1010G【fish】COMMENTS

azure9UID: 2789030

Global universities
An old idea refashioned
How to create a higher-education supermarket
May 13th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

THE word “globalisation” usually conjures up images of globe-spanning companies(跨國公司?) and distance-destroying technologies. The Rupert Murdochs and Lloyd Blankfeins of this world are generally seen as its champions. Its enablers are the laws of comparative advantage and economies of scale.

conjure:Evoke or call forth, with or as if by magic
            Ask for or request earnestly
            Engage in plotting or enter into a conspiracy, swear together
conjure up:  to make sth appear as a picture in your mind.


In “The Great Brain Race” Ben Wildavsky points to another mighty agent of globalisation: universities. These were some of the world’s first “global” institutions. In the Middle Ages great universities such as Paris and Bologna attracted “wandering scholars” from across Europe. In the 19th century Germany’s research universities attracted scholars from across the world. In the early 20th century philanthropists such as Cecil Rhodes and William Harkness established scholarships to foster deeper links between countries. By the 1960s globe-trotting professors were so commonplace that they had become the butt of jokes. (What is the difference between God and professor so and so? God is everywhere. Professor so and so is everywhere but here.)

commonplace:  Obvious and dull
                      Completely ordinary and unremarkable
                      Not challenging; dull and lacking excitement;

Academic globalisation has gone into overdrive in the modern university. Some of this is along familiar lines—academics collaborating with ever more foreign colleagues and sabbatical-seekers(?) contriving to spend ever more time abroad. But Mr Wildavsky demonstrates that globalisation is now much more complicated than just cross-border collaboration spiced up with junkets(雙皮奶一類的東西吧).

overdrive:Make use of to often or too extensively
go into overdrive: to start being very active and working very hard
contrive: Make or work out a plan for; devise
             Come up with (an idea, plan, explanation, theory, or priciple) after a mental effort
             Put or send forth
demonstrate:Establish the validity of something
                   Provide evidence for; stand as proof of
                                  
Universities are obsessed by the global marketplace for students and professors. They are trying to attract as many students from abroad as possible (not least because foreign students usually pay full fees). Nearly 3m students now spend some time studying in foreign countries, a number that has risen steeply in recent years. Universities are also setting up overseas. New York University has opened a branch in Abu Dhabi. Six American universities have created a higher-education supermarket in Qatar. Almost every university worth its name has formed an alliance with a leading Chinese institution.

But globalisation is going deeper than just the competition for talent: a growing number of countries are trying to create an elite group of “global universities” that are capable of competing with the best American institutions.【 China and India are focusing resources on a small group. The French and German governments are doing battle with academic egalitarians in an attempt to create European Ivy Leagues.】好例子 Behind all this is the idea that world-class universities can make a disproportionate contribution to economic growth.

disproportionate:  Out of proportion
                           Not proportionate

This is a fascinating story. But Mr Wildavsky, a former education reporter who now works for both the Kauffman Foundation and the Brookings Institution, is too earnest a writer to make the best of it. He wastes too much ink summarising research papers and quoting “experts” uttering banalities. And he fails to point out the humour of sabbatical man jet-setting hither and thither to discuss such staples of modern academic life as poverty and inequality.(?) Mr Wildavsky should spend less time with his fellow think-tankers (who are mesmerised by the idea of a global knowledge economy) and more talking to students, who experience the disadvantages as well as the advantages of the new cult of globalisation at first hand.

azure9UID: 2789030

Thailand's crisis
Red dawn
Thailand’s army marches in to crush the months-long protest in Bangkok
May 19th 2010 | BANGKOK | From The Economist online

FOR six days, clouds of black smoke hung over Bangkok’s jagged skyline, marking out flashpoints in a prolonged political drama. At dawn on May 19th, the show reached its bloody climax. Combat troops supported by armoured vehicles pushed into the red shirts’ protest camp. A few thousand stragglers had held out there, defiant to the end. But a group of their leaders, once captured, went quietly, drawing howls of disapproval from their diehard supporters. Other protest leaders may have slipped away. The black smoke grew thicker and more noxious as angry protesters set fire to tyre-and-bamboo barricades and the ritzy shopping area where they had bedded down for several weeks.

prolong: Lengthen in time
             Lengthen or extend in duration or space
climax: The highest point of anything conceived of as growing or developing or unfolding
defiant:Boldly resisting authority or an opposing force
ritzy:(informal) luxuriously elegant.

The assault on the fortified camp was methodical and met only scattered resistance from gunmen holed up inside. Security forces kept overwhelming force on their side. It was not, mercifully, the replay of the Tiananmen Square massacre that some had predicted, though some 40 people have died in violent clashes since last week. Most of the protesters were herded away to evacuation points.

fortified:  Secured with bastions or fortifications
massacre: The wanton killing of many people
evacuation: The act of evacuating; leaving a place in an orderly fashion; especially for protection

On the outskirts of the camp however, riots flared along a major road that had seen the worst of the recent fighting. Arson attacks spread to new areas, and gun battles erupted beneath the blackened underside of a fly-over. Nearby a port slum has begun staging its own red-shirt rally.

Keeping a lid on unruly crowds and stopping the red shirts from regrouping may be the army’s next test. But that is only a start for the country. Bridging the deep social and economic divisions in Thai society, and crafting a new political balance will be a long-term challenge for whatever sort of government emerges from this disaster.

The prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, has failed to make any headway towards reconciliation. He had already created a terrific obstacle to peace on April 10th, when he hastily sent in troops to clear another protest site; 25 people died but the red shirts remained. But Mr Abhisit may deserve credit for offering a plausible compromise to the red shirts. That the leaders of their United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) failed to grasp this olive branch is tragic. They must bear some responsibility for the lives lost, as do the soldiers who marched into downtown Bangkok.

reconciliation:The reestablishing of cordial relations
                   Getting two things to correspond
plausible: likely but not certain to be or become true or real
             Apparently reasonable and valid

As recently as May 18th an eleventh-hour ceasefire had appeared close. But the mistrust on both sides proved impossible to bridge, and the talks failed. In retrospect, a negotiated end to the stand-off may have been doomed since May 13th, when a sniper picked off Khattiya Sawasdipol, a rogue army general who had sided with the red shirts and taunted his commanders.

Widespread fighting broke out while General Khattiya lay in a coma, days before his death. Army units trying to block off the sprawling protest site came under attack by a mob tossing rocks, firecrackers and petrol bombs. Shadowy black-clad militia joined the melee alongside the red shirts, though only fleetingly. Soldiers opened fire without much restraint, even at paramedics trying to bring out the wounded. Road junctions were declared as “live-fire zones”. The mayhem spread to other parts of the city. The military cordon appeared to be breaking as red shirts defied orders to stay away. Something had to give. In the end it was not a political deal between the warring factions but instead overwhelming force that won the day.

As the bullets flew, Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister and billionaire telecoms tycoon who encouraged the red shirts after he lost power in 2006 to a military coup, tweeted his sorrow to his followers. From his exile, Mr Thaksin denied, once again, that he was giving orders to the red-shirts leaders and urged everyone to embrace peace. There is little doubt, however, that Mr Thaksin held sway over the splintered, squabbling leadership of the UDD. The two-month protest would not have been possible without his deep pockets and political network. Though the red-shirt cause outgrew him, his stubbornness seems to have undone the peace talks.

stubbornness: The trait of being difficult to handle or overcome
                      Resolute adherence to your own ideas or desires.
undone:  Doomed to extinction
            Not fastened or tied or secured
            Thrown into a state of disorganization or incoherence

The aftermath of the May 19th crackdown will likely see continued unrest, both around Bangkok’s slums and in Thailand’s north and north-east. The north-east accounts for around one-third of parliamentary seats. Since 2001, the region has overwhelmingly voted for Mr Thaksin and his allies. The red shirts had sought to force a new election in the belief that voters would turf out Mr Abhisit, the darling of Bangkok’s privileged classes.

crackdown:Severely repressive actions
turf out: to make sb leave a place, an organization. etc.

