【Big Fish】3月11日Issue70-By Bruce

cloudwind-greUID: 2462220

70"In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership."


It is remarkably common that many leaders in the government, company or university have to step down and a new supervisor will be selected to be in charge of their organizations. In my viewpoint, it is the development of our society that results in this alternate system, which guarantees the development of our society. The reasons can be attributed to the fact that permanent leadership are easy to bring about ineptitude and corruption, and that the incumbents are alwasy fail to solve the ordeal they face.

From my perspective, perpetual tenure is the root of ineptitude and corruption for the incumbents face no pressure. If a leader confronts no pressure from the public, they won work as effective as before, thereby resulting in the inability to deal with the new problems in the world. Without pressure, they do not required to learn new skill, understand new condition and aware of the latent jeopardy of their organization. Day after day, they are only the burden of their organization instead of the leader who can propel the improvement. Also, beside the problems of ineptitude, another fatal problem is corruption, which will bring the organization to their tombs. Leaders' infinite power means they can control plenty of things, thereby causing their underlings to try their best to ingratiate them. That is the root of corruption. History is fell with many examples just like Hitler, Chairman Mao in his old age and so on. It is their hegemony that lead to their failure.

On the contrary, alternate system guarantees the development of many governments, enterprises and universities. This is critical true when those organizations are in their mire. It is apparent that people are not easy to alter their inherent mind and their approaches to deal with difficulties. If an organization is in predicament, no mater by accident or the result of their innate problem, the incumbents have to take their responsibility. It is possible that it is the current leaders who contribute this problem, like the economic crisis in the 1930s. The president Hoover should be guilty because it is partly his ineptitude that leads to the problem. Also, even it is not his flaw that results in that calamity, his inability to perceive that problem and his failure to deal with that problem quickly also indicate that he should be replaced. History tells us that it is Roosevelt, the following leader, who solved the problem. Similarly, we can find plenty of this kinds of examples in history. In my viewpoint, it their complete new style of thinging that results in their successful solution to the old problems that could not be solved be their predecessors.


Another reason why the new supervisor are more competent can be ascribed to the fact that there are a group of people who have similar benefit behind the leader, or the delegate of them. The leader have to cogitate be total benefit of their clique. Sometime it is not their inability but their impossibility that result in their failture of solving the problems, especially those that are harmful to their benefit. The previous presidents before Lincoln are one typical example. When facing the debate about whether slavery should exist or not, the former presidents, who were partly the representative of the owner of slavers, did not valorous enough to abolish slavery. Only through the contribution of Lincoln, the deputy of anti-slavery party, eventually end this evil system. Therefore, every time when an organization are facing ordeal, changing the current leader is considered to be one of the most appropriate way.

To recapitulate, I agree with the statement that those in power should step down after a certain periods becuase of the possible ineptitude or corruption of the incumbents, and because of the entire new thinging logic of the new leaders and the different benefit they are pursuing.

topranUID: 2310216

1# cloudwind-gre

70"In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership."

=============================================
我用这种颜色标注我觉得应该再斟酌下的语句
我用这种颜色标注我觉得一定有错的语句
我用这种颜色标注我觉得我好喜欢的语句
我用这种颜色标注我觉得可以再多说点的地方
=============================================



It is remarkably common that many leaders in the government, company or university have to step down and a new supervisor will be selected to be in charge of their organizations. In my viewpoint, it is the development of our society that results in this alternate system, which guarantees the development of our society. The reasons can be attributed to the fact that permanent leadership are easy to bring about ineptitude and corruption, and that the incumbents are alwasy fail to solve the ordeal they face.
(好开头呢，用词好高级啊~)

From my perspective, perpetual tenure is the root of ineptitude and corruption for the incumbents face no pressure. If a leader confronts no pressure from the public, they won work as effective as before, thereby resulting in the inability to deal with the new problems in the world. Without pressure, they do not required to learn new skill, understand new condition and aware of the latent jeopardy of their organization. Day after day, they are only the burden of their organization instead of the leader who can propel the improvement. Also, beside the problems of ineptitude, another fatal problem is corruption, which will bring the organization to their tombs. Leaders' infinite power means they can control plenty of things, thereby causing their underlings to try their best to ingratiate them. That is the root of corruption. History is fell with many examples just like Hitler, Chairman Mao in his old age and so on. It is their hegemony that lead to their failure.
（在ending处加句总结性的话是不是会更好呢？）

On the contrary, alternate system guarantees the development of many governments, enterprises and universities. This is critical true when those organizations are in their mire. It is apparent that people are not easy to alter their inherent mind and their approaches to deal with difficulties. If an organization is in predicament, no mater by accident or the result of their innate problem, the incumbents have to take their responsibility. It is possible that it is the current leaders who contribute this problem, like the economic crisis in the 1930s. The president Hoover should be guilty because it is partly his ineptitude that leads to the problem. Also, even it is not his flaw that results in that calamity, his inability to perceive that problem and his failure to deal with that problem quickly also indicate that he should be replaced. History tells us that it is Roosevelt, the following leader, who solved the problem. Similarly, we can find plenty of this kinds of examples in history. In my viewpoint, it their complete new style of thinging that results in their successful solution to the old problems that could not be solved be their predecessors.


Another reason why the new supervisor are more competent can be ascribed to the fact that there are a group of people who have similar benefit behind the leader, or the delegate of them. （这个point真好~）The leader have to cogitate be total benefit of their clique. Sometime it is not their inability but their impossibility that result in their failture of solving the problems, especially those that are harmful to their benefit. The previous presidents before Lincoln are one typical example. When facing the debate about whether slavery should exist or not, the former presidents, who were partly the representative of the owner of slavers, did not valorous enough to abolish slavery. Only through the contribution of Lincoln, the deputy of anti-slavery party, eventually end this evil system. Therefore, every time when an organization are facing ordeal, changing the current leader is considered to be one of the most appropriate way.

To recapitulate, I agree with the statement that those in power should step down after a certain periods becuase of the possible ineptitude or corruption of the incumbents, and because of the entire new thinging logic of the new leaders and the different benefit they are pursuing.

==============================================================================================
吓死人了，咋这么深刻呢，看完你的i我觉得我写的就是幼儿园水平啊~
词汇好吓人
逻辑很严谨
你的美帝近代史相当强悍呢
我准备细心研究下你的文章，太长见识了
good job~~