1010G【fish】COMMENTS

凝羽欲翔UID: 2733350

11-1

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（超前） 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（轻载量） 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（可取代的） other necessary steps,” Mr. Obama said in a Rose Garden ceremony on Friday, flanked（侧面的） 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（强调） 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. underscore:下划线，强调 The results underscore the value of rescue meditation in adverting psychotic relapse. 这些结果显示了救护性治疗对避免精神病复发的价值。 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（欢迎这个举动）. “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（垃圾车） 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（好词）,” he said.

凝羽欲翔UID: 2733350

11-2

‘Lost’ Fans Suffer From Blabbermouths Online By JENNA WORTHAM Published: May 21, 2010 Erin Farley has her plans for Sunday all laid out(布局). Two hours before the last episode of “Lost” is broadcast three time zones away（啥意思？）, she will shut down her home Internet connection. TweetDeck? Off. Facebook? Off. Her cellphone? Stashed（贮藏起来） out of reach（还可以这样讲的哇）. “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（布雷区） 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（安乐椅上的批评家，贬义） chattering about the wins and losses online can destroy the suspense in an instant（在比赛的中间休息时间，批评家们总喜欢在网上讨论比赛的输赢）. But the problem is especially acute for fans of “Lost.” The show’s time-bending（弹性时间） storyline（故事情节） and layers of mysteries can mean that a single indiscreet（轻率地，不慎重的） tweet（高音，小鸟叫声） 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（值得期待的） plot twists in the run-up to the finale Sunday night on ABC have given them plenty to post about. Here is the jaw-dropping, eye-popping, heart-stopping movie epic we have been waiting for all year. 是一部你今年最值得期待的史诗电影；带给你惊心动魄、大开眼界、吓到合不拢嘴的电影体验!! 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(酒吧侍者) in Ireland, from having to spend four days dodging（躲开） 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（基本的）-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（同时联播）, we won’t have to avoid Twitter, or the Internet in general, at all this time.” Given that “Lost” has stretched on（蜿蜒，蔓延） for 121 episodes over six seasons, each more enigmatic（高深莫测的，谜一般的） than the last, its die-hard(顽固分子) fans feel they have a lot at stake. stretch on 蜿蜒 In the real world, people don't formulate precise path plans which stretch on for miles. 在现实世界中，人们不会精确规划怎么走数里长的路。 The walls seems to stretch on forever, inviting us to keep taking one more step, but we knew that it is time to leave. “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（注销，断线， 反：log in） 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(这句啥玩意儿？). “If I post about ‘Lost,’ I try to keep it cryptic（神秘的，含义模糊的）,” 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（谈论） 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（应该是初映吧？） 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（偏向，弯曲） “Lost” spoilers. Ryan and Jennifer Ozawa live in Hawaii, where the lush（茂密的） forests form the backdrop（背景） for many of the show’s scenes, and where they record “The Transmission,” a popular podcast（播客） 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（巡警，教官） 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. 感觉这篇文章很多词义不难，但是在具体场景中比较难猜透的词吧

lty900301UID: 2715509

10-1
Financial reform
Almost thereThe Senate 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 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 “tremendousleadership”. The administration has reason to be pleased, since the bill largely mirrors the reform blueprint it had been pushing.
As with(正如) most bills, this one has its share of pork and irrelevant provisions(供给，准备，食物和饮料，条款), 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（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. 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(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 and wound down 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 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 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 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 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（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 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. 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 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.

azure9UID: 2789030

Brazil's booming economy
Flying too high for safety
A burst of Chinese-level growth cannot be sustained. But it hints at Brazil’s new-found strength, and is perfectly timed for the presidential election
May 20th 2010 | SÃO PAULO | From The Economist print edition

NEW skyscrapers are going up along Avenida Faria Lima in the business district of São Paulo. Sales of computers and cars are booming, while a glut of passengers has clogged the main airports. Brazil created 962,000 new formal-sector jobs between January and April—the highest figure for these months since records began in 1992. Everything indicates that over the past six months the economy has grown at an annualised pace of over 10%. Even allowing for an expected slackening, many analysts forecast that growth in 2010 will be 7%—the highest rate since 1986.

The problem is that while it may be growing at Chinese speeds, Brazil is not China. Because it still saves and invests too little, most economists think it is restricted to a speed limit of 5% at the most, if it is not to crash. The growth spurt is partly the result of the stimulus measures taken by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government when the world financial crisis briefly tipped the country into recession late in 2008. The trouble, say critics, is that much of the extra government spending is turning out to be permanent—and so the economy is starting to resemble a Toyota with the accelerator stuck to the floor.
The strain is showing. Businesses are chasing after scarce skilled labour. Inflation for the 12 months to April reached 5.3%, above the Central Bank’s target of 4.5%. Imports are set to top exports this year, for the first time since 2000, and the current-account deficit should widen to 3% of GDP.