Protesters there were quick to stage arson attacks in retaliation for(復仇) their rout in Bangkok. The government put the city under a curfew on May 19th, its first since 1992.
As Thailand stumbles into the next phase of its crisis, many will be asking how it came to this. If politics is the art of the compromise, Thais had appeared to be experts. Various political factions, both elected and unelected, cobbled together governments that oversaw steady economic growth even as they squabbled and scrapped for the spoils. That pragmatic(務實的) formula no longer works, not when political crises have polarised opinions within families, workplaces and communities, and hollowed out the centre

rout: Defeat disastrously

谦行天下UID: 2797557

【COMMENT】9-2【学习】

Global universities An old idea refashioned How to create a higher-education supermarket May 13th 2010 | From The Economist print edition THE word “globalisation” usually conjures up（凭幻想做出） images of globe-spanning（全球生成的） companies and distance-destroying technologies. The Rupert Murdochs and Lloyd Blankfeins of this world are generally seen as its champions. Its enabler（推动者）s are the laws of comparative advantage and economies of scale. In “The Great Brain Race” Ben Wildavsky points to another mighty agent of globalisation: universities. These were some of the world’s first “global” institutions. In the Middle Ages great universities such as Paris and Bologna attracted “wandering scholars” from across Europe（从整个欧洲）. In the 19th century Germany’s research universities attracted scholars from across the world. In the early 20th century philanthropists such as Cecil Rhodes and William Harkness established scholarships to foster deeper links between countries. By the 1960s globe-trotting（奔走） professors were so commonplace that they had become the butt of jokes. (What is the difference between God and professor so and so? God is everywhere. Professor so and so is everywhere but here.) Academic globalisation has gone into overdrive（过度） in the modern university. Some of this is along familiar lines—academics collaborating with ever more foreign colleagues and sabbatical（休假）-seekers contriving（设法做到） to spend ever more time abroad. But Mr Wildavsky demonstrates that globalisation is now much more complicated than just cross-border（边界） collaboration spiced up with junkets（野餐）. Universities are obsessed by the global marketplace for students and professors. They are trying to attract as many students from abroad as possible (not least because（并不仅仅是因为） foreign students usually pay full fees). Nearly 3m students now spend some time studying in foreign countries, a number that has risen steeply in recent years. Universities are also setting up overseas. New York University has opened a branch in Abu Dhabi. Six American universities have created a higher-education supermarket in Qatar. Almost every university worth its name has formed an alliance with a leading Chinese institution. But globalisation is going deeper than just the competition for talent: a growing number of countries are trying to create an elite group of “global universities” that are capable of competing with the best American institutions. China and India are focusing resources on a small group. The French and German governments are doing battle with academic egalitarians（平等主义） in an attempt to create European Ivy Leagues. Behind all this is the idea that world-class universities can make a disproportionate（不相称的） contribution to economic growth. This is a fascinating story. But Mr Wildavsky, a former education reporter who now works for both the Kauffman Foundation and the Brookings Institution, is too earnest a writer to make the best of it. He wastes too much ink summarising research papers and quoting “experts” uttering（讲） banalities（陈腐的东西）. And he fails to point out the humour of sabbatical man jet-setting hither and thither（到处）to discuss such staples of modern academic life as poverty and inequality. Mr Wildavsky should spend less time with his fellow think-tankers (who are mesmerised（迷人的美丽） by the idea of a global knowledge economy) and more talking to students, who experience the disadvantages as well as the advantages of the new cult（迷信） of globalisation at first hand.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

【COMMENT】9-1【学习】

Thailand's crisis Red dawn Thailand’s army marches in to crush the months-long protest in Bangkok（曼谷，泰国首都） May 19th 2010 | BANGKOK | From The Economist online FOR six days, clouds of black smoke hung over Bangkok’s jagged skyline, marking out（划出界限） flashpoints in a prolonged political drama. At dawn on May 19th, the show reached its bloody climax（达到高潮）. Combat troops supported by armoured vehicles pushed into the red shirts’ protest camp. A few thousand stragglers had held out there, defiant to the end. But a group of their leaders, once captured, went quietly, drawing howls of disapproval from their diehard（顽固的） supporters. Other protest leaders may have slipped away. The black smoke grew thicker and more noxious as angry protesters set fire to tyre-and-bamboo（废旧轮胎和竹子做成的防御工事） barricades and the ritzy（豪华的） shopping area where they had bedded down（铺床睡） for several weeks. The assault on the fortified（加强的） camp was methodical and met only scattered resistance from gunmen holed up inside. Security forces kept overwhelming（巨大的） force on their side. It was not, mercifully, the replay of the Tiananmen Square massacre that some had predicted, though some 40 people have died in violent clashes since last week. Most of the protesters were herded away to evacuation points. On the outskirt（外边）s of the camp however, riot（骚乱）s flare（突发）d along a major road that had seen the worst of the recent fighting. Arson attacks spread to new areas, and gun battles erupted beneath the blackened underside of a fly-over. Nearby a port slum（贫民窟） has begun staging（分段运输） its own red-shirt rally（集会）. Keeping a lid on unruly crowds and stopping the red shirts from regrouping may be the army’s next test. But that is only a start for the country. Bridging the deep social and economic divisions in Thai society, and crafting a new political balance will be a long-term challenge for whatever sort of government emerges from this disaster. The prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, has failed to make any headway towards reconciliation（和解的进展）. He had already created a terrific obstacle to peace on April 10th, when he hastily sent in troops to clear another protest site; 25 people died but the red shirts remained. But Mr Abhisit may deserve credit for offering a plausible（花言巧语） compromise to the red shirts. That the leaders of their United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship（独裁） (UDD) failed to grasp this olive branch（橄榄枝） is tragic. They must bear some responsibility for the lives lost, as do the soldiers who marched into downtown Bangkok. As recently as May 18th an eleventh-hour ceasefire had appeared close. But the mistrust on both sides proved impossible to bridge, and the talks failed. In retrospect（回顾）, a negotiated end to the stand-off（疏远） may have been doomed（命中注定的） since May 13th, when a sniper（阻击兵） picked off（瞄准射死） Khattiya Sawasdipol, a rogue（不诚实，不道德） army general who had sided with the red shirts and taunted his commanders. Widespread fighting broke out while General Khattiya lay in a coma（昏迷）, days before his death. Army units trying to block off the sprawling protest site came under attack by a mob（群众） tossing（投射） rocks, firecrackers（鞭炮） and petrol bombs. Shadowy black-clad（穿黑衣服的） militia（民兵） joined the melee（混战） alongside the red shirts, though only fleetingly（飞驰的）. Soldiers opened fire without much restraint, even at paramedics（伞兵军医） trying to bring out the wounded. Road junctions were declared as “live-fire zones”. The mayhem（大混乱） spread to other parts of the city. The military cordon（大封锁） appeared to be breaking as red shirts defied orders to stay away. Something had to give. In the end it was not a political deal between the warring factions but instead overwhelming force that won the day. As the bullets flew, Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister and billionaire telecoms tycoon（企业报道） who encouraged the red shirts after he lost power in 2006 to a military coup, tweeted his sorrow to his followers. From his exile（放逐）, Mr Thaksin denied, once again, that he was giving orders to the red-shirts leaders and urged everyone to embrace peace. There is little doubt, however, that Mr Thaksin held sway over（统治） the splintered, squabbling leadership of the UDD. The two-month protest would not have been possible without his deep pockets and political network. Though the red-shirt cause outgrew him, his stubbornness seems to have undone the peace talks. The aftermath（后果） of the May 19th crackdown（镇压） will likely see continued unrest（动乱）, both around Bangkok’s slums and in Thailand’s north and north-east. The north-east accounts for around one-third of parliamentary（议会的） seats. Since 2001, the region has overwhelmingly voted for Mr Thaksin and his allies. The red shirts had sought to force a new election in the belief that voters would turf out（赶走） Mr Abhisit, the darling of Bangkok’s privileged classes. Protesters there were quick to stage arson attacks in retaliation（报复） for their rout（打败对方） in Bangkok. The government put the city under a curfew（戒严） on May 19th, its first since 1992. As Thailand stumbles into（无意中卷入） the next phase of its crisis, many will be asking how it came to this. If politics is the art of the compromise, Thais had appeared to be experts. Various political factions, both elected and unelected, cobbled together governments that oversaw（监视） steady economic growth even as they squabbled and scrapped for the spoils. That pragmatic formula（务实性的准则） no longer works, not when political crises have polarised opinions within families, workplaces and communities, and hollowed out the centre

