the motion, a negotiated settlement would be more preferable. Emily Landau provides several reasons to argue that military action will not eliminate the problem, especially at this late stage of the game.

I agree more with Emily Landau rather than Chuck Wald, since Emily Landau’s argument is more convictive and forceful to me, as well as accords with my personal view that military action cannot solve the problem satisfactorily as we expect. First, not all the hot potatoes can be settled by military action, including Iran’s nuclear facilities, we shouldn’t attach too much importance to or expect too high effectual of military action, which always brings extraordinarily great sorrow or deep hurt. Second, we have no evidence to demonstrate that military action is the only way to solve the problem, just as Chuck Wald has said, military action is necessary rather than perferred. Furthermore, bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities may induce more knotty questions. We should take all the factors into account from the long run.

=====
拼写：
contrast
convictive
satisfactorily

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

01.18
刚写完report，过来晃一下。。
comments去了。。
明上午有考试，赶紧做完，赶紧睡，撤，comments去。。
加油！！！

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

刚宿管办回来。。呼。。
早上爬起来去考试了，先把昨天的comments贴一下。。

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

01.18(comments)

Said the committee: "We who write this report are members of religious bodies to which we owe allegiance by conviction. For us, the democratic faith . . . rests on a religious conception of human destiny. . . . [We] believe that the American people are deeply, though not always articulately, conscious of a religious heritage to whose central values they want their children to be committed. . . .
[Religious education] is not something to be added on to the school curriculum, but rather something to be integrated with it"—in existing classes on history, sociology, psychology, economics, philosophy, literature, music, the fine arts.
【Concluded the committee: "On all sides we see the disintegration of loyalties . . . the revival of ancient prejudices, the increase of frustrations, the eclipse of hope. . . . / Religion at its best has always been an integrating force, a spiritual tonic for a soul racked by fear and cringing in weakness. ... Its imperfections will not be lessened by an attitude of splendid isolation on the part of intellectuals, or of indifference on the part of those responsible for the education of youth."】
The committee would like to see each student study the version of his own faith.

Comments:

This is an article about education and religion which are both important to a person’s whole life. As to education, different people in different countrise have different opinions about it, as well as religion. The committee thought a new generation of religious illiterates born though concomitant the education, though which might produce more people who can read and write.

The public education, as far as they concerned, should impel young toward a vigious, decisive personal reaction to the challenge of religion.

Since I am not a Protestant, Catholic or Jewish member, bluntly put, I couldn’t have a deep comprehension about the relationship between education and religion. And yet, the school should not confine their students to a certain religion, they should have the right to choose and study their own faith. The education should channel off the religion of students, instead of nipping their faiths in the bud, or confining their religion.

In the end, allow me to coin a sentence in the passage:“ We would like to see each student study the version of his own faith.”

======
拼写：
illiterate
religion

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

01.19
先过来把今天日志写了吧。。
汇报一下今天的工作：
上午2个小时考试
下午走了趟宿管办（话说明天还得去。。）
晚上期末考复习
中间穿插2个list
明天上午有考试，撤。