The authorities are starting to worry. Last month the Central Bank raised its benchmark Selic interest rate by 0.75%, the first rise in nearly two years. Many economists in São Paulo believe that this one will be followed by others, taking the rate from its low of 8.75% to 13% by next year.

The government’s critics say that lax fiscal policy is making the Central Bank’s task harder, increasing the risk of the boom ending in a sharp slowdown next year. When he became president in 2003, Lula stuck to the sound fiscal policies he inherited from his predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Thanks to faster growth and higher tax revenues, between 2003 and 2008 Lula’s government managed to keep public debt in check even while expanding spending. By treating the recession as “a licence to spend”, the government is now undermining the credibility it piled up, says Raul Velloso, a public-finance specialist in Brasilia.

Officials share those concerns—up to a point. The government has withdrawn nearly all of the tax breaks it enacted to boost demand during the recession. On May 13th ministers declared that they would shave 10 billion reais ($5.4 billion) from the running costs of the federal government this year. That followed a similar announcement of another 21 billion reais of cuts in March. But this hardly amounts to slamming on the brakes. The cuts are to the generous (and notional) budget approved by Congress. Even if implemented in full, they will merely slow the rate of increase in government spending, keeping it constant or slightly lower as a share of GDP, concedes Nelson Barbosa, a senior finance official.

The government is still injecting money into the economy in two controversial ways. First, the National Development Bank (BNDES), whose loans cost about half the Selic rate, has expanded its lending by almost half. It has been able to do this because the treasury granted it two long-term credits totalling 180 billion reais. Those credits, for which the BNDES has offered IOUs, have led to accusations of creative accounting. While adding to the government’s gross debt, they have not driven up the more closely watched figure for public debt, net of assets: at 42.7% of GDP, this is back to its level of mid-2008, and is much lower than the debt burdens of European countries.

Second, the government has jacked up its payroll spending. The number of federal civil servants has increased fairly modestly since 2003 (by around 10%). But they have been treated generously: the total federal wage bill more than doubled in nominal terms between 2003 and 2009, while inflation was less than 50%. Lula has pushed up the minimum wage much faster than inflation too. That has helped to make the income distribution less skewed, and boosted consumer demand. But it has a knock-on effect on pension benefits.

Mr Barbosa insists that faster growth will allow the government to squeeze payroll and pension spending gently over the coming years. The BNDES helped sustain investment when the financial markets seized up. The latest bout of financial turmoil has seen the real depreciate by 5% or so this month. But Brazil’s stockpile of international reserves means it is well-placed to withstand market panics. Mr Barbosa says that the critics should look at the long-term trend, under which real interest rates (ie, after inflation) have fallen from up to 20% in 2003 to between 5% and 10%. Once the new monetary squeeze is over they will fall further, he says.

Certainly many Europeans would love to have Brazil’s problems. Its economy has acquired underlying strength. Companies are scurrying to satisfy the demand for consumer goods of a rapidly expanding lower-middle class, while China continues to suck in Brazil’s exports of raw materials. Productivity is rising. Costs per unit of labour are increasing at only about half the rate of real wages, reckons José Roberto Mendonça de Barros, a consultant and former finance official.

But commodity prices are starting to weaken. Faster growth would be more assured if the government made room for lower interest rates and installed better infrastructure. The next president, elected in October, will have to tackle this. The economy’s red-hot start to the election year has increased the chance that it will be Lula’s candidate, Dilma Rousseff, who gets the chance to try.

azure9UID: 2789030

EDITORIAL
Jobs and the Class of 2010
Published: May 21, 2010

Commencement is supposed to be filled with hope, but for the class of 2010, these are grim times. Over the past year, the unemployment rate for college graduates under age 25 has averaged 9.1 percent. For the roughly half of high school graduates under 25 and not in college, the average is 22.8 percent.

Worse, a deep labor recession, like this one, may be more than a temporary hardship. It could signal a long-term decline in living standards — downward mobility.

Where you start out in your career has a big impact on where you end up. When jobs are scarce, more college grads start out in lower-level jobs with lower starting salaries.

Academic research suggests that for many of these graduates, that correlates to overall lower levels of career attainment and lower lifetime earnings.