azure9UID: 2789030

tyre-and-bamboo barricades是废旧轮胎和竹子做成的防御工事

谦行天下UID: 2797557

tyre-and-bamboo barricades是废旧轮胎和竹子做成的防御工事
azure9 发表于 2010-5-21 12:43

这样的啊。。。谢谢。。。

polosongruiUID: 2595436

学习comment[8-2]物理啊！！！！！
A New Clue to Explain Existence
By DENNIS OVERBYE
Published: May 17, 2010
Physicists at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory are reporting that they have discovered a new clue that could help unravel(解开) one of the biggest mysteries of cosmology（宇宙学）: why the universe is composed of matter and not its evil-twin opposite, antimatter. If confirmed, the finding portends（预示） fundamental discoveries at the new Large Hadron Collider（大型强子对撞机） outside Geneva（日内瓦（瑞士城市））, as well as a possible explanation for our own existence.
In a mathematically perfect universe, we would be less than dead; we would never have existed. According to the basic precepts（戒律） of Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics（量子力学）, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created in the Big Bang and then immediately annihilated（消灭） each other in a blaze（火焰；光辉） of lethal（致命的） energy, leaving a big fat goose egg with which to make stars, galaxies（星系） and us. And yet we exist, and physicists (among others) would dearly like to know why.
Sifting（筛选，过滤） data from collisions of protons（质子） and antiprotons at Fermilab’s Tevatron（一万亿电子伏加速器）, which until last winter was the most powerful particle（粒子） accelerator in the world, the team, known as the DZero collaboration, found that the fireballs produced pairs of the particles known as muons（μ介子）, which are sort of fat electrons, slightly more often than they produced pairs of anti-muons. So the miniature（小型的，微小的） universe inside the accelerator went from being neutral to being about 1 percent more matter than antimatter.
“This result may provide an important input for explaining the matter dominance in our universe,” Guennadi Borissov, a co-leader of the study from Lancaster University, in England, said in a talk at Fermilab a talk Friday at Fermilab, in Batavia, Ill. Over the weekend, word spread quickly among physicists. Maria Spiropulu of CERN and the California Institute of Technology called the results “very impressive and inexplicable.”
The results have now been posted on the Internet and submitted to the Physical Review.
It was Andrei Sakharov, the Russian dissident（唱反调者） and physicist, who first provided a recipe for how matter could prevail over antimatter in the early universe. Among his conditions was that there be a slight difference in the properties of particles and antiparticles known technically as CP violation. In effect, when the charges and spins of particles are reversed（反向）, they should behave slightly differently. Over the years, physicists have discovered a few examples of CP violation in rare reactions between subatomic particles that tilt （（使)倾斜）slightly in favor of matter over antimatter, but “not enough to explain our existence,” in the words of Gustaaf Brooijmans of Columbia, who is a member of the DZero team.
The new effect hinges on the behavior of particularly strange particles called neutral B-mesons, which are famous for not being able to make up their minds. They oscillate（摆动） back and forth trillions of times a second between their regular state and their antimatter state. As it happens, the mesons, created in the proton-antiproton collisions, seem to go from their antimatter state to their matter state more rapidly than they go the other way around, leading to an eventual preponderance（优势） of matter over antimatter of about 1 percent, when they decay to muons.
Whether this is enough to explain our existence is a question that cannot be answered until the cause of the still-mysterious behavior of the B-mesons is directly observed, said Dr. Brooijmans, who called the situation “fairly encouraging.”
The observed preponderance is about 50 times what is predicted by the Standard Model, the suite（套，组，系列） of theories that has ruled particle physics for a generation, meaning that whatever is causing the B-meson to act this way is “new physics” that physicists have been yearning for almost as long.
Dr. Brooijmans said that the most likely explanations were some new particle not predicted by the Standard Model or some new kind of interaction between particles. Luckily, he said, “this is something we should be able to poke at with the Large Hadron Collider.”
Neal Weiner of New York University said, “If this holds up, the L.H.C. is going to be producing some fantastic results.”
Nevertheless, physicists will be holding their breath until the results are confirmed by other experiments.
Joe Lykken, a theorist at Fermilab, said, “So I would not say that this announcement is the equivalent of seeing the face of God, but it might turn out to be the toe of God.”

凝羽欲翔UID: 2733350

【COMMENT】9-1

Thailand's crisis Red dawn Thailand’s army marches in to crush the months-long protest in Bangkok May 19th 2010 | BANGKOK | From The Economist online FOR six days, clouds of black smoke hung over Bangkok’s jagged（交错的，锯齿状的） skyline, marking out flashpoints in a prolonged political drama(很好的表达方式). At dawn on May 19th, the show reached its bloody climax. Combat troops supported by armoured（盔甲的） vehicles pushed into the red shirts’ protest camp. A few thousand stragglers had held out there, defiant（公然违抗） to the end. But a group of their leaders, once captured, went quietly, drawing howls of disapproval from their diehard（顽固分子） supporters. Other protest leaders may have slipped away. The black smoke grew thicker and more noxious as angry protesters set fire to tyre-and-bamboo barricades and the ritzy（豪华的） shopping area where they had bedded down for several weeks. The assault on the fortified camp was methodical（有条理的） and met only scattered resistance（零零星星的抵抗，scattered用得好） from gunmen holed up inside. Security forces kept overwhelming force on their side. It was not, mercifully, the replay of the Tiananmen Square massacre that some had predicted, though some 40 people have died in violent clashes since last week. Most of the protesters were herded away(驱散) to evacuation points. On the outskirts of the camp however, riots flared along a major road that had seen the worst of the recent fighting. Arson attacks spread to new areas, and gun battles erupted beneath the blackened underside of a fly-over. Nearby a port slum（贫民区） has begun staging its own red-shirt rally（红衫军驻扎在贫民区）. Keeping a lid(解放) on unruly crowds and stopping the red shirts from regrouping may be the army’s next test. But that is only a start for the country. Bridging the deep social and economic divisions in Thai society, and crafting（带来，这个词用得好，比set up好多了） a new political balance will be a long-term challenge for whatever sort（种类，不用kind） of government emerges from this disaster. The prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, has failed to make any headway towards reconciliation. He had already created a terrific obstacle to（create a terrific obstacle to do sth） peace on April 10th, when he hastily sent in troops to clear another protest site; 25 people died but the red shirts remained. But Mr Abhisit may deserve credit for offering a plausible compromise to the red shirts. That the leaders of their United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) failed to grasp this olive branch is tragic. They must bear some responsibility for the lives lost, as do the soldiers who marched into downtown Bangkok. As recently as May 18th an eleventh-hour ceasefire had appeared close. But the mistrust on both sides proved impossible to bridge, and the talks failed. In retrospect, a negotiated end to the stand-off（基准距） may have been doomed since May 13th, when a sniper picked off Khattiya Sawasdipol, a rogue army general who had sided with(支持，原来支持还可以这样讲的哇) the red shirts and taunted（讥讽） his commanders. Widespread fighting broke out while General Khattiya lay in a coma, days before his death. Army units trying to block off the sprawling（蔓延，没有方向地伸展） protest site came under attack by a mob tossing（抖动的行为及过程） rocks, firecrackers and petrol bombs. Shadowy black-clad militia joined the melee alongside the red shirts, though only fleetingly. Soldiers opened fire without much restraint, even at paramedics trying to bring out the wounded. Road junctions were declared as “live-fire zones”. The mayhem spread to other parts of the city. The military cordon appeared to be breaking as red shirts defied orders to stay away. Something had to give. In the end it was not a political deal between the warring factions but instead overwhelming force that won the day. lay in a deep coma 深深地吸了一口气，昏迷的时候 As the bullets flew, Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister and billionaire telecoms tycoon who encouraged the red shirts after he lost power in 2006 to a military coup, tweeted（小鸟鸣叫） his sorrow to his followers（表达很好撒）. From his exile, Mr Thaksin denied, once again, that he was giving orders to the red-shirts leaders and urged everyone to embrace peace（还可以用embrace！）. There is little doubt, however, that Mr Thaksin held sway（占统治低位） over the splintered（碎片）, squabbling（争吵，吵嘴） leadership of the UDD. The two-month protest would not have been possible without his deep pockets(很多的财产，还可以这样说的那) and political network. Though the red-shirt cause outgrew him, his stubbornness seems to have undone the peace talks. outgrow 长得比什么都快 Americans never outgrow this stage, continuing to indulge themselves and dodge responsibility right into senility. 美国人摆脱不了这个年龄的心态。他们总是纵容自己，回避责任，直到已至垂暮之年。 These mutant plants eventually outgrow the infection. 这些变异植物最终成功抵抗了感染。 The aftermath of the May 19th crackdown will likely see continued unrest, both around Bangkok’s slums and in Thailand’s north and north-east. The north-east accounts for around one-third of parliamentary seats. Since 2001, the region has overwhelmingly voted for Mr Thaksin and his allies. The red shirts had sought to force a new election in the belief that voters would turf out Mr Abhisit, the darling of Bangkok’s privileged classes. Protesters there were quick to stage arson attacks in retaliation for their rout in Bangkok. The government put the city under a curfew（宵禁） on May 19th, its first since 1992. As Thailand stumbles into the next phase of its crisis, many will be asking how it came to this. If politics is the art of the compromise（用得好艺术哦）, Thais had appeared to be experts. Various political factions, both elected and unelected, cobbled（粗糙地制作） together governments that oversaw steady economic growth even as they squabbled and scrapped for the spoils. That pragmatic formula no longer works, not when political crises have polarised opinions within families, workplaces and communities, and hollowed out the centre hollow空的，空洞的，无价值的 the hollow of somebody's hand在某人的手心

azure9UID: 2789030

Financial reform
Almost there
The Senate votes for financial reform, but some important issues remain unresolved
May 21st 2010 | NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON, DC | From The Economist online

FINANCIAL reform is coming to America. On May 20th, after more than three weeks of often rancorous debate, the Senate approved the biggest overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression, by 59 votes to 39. Its bill must now be reconciled with one passed by the House of Representatives in December. The result will be Barack Obama’s second big legislative victory of the year, after the passage of health-care reform in March.

Tim Geithner, Mr Obama’s treasury secretary, praised Chris Dodd and Harry Reid, the Democratic senators who steered the 1,500-page Restoring American Financial Stability Act to a successful vote, for their “tremendous leadership”. The administration has reason to be pleased, since the bill largely mirrors the reform blueprint it had been pushing.

As with most bills, this one has its share of pork and irrelevant provisions, including one requiring buyers of Congolese minerals to prove that the money they hand over is not being used to fund militant groups. But there is much meat at its heart. The bill would beef up the system for monitoring systemic risks. It would empower the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to wind down failing financial giants, imposing losses on creditors as well as shareholders. It would create an independent consumer financial-protection bureau. And it would toughen up oversight of derivatives, requiring most contracts to be channelled through clearing houses and traded on exchanges or exchange-like platforms.

Could this bill have prevented the crisis? Not by itself. Some of the most important reforms are outside its purview. Toughened-up capital and liquidity standards for banks will be hammered out by regulators from around the world in Basel. The Obama administration’s proposed tax on big banks will likely be advanced in different legislation. One glaring omission from the Senate and House bills is a plan to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant, accident-prone mortgage agencies now under government conservatorship.

The most important component aimed at preventing another crisis is “resolution authority”, under which any big financial company, not just a bank, can be seized and wound down in an orderly way. Lack of such authority led to the shambolic failure of Lehman Brothers and the controversial bail-out of AIG. To win Republican support, however, Mr Dodd made the process so harsh for unsecured creditors that they might flee if they sense panic building—forcing the authorities, again, to use ad-hoc measures. Left unanswered is how bail-outs will be paid for. The House version of the bill requires banks to chip in to a $150 billion up-front fund. The Senate bill envisages the costs being recouped afterwards, another concession to Republicans.

The new consumer-protection bureau should help to close the gap between well-regulated banks and poorly regulated mortgage brokers and finance companies, which led the race to the bottom in loan-underwriting standards. But many firms, most significantly small banks, are exempted from its authority. And the industry gripes that there is remarkably little independent oversight of the bureau, should it run amok with new regulations that stifle legitimate products. The Senate bill puts the bureau inside the Federal Reserve, though it gives the Fed little say in its direction; in the House version, the bureau stands alone.

Surprisingly, given the depth of congressional animosity towards it, the Fed emerges as a big winner. It keeps all its existing bank-supervision powers (except for consumer protection) and gets new ones over systemically important non-banks. In a crucial victory, the Fed and the White House fought off a provision that would have allowed intrusive congressional audits of the central bank’s most delicate monetary-policy decisions. However, such a provision remains in the House version of the bill.

As for Wall Street itself, the outcome is worse than initially expected but better than it might have been—though uncertainties remain. Bankers had hoped that the bill emerging from the Senate-usually the more measured of the two chambers-would be more bank-friendly than the House version. But a flurry of draconian amendments was offered in recent weeks amid a surge in anti-bank sentiment (fuelled by fraud charges against Goldman Sachs) and political populism in the run-up to congressional primaries. Among those approved was one requiring the Fed to regulate debit-card fees, another setting minimum mortgage-underwriting standards (and banning no-documentation “liar loans”) and a third requiring credit ratings of asset-backed securities to be assigned by a board within the Securities and Exchange Commission. But a proposal to cap banks’ maximum size was defeated, as was one that would have placed restrictions on credit-card interest rates.

But some of banks’ biggest worries remain unresolved. They are resigned to accept some form of the “Volcker rule”, which would restrict their proprietary trading and investment in hedge funds and private equity. A particularly tough version of the rule was rejected just before the Senate vote, but its authors hold out hope that it can be inserted during the weaving-together of the House and Senate bills. The Volcker rule and other looming restrictions could collectively cut large banks’ profits by as much as 15-20% (not counting returned capital from shed businesses), reckon analysts at Morgan Stanley.

Wall Street’s biggest concern is a provision banning deposit-takers from trading credit-default swaps, interest-rate swaps and the like. Introduced by the head of the Senate Agriculture Committee some weeks ago, it was expected that this would fall by the wayside during debate. But it proved stubbornly persistent, making it into the bill as passed. Ostensibly aimed at raising a firewall between run-of-the-mill retail banking and “casino” activities, such a prohibition would hinder risk management as well as speculation, banks argue.

All eyes will now be on the “conference” process that will likely be used to iron out differences between the two bills over the next week or two. This will provide one last lobbying opportunity to Wall Street, which has already spent hundreds of millions trying to influence lawmakers, to the president’s chagrin. Banks will focus much of their effort on reversing the swap-dealing ban (which is also opposed by their regulators). Where the two chambers differ, the Senate prevails as a rule—though Barney Frank, the architect of the House bill, has said he will fight to preserve some of his provisions. Once Mr Obama signs the law, many of its vaguer provisions will have to be fleshed out by financial regulators, a process that could take many months. There are plenty of ambiguities to be tackled, for instance the bills’ loose definition of “swap” and “major swap participant”.
After the Senate bill was passed, Mr Obama pledged to “ensure that we arrive at a final product that…secures financial stability while preserving the strengths and crucial functions of a financial industry that is central to our prosperity and ability to compete in a global economy.” That remains to be seen. If the history of financial legislation is a guide—just think Sarbanes-Oxley—the new law will have more than a few unintended consequences. For now, though, the White House can revel in a political triumph that a year ago seemed to many to be beyond reach.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

10-1【学习】

Financial reform Almost there The Senate votes for financial reform, but some important issues remain unresolved May 21st 2010 | NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON, DC | From The Economist online FINANCIAL reform is coming to America. On May 20th, after more than three weeks of often rancorous（怀恶意的） debate, the Senate approved the biggest overhaul（大检查） of the financial system since the Great Depression, by 59 votes to 39. Its bill must now be reconciled with（与……和解） one passed by the House of Representatives in December. The result will be Barack Obama’s second big legislative victory of the year, after the passage of health-care reform in March. Tim Geithner, Mr Obama’s treasury secretary, praised Chris Dodd and Harry Reid, the Democratic senators who steered the 1,500-page Restoring American Financial Stability Act to a successful vote, for their “tremendous(极棒的) leadership”. The administration has reason to be pleased, since the bill largely mirrors the reform blueprint（新颖的用法！） it had been pushing. steer..... to a successful vote As with most bills, this one has its share of pork and irrelevant provisions（粮）, including one requiring buyers of Congolese（刚果） minerals to prove that the money they hand over is not being used to fund militant（激进的） groups. But there is much meat at its heart. The bill would beef up（？？？） the system for monitoring systemic risks. It would empower the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to wind down failing financial giants, imposing losses on creditors（强加给债主损失） as well as shareholders. It would create an independent consumer financial-protection bureau. And it would toughen up（使强壮） oversight（疏忽） of derivatives（派生物）, requiring most contracts to be channelled through clearing houses and traded on exchanges or exchange-like platforms. //此段讲新上台的政策使房子交易市场正规化 Could this bill have prevented the crisis? Not by itself. Some of the most important reforms are outside its purview（超出范围）. Toughened-up capital（资金） and liquidity（资产流动性） standards for banks will be hammered out by（被解决） regulators from around the world in Basel. The Obama administration’s proposed tax on big banks will likely be advanced in different legislation. One glaring（耀眼的） omission from the Senate and House bills is a plan to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant, accident-prone mortgage agencies now under government conservatorship（公共福利的监督官）. //此段讲这个bill起作用的方式是通过其他的一些方式来进行的。 The most important component aimed at preventing another crisis is “resolution authority”, under which any big financial company, not just a bank, can be seized and wound down in an orderly way. Lack of such authority led to the shambolic（混乱的） failure of Lehman Brothers and the controversial bail-out of AIG. To win Republican support, however, Mr Dodd made the process so harsh for unsecured creditors that they might flee if they sense panic building—forcing the authorities, again, to use ad-hoc（特别） measures. Left unanswered is how bail-outs will be paid for. The House version of the bill requires banks to chip in to a $150 billion up-front fund. The Senate bill envisages （设想）the costs being recoup（重获）ed afterwards, another concession to Republicans. //此段讲对大经济公司的严厉打击 The new consumer-protection bureau should help to close the gap between well-regulated banks and poorly regulated mortgage brokers and finance companies, which led the race to the bottom in loan-underwriting（借款保险业） standards. But many firms, most significantly small banks, are exempted（赦免） from its authority. And the industry gripe（抱怨）s that there is remarkably little independent oversight of the bureau, should it run amok with（横行于） new regulations that stifle（使窒息） legitimate products. The Senate bill puts the bureau inside the Federal Reserve, though it gives the Fed little say in its direction; in the House version, the bureau stands alone. //bureau一些作用独立于系统之外 Surprisingly, given the depth of congressional（国会） animosity（憎恨） towards it, the Fed emerges as a big winner. It keeps all its existing bank-supervision powers (except for consumer protection) and gets new ones over systemically important non-banks. In a crucial victory, the Fed and the White House fought off a provision that would have allowed intrusive congressional audits of the central bank’s most delicate monetary-policy decisions. However, such a provision remains in the House version of the bill. //新bill上台以后，Fed会从国会那获得更大的经济掌控权 As for Wall Street（华尔街） itself, the outcome is worse than initially expected but better than it might have been—though uncertainties remain. Bankers had hoped that the bill emerging from the Senate-usually the more measured of the two chambers-would be more bank-friendly than the House version. But a flurry（骤雨） of draconian（严厉的） amendments was offered in recent weeks amid a surge in anti-bank sentiment（见解） (fuelled by fraud charges against Goldman Sachs) and political populism（平民主义） in the run-up to congressional primaries. Among those approved was one requiring the Fed to regulate debit-card fees, another setting minimum mortgage-underwriting standards (and banning no-documentation “liar loans”) and a third requiring credit ratings of asset-backed securities to be assigned by a board within the Securities and Exchange Commission. But a proposal to cap banks’ maximum size was defeated, as was one that would have placed restrictions on credit-card interest rates. //尽管新bill的上台更有利于bank，但是一场修订案的出台，使形式发生变化。 But some of banks’ biggest worries remain unresolved. They are resigned to（托付给） accept some form of the “Volcker rule”, which would restrict their proprietary trading and investment in hedge funds and private equity. A particularly tough version of the rule was rejected just before the Senate vote, but its authors hold out hope that it can be inserted during the weaving-together of the House and Senate bills. The Volcker rule and other looming（隐约出现的） restrictions could collectively cut large banks’ profits by as much as 15-20% (not counting returned capital from shed businesses), reckon analysts at Morgan Stanley. //同时Volcker rull和其他的限制政策会使银行的利益减少15%以上。 Wall Street’s biggest concern is a provision banning deposit-takers from trading credit-default（违约） swaps, interest-rate swaps and the like. Introduced by the head of the Senate Agriculture Committee some weeks ago, it was expected that this would fall by the wayside during debate. But it proved stubbornly persistent, making it into the bill as passed. Ostensibly（表面上） aimed at raising a firewall between run-of-the-mill（普通的；好词！） retail banking（小额银行业务） and “casino” activities, such a prohibition would hinder risk management as well as speculation, banks argue. //华尔街最大的忧虑是……。（专业词汇不是很理解啊！） All eyes will now be on the “conference” process that will likely be used to iron（熨平） out differences between（好短语！） the two bills over the next week or two. This will provide one last lobbying opportunity to Wall Street, which has already spent hundreds of millions trying to influence lawmakers, to the president’s chagrin. Banks will focus much of their effort on reversing the swap-dealing ban (which is also opposed by their regulators). Where the two chambers differ, the Senate prevails as a rule—though Barney Frank, the architect of the House bill, has said he will fight to preserve some of his provisions. Once Mr Obama signs the law, many of its vaguer provisions will have to be fleshed out（充实，有血有肉） by financial regulators, a process that could take many months. There are plenty of ambiguities to be tackled, for instance the bills’ loose definition of “swap” and “major swap participant”. //两家议案的不同会在两周之内达到一个定论。 After the Senate bill was passed, Mr Obama pledged to “ensure that we arrive at a final product that…secures financial stability while preserving the strengths and crucial functions of a financial industry that is central to our prosperity and ability to compete in a global economy.” That remains to be seen. If the history of financial legislation is a guide—just think Sarbanes-Oxley—the new law will have more than a few unintended consequences. For now, though, the White House can revel in（得益于） a political triumph that a year ago seemed to many to be beyond reach. //奥巴马表示议案通过以后的作用，但是作者对此持观望的看法。

凝羽欲翔UID: 2733350

10-1

Financial reform Almost there The Senate votes for financial reform, but some important issues remain unresolved May 21st 2010 | NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON, DC | From The Economist online FINANCIAL reform is coming to America. On May 20th, after more than three weeks of often rancorous(充满仇恨，怨恨的，恶意的) debate（比fierce的程度要深）, the Senate approved the biggest overhaul（彻底检查，彻底大修） of the financial system since the Great Depression, by 59 votes to 39. Its bill must now be reconciled with one passed by the House of Representatives in December. The result will be Barack Obama’s second big legislative victory of the year（为啥不用biggest呢？）, after the passage of health-care reform in March. Tim Geithner, Mr Obama’s treasury secretary, praised Chris Dodd and Harry Reid, the Democratic senators who steered（掌舵，操控） the 1,500-page Restoring American Financial Stability Act to a successful vote, for their “tremendous leadership”. The administration has reason to be pleased, since the bill largely mirrors（怎么用怎么好看） the reform blueprint it had been pushing. As with most bills, this one has its share of pork（比喻为“share这块肥肉”） and irrelevant provisions, including one requiring buyers of Congolese（刚果人） minerals to prove that the money they hand over is not being used to fund militant groups. But there is much meat at its heart. The bill would beef up(加强，补充，充实) the system for monitoring systemic risks. It would empower the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to wind down（接下） failing financial giants, imposing losses on creditors as well as shareholders. It would create an independent consumer financial-protection bureau. And it would toughen up(使强壮，困难) oversight of derivatives(引出的，派生的事情), requiring most contracts to be channelled through clearing houses and traded on exchanges or exchange-like(类似交易的) platforms. toughen up：使强壮，困难 The civil councils are determined to toughen up the fight against crime. Could this bill have prevented the crisis? Not by itself（不单单是他自己）. Some of the most important reforms are outside its purview（视野，范围）（很好的表达方式）. Toughened-up capital and liquidity standards for banks will be hammered out(锤平，阐明，解决) by regulators from around the world in Basel. The Obama administration’s proposed tax on big banks will likely be advanced in（在。。中提到） different legislation. One glaring omission from the Senate and House bills is a plan to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant, accident-prone mortgage agencies now under government conservatorship（英国管理委员会的名字）. hammer out：锤平，阐明，解决，弄明白 We hammer out the question in a friendly debate. Our differences are finally hammered out at last in the discussion. 我们的分歧最后在讨论中解决了。 The most important component aimed at preventing another crisis is “resolution authority”, under which any big financial company, not just a bank, can be seized and wound down（缩小，冷清） in an orderly way. Lack of such authority led to the shambolic（大混乱的） failure of Lehman Brothers and the controversial bail-out（跳伞，发红利） of AIG. To win Republican support, however, Mr Dodd made the process so harsh for unsecured creditors that they might flee if they sense panic building（building好形象的说）—forcing the authorities, again, to use ad-hoc measures. Left unanswered（遗留的问题） is how bail-outs will be paid for. The House version of the bill requires banks to chip in（集资，捐款） to a $150 billion up-front（预先的） fund. The Senate bill envisages（想象，设想，面对） the costs being recouped（重获） afterwards, another concession to Republicans. wound down：缩小，冷清 The party wound down as the guests left. 客人开始离开， party变得冷清。 The company has wounded down to a size that becomes manageable. The business has wounded down during the recent recession. 在最近经济衰退期间，商业很不景气。 The new consumer-protection bureau should help to close the gap（narrow the gap） between well-regulated banks and poorly regulated mortgage brokers and finance companies, which led the race to the bottom in loan-underwriting（贷款保险商） standards. But many firms, most significantly small banks, are exempted from its authority. And the industry gripes(牢骚，不满) that there is remarkably little independent oversight of the bureau, should it run amok(杀人狂) with（横行，霸道） new regulations that stifle legitimate products. The Senate bill puts the bureau inside the Federal Reserve, though it gives the Fed little say（不给他说话的机会） in its direction; in the House version, the bureau stands alone. Surprisingly, given the depth of congressional animosity（仇恨） towards it, the Fed emerges as a big winner. It keeps all its existing bank-supervision powers (except for consumer protection) and gets new ones over systemically important non-banks. In a crucial victory, the Fed and the White House fought off(击退) a provision that would have allowed intrusive congressional audits of the central bank’s most delicate monetary-policy decisions. However, such a provision remains in the House version of the bill. As for Wall Street itself, the outcome is worse than initially expected but better than it might have been(注意句子的陈述方式)—though uncertainties remain. Bankers had hoped that the bill emerging from the Senate-usually the more measured of the two chambers-would be more bank-friendly than the House version. But a flurry（慌慌张张的） of draconian（严酷的） amendments was offered in recent weeks amid a surge in anti-bank sentiment（情操） (fuelled by fraud charges against Goldman Sachs) and political populism in the run-up to congressional primaries. Among those approved was one requiring the Fed to regulate debit-card fees, another setting minimum mortgage-underwriting standards (and banning no-documentation “liar loans”) and a third requiring credit ratings of asset-backed securities to be assigned by a board within the Securities and Exchange Commission. But a proposal to cap banks’ maximum size(cap，帽子，表限制) was defeated, as was one that would have placed restrictions on credit-card interest rates. draconian:严酷的，严厉的 There has been an overall growth in population, despite some draconian effort to contain it. run-up run-up against a matter：摊上这么摊麻烦事 small items soon run up into large amounts 小贷款迅速积累为大数目 But some of banks’ biggest worries remain unresolved. They are resigned to accept some form of the “Volcker rule”, which would restrict their proprietary trading and investment in hedge funds（对冲基金） and private equity（私有财产）. A particularly tough version of the rule was rejected just before the Senate vote, but its authors hold out hope（没有直接说hope哦） that it can be inserted during the weaving-together of the House and Senate bills（这里的意思是不是说House跟Senate bills合作的时候呢？）. The Volcker rule and other looming restrictions could collectively cut large banks’ profits by as much as 15-20% (not counting returned capital from shed businesses), reckon（深思熟虑的） analysts at Morgan Stanley. Wall Street’s biggest concern is a provision banning deposit-takers from trading credit-default swaps, interest-rate swaps and the like（取代etc了）. Introduced by the head of the Senate Agriculture Committee some weeks ago, it was expected that this would fall by the wayside（路边的，不重要的） during debate. But it proved stubbornly（这个词用得好） persistent, making it into the bill as passed. Ostensibly（表面上） aimed at raising a firewall between run-of-the-mill retail banking and “casino” activities, such a prohibition would hinder risk management（妨碍风险管理） as well as speculation, banks argue. All eyes will now be on（众人的目光都集中在） the “conference” process that will likely be used to iron out differences between the two bills over the next week or two. This will provide one last lobbying opportunity to Wall Street, which has already spent hundreds of millions trying to influence lawmakers, to the president’s chagrin. Banks will focus much of their effort on(将精力集中在) reversing the swap-dealing ban (which is also opposed by their regulators). Where the two chambers differ, the Senate prevails as a rule—though Barney Frank, the architect of the House bill, has said he will fight to preserve some of his provisions. Once Mr Obama signs the law, many of its vaguer provisions will have to be fleshed out(充实，有血有肉) by financial regulators, a process that could take many months. There are plenty of ambiguities to be tackled, for instance the bills’ loose definition of “swap” and “major swap participant”. iron out：使不一致的地方一致起来 iron out the differences iron out a shirt 熨平衣服 lobby：游说，或借助于政府的力量 They are actively lobbying for the bill. 他们正为使bill通过而积极游说议员。 flesh out：充实，有血有肉 The playwriters often fails to flesh out the characters. 剧作家常常不能使角色栩栩如生 He lost weight after his illness, but is begining to flesh out again. 他病后瘦了很多，但现在他又胖回来了。 After the Senate bill was passed, Mr Obama pledged to “ensure that we arrive at a final product that…secures financial stability while preserving the strengths and crucial functions of a financial industry that is central to our prosperity and ability to compete in a global economy.” That remains to be seen. If the history of financial legislation is a guide（拟人化，挺不错）—just think Sarbanes-Oxley—the new law will have more than a few unintended consequences. For now, though, the White House can revel in a political triumph that a year ago seemed to many to be beyond reach. revel：沉湎 revel in movies 沉湎于电影 Then revel in the view 沉湎与景色里 Children revel in country life. 孩子们都十分喜欢乡村生活 哇塞~终于看完了~

azure9UID: 2789030

Obama Mandates Rules to Raise Fuel Standards
By PETER BAKER
Published: May 21, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Obama ordered the government on Friday to develop tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks, advancing the fight against climate change without waiting for Congress.

Mr. Obama announced the creation of a national policy that will result in less greenhouse gas pollution from medium- and heavy-duty trucks for the first time, and will further reduce exhaust from cars and light-duty trucks beyond the requirements he had already put in place.

“Today’s announcement is an essential part of our energy strategy, but it’s not a substitute for other necessary steps,” Mr. Obama said in a Rose Garden ceremony on Friday, flanked by auto and truck manufacturers. He repeated his hope that Congress would pass an energy bill by the end of the year. “In the meantime,” he added, “I’m going to take every sensible, responsible action that I can take using my authority as president.”
Mr. Obama said that reducing fuel use would save money for businesses and consumers, and he linked his new policy to the enormous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “The disaster in the gulf only underscores that, even as we pursue domestic reduction to reduce our reliance on imported oil, our long-term security depends on the development of alternative sources of fuel and new transportation technologies,” he said.

The executive memorandum the president signed on Friday orders the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department to develop new fuel and emissions standards more strict than those formalized last month, but the memorandum did not propose specific fuel-economy figures.

Under last month’s rules, new cars must get at least 35.5 miles to a gallon of fuel, on average, by 2016, in combined city and highway driving. The president’s new plan would order further improvements in fuel efficiency for cars and light trucks made in 2017 and beyond, and in medium and heavy trucks made in 2014 through 2018.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s directive orders more federal support for the development of new vehicles like advanced electric cars, and it instructs the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce emissions of other kinds of pollutants by motor vehicles, besides greenhouse gases.

Environmentalists hailed the move. “President Obama’s oil savings proposal will reduce our dependence on oil,” said Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization. “More efficient cars and trucks will help to protect families’ budgets as well as America’s shores.”

Medium and heavy trucks represent only 4 percent of all vehicles on American highways, but they consume more than 20 percent of the fuel used in road transportation, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental advocacy organization. Improving the average fuel economy of these trucks by 3.7 miles to the gallon would, by 2030, reduce American oil consumption by 11 billion gallons a year, the group said.

Mr. Obama said existing technology could improve the fuel economy of tractor-trailers, as an example, by 25 percent. Over all, he said that within 20 years he wants the nation’s vehicles to be using half the fuel and produce half the pollution they do today.

Building cleaner vehicles costs money, but may ultimately save consumers more through lower gasoline bills. The policy already enacted will add about $1,000 to the cost of an average new car by 2016, but save about $3,000 in fuel over the life of the vehicle, according to government officials.

Mr. Obama was joined on Friday by environmental leaders and representatives of major truck manufacturers who supported the new policy. Among them were the chief executives of Volvo, Daimler Trucks North America, Cummins and Navistar, the head of the American Trucking Association and a garbage-truck driver in his uniform.

Manufacturers want a single national standard set over the long term because that is easier to comply with than the patchwork of state and national regulations that had been imposed in the past.

Before the president’s initial policy a year ago, car and light-truck makers were facing fuel-efficiency standards being developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in response to Congressional legislation; separate greenhouse-gas standards being developed by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act; and the possibility of separate standards enacted in California and 13 other states.

“The federal government is looking 15 years down the road and uniting all the diverse stakeholders to work towards the same national goal,” Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said in a statement. Noting the collaboration over the set of rules enacted last month, he added, “This approach achieved success once before, so we are optimistic that we can do it again.”

Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum, a nonprofit group, said the new policy would promote the use of clean diesel technology. “Diesel engines offer an unmatched combination of energy efficiency, work capability, reliability and now near-zero-emissions environmental performance,” he said.

azure9UID: 2789030

‘Lost’ Fans Suffer From Blabbermouths Online
By JENNA WORTHAM
Published: May 21, 2010

Erin Farley has her plans for Sunday all laid out. Two hours before the last episode of “Lost” is broadcast three time zones away, she will shut down her home Internet connection. TweetDeck? Off. Facebook? Off. Her cellphone? Stashed out of reach.
“I’ll turn off the whole Internet just to avoid having anything spoiled,” said Ms. Farley, a 31-year-old freelance writer in Portland, Ore. “I don’t want to ruin the surprise.”
The Internet in general, and social media like Twitter in particular, can be a minefield for those who are trying to keep themselves in the dark about an event or show so they can enjoy it later. When the Olympics and Grammy Awards are time-delayed, for example, armchair critics chattering about the wins and losses online can destroy the suspense in an instant.
But the problem is especially acute for fans of “Lost.” The show’s time-bending storyline and layers of mysteries can mean that a single indiscreet tweet might ruin a whole episode for someone who has yet to see it.
At the same time, some fans can’t resist the urge to share, and the jaw-dropping plot twists in the run-up to the finale Sunday night on ABC have given them plenty to post about.
DVR users and people who don’t live on the East Coast, where “Lost” is shown first, are especially at risk for online spoilers. Overseas fans may have to wait days for a local broadcast — several years in Internet time.
This is one reason that the Walt Disney Company, which owns ABC, said this week that it had arranged to have broadcasters in several European countries and Israel show the “Lost” finale early Monday morning, at the same time it will be seen on the West Coast in the United States.
The move will save Kelvin Downey, a 23-year-old bartender in Ireland, from having to spend four days dodging mentions of the finale online or being tempted to download an illegal copy of it — though it will mean tuning in at the very un-prime-time hour of 5 a.m. on Monday to watch.
“We were getting worried that it’d be ruined for us,” Mr. Downey said. “But now that we can watch the simulcast, we won’t have to avoid Twitter, or the Internet in general, at all this time.”
Given that “Lost” has stretched on for 121 episodes over six seasons, each more enigmatic than the last, its die-hard fans feel they have a lot at stake.
“If you’ve invested that much time watching the arc of the show, you don’t want to have it blown,” said Christopher Frankonis, 40, who works at a bookstore in Portland. “You want the payoff to be as pure as possible. You just have to log off and wait your turn.”
The tension between the oversharers and those who just don’t want to know has at times pitted friend against friend.
“If I post about ‘Lost,’ I try to keep it cryptic,” said Kristina Lucarelli, 23, who lives in Manhattan and was watching the show this week with friends and about 150 other fans at an East Village bar called Professor Thom’s.
But two weeks ago, after watching in disbelief as (spoiler alert) two of the show’s main characters met a watery demise, Ms. Lucarelli quickly posted about it. “I was so shocked,” she said. “I couldn’t help myself.”
“She completely ruined it for me,” interjected Whitney Jefferson, 25. “I was waiting to watch it with my boyfriend and she tweeted about it and then commented on Facebook.”
Analysts say Twitter is typically a benefit to time-delayed television. “The East Coast builds the West Coast’s awareness,” said Mark Ghuneim, chief executive of Wiredset, a digital advertising agency based in New York that creates and tracks social media marketing campaigns. “People see others talking about it and they tune in.”
But with shows as rich and complex as “Lost,” Mr. Ghuneim said, “the Web has turned into one big spoiler.”
During each broadcast of “Lost” this season, an average of 27,000 posts about it flowed through Twitter, according to Wiredset. That topped even the mighty “American Idol,” which averages 25,000 posts an episode. By comparison, there were about 310,000 posts about the Super Bowl during the game.
ABC executives say social media reinforces the appeal of watching a prime-time show like “Lost” as it is broadcast, even in an era of Hulu and TiVo where most programming can be delivered on demand.
“People still like to come together to watch something and talk about it, regardless of the platform,” said Michael Benson, executive vice president of marketing for the ABC Entertainment Group.
Not everyone can deflect “Lost” spoilers. Ryan and Jennifer Ozawa live in Hawaii, where the lush forests form the backdrop for many of the show’s scenes, and where they record “The Transmission,” a popular podcast about the show. The Ozawas say that for them, there is no safe zone, online or off.
“We saw Michelle Rodriguez dressed as a cop months before it was revealed to be her back story,” Mr. Ozawa said.
The pair differ sharply in their opinions on prebroadcast “Lost” knowledge.
“I love seeing the reactions start streaming in around 3 p.m. Hawaii time,” Mr. Ozawa said. “But that is the point at which my wife turns everything completely off.”
Mr. Ozawa said he had an “uncontrollable obsessive hunger” when it comes to knowing more about “Lost,” so much so that he watched part of the filming of the final episode.
“But that’s all I’ll say, because as much as anyone, I know ‘Lost’ is all about the reveal,” he said.

azure9UID: 2789030

Obama Mandates Rules to Raise Fuel Standards
By PETER BAKER
Published: May 21, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Obama ordered the government on Friday to develop tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks, advancing the fight against climate change without waiting for Congress.

Mr. Obama announced the creation of a national policy that will result in less greenhouse gas pollution from medium- and heavy-duty trucks for the first time, and will further reduce exhaust from cars and light-duty trucks beyond the requirements he had already put in place.

“Today’s announcement is an essential part of our energy strategy, but it’s not a substitute for other necessary steps(可以用在AGMT里的句子),” Mr. Obama said in a Rose Garden ceremony on Friday, flanked by auto and truck manufacturers. He repeated his hope that Congress would pass an energy bill by the end of the year. “In the meantime,” he added, “I’m going to take every sensible, responsible action that I can take using my authority as president.”
Mr. Obama said that reducing fuel use would save money for businesses and consumers, and he linked his new policy to the enormous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “The disaster in the gulf only underscores(划线标出，表示引起注意，是很好的用法！) that, even as we pursue domestic reduction to reduce our reliance on(減少對...的依賴) imported oil, our long-term security depends on the development of alternative sources of fuel and new transportation technologies,” he said.

underscore: Give extra weight to (a communication)
pursue: Carry out or participate in an activity; be involved in
            Follow in or as if in pursuit
            Carry further or advance
reduction:The act of decreasing or reducing something
              The act of reducing complexity      

The executive memorandum the president signed on Friday orders the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department to develop new fuel and emissions standards more strict than those formalized last month, but the memorandum did not propose specific fuel-economy figures.

Under last month’s rules, new cars must get at least 35.5 miles to a gallon of fuel, on average, by 2016, in combined(both的替換) city and highway driving. The president’s new plan would order further improvements in fuel efficiency for cars and light trucks made in 2017 and beyond, and in medium and heavy trucks made in 2014 through 2018.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s directive orders more federal support for the development of new vehicles like advanced electric cars, and it instructs the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce emissions of other kinds of pollutants by motor vehicles, besides greenhouse gases.

Environmentalists hailed the move. “President Obama’s oil savings proposal will reduce our dependence on oil,” said Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization. “More efficient cars and trucks will help to protect families’ budgets as well as America’s shores(這個shores是不是有別的含義？沒有查到啊...).”

Medium and heavy trucks represent only 4 percent of all vehicles on American highways, but they consume more than 20 percent of the fuel used in road transportation, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental advocacy organization. Improving the average fuel economy of these trucks by 3.7 miles to the gallon would, by 2030, reduce American oil consumption by 11 billion gallons a year, the group said.

economy:  The efficient use of resources
                Frugality in the expenditure of money or resources
                An act of economizing; reduction in cost;

Mr. Obama said existing technology could improve the fuel economy of tractor-trailers, as an example, by 25 percent. Over all, he said that within 20 years he wants the nation’s vehicles to be using half the fuel and produce half the pollution they do today.

Building cleaner vehicles costs money, but may ultimately save consumers more through lower gasoline bills. The policy already enacted will add about $1,000 to the cost of an average new car by 2016, but save about $3,000 in fuel over the life of the vehicle, according to government officials.

Mr. Obama was joined on Friday by environmental leaders and representatives of major truck manufacturers who supported the new policy. Among them were the chief executives of Volvo, Daimler Trucks North America, Cummins and Navistar, the head of the American Trucking Association and a garbage-truck driver in his uniform.

Manufacturers want a single national standard set over the long term because that is easier to comply with than the patchwork of state and national regulations that had been imposed in the past.

Before the president’s initial policy a year ago, car and light-truck makers were facing fuel-efficiency standards being developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in response to Congressional legislation; separate greenhouse-gas standards being developed by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act; and the possibility of separate standards enacted in California and 13 other states.

“The federal government is looking 15 years down the road and uniting all the diverse stakeholders to work towards the same national goal,” Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said in a statement. Noting the collaboration over the set of rules enacted last month, he added, “This approach achieved success once before, so we are optimistic that we can do it again.”

Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum, a nonprofit group, said the new policy would promote the use of clean diesel technology. “Diesel engines offer an unmatched combination of energy efficiency, work capability, reliability and now near-zero-emissions environmental performance,” he said.

梦想在路上UID: 2812986

10-1
Financial reform
Almost thereThe Senate【参议院】 votes for financial reform, but some important issues remain unresolvedMay 21st 2010 | NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON, DC | From The Economist online
FINANCIAL reform is coming to America. On May 20th, after more than three weeks of often rancorous【深恨的，怀恶意的】 debate, the Senate approved the biggest overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression, by 59 votes to 39. Its bill must now be reconciled with【与…和解】 one passed by the House of Representatives in December. The result will be Barack Obama’s second big legislative victory of the year, after the passage of health-care reform in March.
Tim Geithner, Mr Obama’s treasury【财政部】 secretary, praised Chris Dodd and Harry Reid, the Democratic senators who steered the 1,500-page Restoring American Financial Stability Act to a successful vote, for their “tremendous【极大的，绝妙的】
leadership”. The administration has reason to be pleased, since the bill largely mirrors【反映，反射】 the reform blueprint it had been pushing.
As with【正如，和…一样】 most bills, this one has its share of pork 【看不懂？】and irrelevant provisions【供给，准备，食物和饮料，条款】, including one requiring buyers of Congolese【刚果人，的】 minerals to prove that the money they hand over is not being used to fund militant groups. But there is much meat at its heart. The bill would beef up【加强，补充（人力，兵力等）】 the system for monitoring systemic risks. It would empower【授权，批准】 the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation【联邦存款保险公司】 to wind down【接下】 failing financial giants, imposing losses on creditors【债权人】 as well as shareholders【股东】. It would create an independent consumer financial-protection bureau【局，办事处】. And it would toughen up【困难，使强壮】 oversight of derivatives【派生物，引出物】, requiring most contracts to be channelled through clearing houses and traded on exchanges or exchange-like platforms.
Could this bill have prevented the crisis? Not
by itself【独自地，无需外力地】. Some of the most important reforms are outside its purview【范围，眼界】. Toughened-up capital【资产】 and liquidity【资产流动性，流动性】
standards for banks will be hammered out【锤平，阐明，解决】 by regulators from around the world in Basel. The Obama administration’s proposed tax on big banks will likely be advanced in different legislation. One glaring【耀眼的，醒目的】 omission from the Senate and House bills is a plan to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant, accident-prone【易于…的】 mortgage【抵押借款】 agencies now under government conservatorship.
The most important component aimed at preventing another crisis is “resolution authority”, under which any big financial company, not just a bank, can be seized【抓住，夺取】 and wound down【缩小，冷清】 in an orderly way. Lack of such authority led to the shambolic【大混乱的】 failure of Lehman Brothers and the controversial【有争议的】 bail-out【跳伞，发红利】 of AIG. To win Republican support, however, Mr Dodd made the process so harsh【刺耳的，粗糙的，严厉的】 for unsecured creditors that they might flee【逃走】 if they sense panic【恐慌】
building—forcing the authorities, again, to use ad-hoc【adv特别】
measures. Left unanswered is how bail-outs will be paid for. The House version of the bill requires banks to chip in【插嘴，捐助，凑钱】 to a $150 billion up-front（预先的） fund. The Senate bill envisages（想象，设想，面对）
the costs being recouped（重获） afterwards, another concession【承认，妥协，特许权】 to Republicans.

The new consumer-protection bureau should help to close the gap（弥合差距narrow the gap） between well-regulated banks and poorly regulated mortgage brokers and finance companies, which led the race to【跑到…，快速地把…送到……】 the bottom in loan-underwriting（贷款保险商） standards. But many firms, most significantly small banks, are exempted from its authority. And the industry gripes(牢骚，不满) that there is remarkably little independent oversight of the bureau, should it run amok【狂乱地】 with new regulations that stifle【镇压，遏制】 legitimate products. The Senate bill puts the bureau inside the Federal Reserve, though it gives the Fed little say（不给他说话的机会） in its direction; in the House version, the bureau stands alone.

Surprisingly, given the depth of congressional【国会的】 animosity（仇恨） towards it, the Fed emerges【出现，显出】 as a big winner. It keeps all its existing bank-supervision powers (except for consumer protection) and gets new ones over systemically important non-banks. In a crucial victory, the Fed and the White House fought off(击退) a provision that would have allowed intrusive congressional audits of the central bank’s most delicate【脆弱的，微妙的】 monetary-policy decisions. However, such a provision remains in the House version of the bill.

As for Wall Street itself, the outcome is worse than initially expected but better than it might have been—though uncertainties remain. Bankers had hoped that the bill emerging from【露出，来自，产生于】 the Senate-usually the more measured of the two chambers-would be more bank-friendly than the House version. But a flurry【疾风】 of draconian（严酷的） amendments was offered in recent weeks amid a surge in anti-bank sentiment（情操） (fuelled by fraud charges against Goldman Sachs) and political populism【平民主义】 in the run-up to congressional primaries. Among those approved was one requiring the Fed to regulate debit-card fees, another setting minimum mortgage-underwriting【保险业】 standards (and banning no-documentation “liar loans”) and a third requiring credit ratings of asset-backed securities to be assigned by a board within the Securities and Exchange Commission. But a proposal to cap
banks’ maximum size(cap，帽子，表限制) was defeated, as was one that would have placed restrictions on credit-card interest rates.


But some of banks’ biggest worries remain unresolved. They are resigned【辞职，放弃】 to accept some form of the “Volcker rule”, which would restrict their proprietary【私有的】 trading and investment in hedge funds（对冲基金） and private equity（私有财产）. A particularly tough version of the rule was rejected just before the Senate vote, but its authors hold out hope that it can be inserted during the weaving-together of the House and Senate bills. The Volcker rule and other looming restrictions could collectively cut large banks’ profits by as much as 15-20% (not counting returned capital from shed businesses), reckon【猜想，估计，计算】 analysts at Morgan Stanley.

Wall Street’s biggest concern is a provision banning deposit-takers from trading credit-default swaps【交换】, interest-rate swaps and the like. Introduced by the head of the Senate Agriculture Committee some weeks ago, it was expected that this would fall by the wayside（路边的，不重要的） during debate. But it proved stubbornly persistent, making it into the bill as passed. Ostensibly（表面上） aimed at raising a firewall between run-of-the-mill【非选拔的】 retail banking and “casino”【赌场，娱乐场】 activities, such a prohibition would hinder【阻碍，妨碍】 risk management（妨碍风险管理） as well as speculation【投机活动】, banks argue.

All eyes will now be on【众人的目光都集中在】 the “conference” process that will likely be used to
iron out【消除，解决】 differences between the two bills over the next week or two. This will provide one last lobbying opportunity to Wall Street, which has already spent hundreds of millions trying to influence lawmakers, to the president’s chagrin【懊恼】. Banks will focus much of their effort on【将精力集中在】 reversing the swap-dealing ban (which is also opposed by their regulators). Where the two chambers differ, the Senate prevails【说服，劝说】 as a rule—though Barney Frank, the architect of the House bill, has said he will fight to preserve some of his provisions. Once Mr Obama signs the law, many of its vaguer provisions will have to be fleshed out【充实，有血有肉】 by financial regulators, a process that could take many months. There are plenty of ambiguities【歧义，模棱两可】 to be tackled, for instance the bills’ loose definition of “swap” and “major swap participant”.

After the Senate bill was passed, Mr Obama pledged【保证，许诺，发誓】 to “ensure that we arrive at a final product that…secures financial stability while preserving the strengths and crucial functions of a financial industry that is central to our prosperity and ability to compete in a global economy.” That remains to be seen. If the history of financial legislation is a guide—just think Sarbanes-Oxley—the new law will have more than a few unintended consequences. For now, though, the White House can
revel in【得意于，着迷】 a political triumph【胜利】 that a year ago seemed to many to be beyond reach【够不着，达不到】.