Tough times for college grads mean even tougher times for high school graduates, because fewer jobs mean more competition from college-educated workers. In the past year, 59.5 percent of young high school grads on average had a job, compared with 70.2 percent in 2007.

The pat answer is that college students should consider graduate school as a way to delay a job search until things turn around, and that more high school students should go to college to improve their prospects.

For many undergraduates, especially those with large student debts, graduate school would be prohibitively expensive. And while more than half of this year’s high school grads are expected to be enrolled in college in the fall, most will have to work to help pay the bills. For them, college is not a retreat from a bad job market; a bad market is an obstacle to a college degree.

Washington has not been helping enough. The 2009 stimulus package — thanks to President Obama, Congressional Democrats and a few Republican senators — has supported some 2.5 million jobs, helping to avert a much deeper recession. The economy is still missing more than 10 million jobs, and unless more is done to spur employment, the impact on many new graduates and other workers will be harsh.

In his budget this year, Mr. Obama called for $266 billion in spending for jobs and stimulus. So far, Congress has passed only a $15 billion tax credit for hiring in 2010 and a few short-term extensions of unemployment benefits. On Thursday, Democratic Congressional leaders called for $80 billion to extend federal benefits and subsidies for the unemployed through 2010 and to provide more aid to states. More emergency spending is crucial to support consumer demand and, by extension, hiring. The Democratic proposal also calls for relatively modest sums for summer youth jobs, small-business lending and state infrastructure bonds.

The measures should be passed quickly. But recent debates suggests that the Republicans — in their role as nouveau deficit hawks — are likely to oppose more job-related spending unless it is paid for. The deficit needs to be addressed when the economy recovers. Right now, tax increases or spending cuts would only reduce economic activity, weakening the boost the measures are supposed to provide.

The White House and Democratic lawmakers need to make that case forcefully. Lawmakers owe it to their constituents — and explaining the need for more job spending should not be that hard. Far too many Americans know how bad the situation is out there.

In the longer term, Congress will also need to do more to foster jobs and industries of the future, like green technology. Several taxes could be enacted to help finance longer-term efforts, including the bank tax proposed by President Obama. Congress and the administration should also consider a financial transactions tax, both to curb speculation and to raise revenue to rebuild the economy that was damaged, in large part, by the banks’ recklessness.

Without a bigger vision, more money and political courage, the future for those just entering the job market and those already there looks bleak for years to come.

梦想在路上UID: 2812986

11-1
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【重型卡车】 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【可取代的】
other necessary steps,” Mr. Obama said in a Rose Garden ceremony on Friday,
flanked【位于…之侧面】 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【强调】 that, even as【正当…时候】 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【备忘录】 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【命令，指导，通知】好替换！ the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce emissions of other kinds of pollutants by motor vehicles, besides greenhouse gases.

Environmentalists hailed【冰雹，欢呼】 the move【欢迎此举动】. “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【总的】, 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【置于…之上，移交】 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【联盟】 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【柴油】 Technology Forum【论坛】, a nonprofit group, said the new policy would promote the use of clean diesel technology. “Diesel engines offer an unmatched【无敌的，无比的】 combination of energy efficiency, work capability, reliability and now near-zero-emissions environmental performance,” he said.

azure9UID: 2789030

Brazil's booming economy
Flying too high for safety
A burst of Chinese-level growth cannot be sustained. But it hints at Brazil’s new-found strength, and is perfectly timed for the presidential election
May 20th 2010 | SÃO PAULO | From The Economist print edition

NEW skyscrapers are going up along Avenida Faria Lima in the business district of São Paulo. Sales of computers and cars are booming, while a glut of passengers has clogged the main airports. Brazil created 962,000 new formal-sector jobs between January and April—the highest figure for these months since records began in 1992.(一些數據表達的方法) Everything indicates that over the past six months the economy has grown at an annualised pace of over 10%. Even allowing for an expected slackening, many analysts forecast that growth in 2010 will be 7%—the highest rate since 1986.

glut: The quality of being so overabundant that prices fall
        Supply with an excess of
clog: Become or cause to become obstructed
        Impede the motion of, as with a chain or a burden
        Fill to excess so that function is impaired
allow for: to include sth when calculating sth.
slackening: An occurrence of control or strength weakening

The problem is that while it may be growing at Chinese speeds, Brazil is not China. Because it still saves and invests too little, most economists think it is restricted to a speed limit of 5% at the most, if it is not to crash. The growth spurt is partly the result of the stimulus measures taken by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government when the world financial crisis briefly tipped the country into recession late in 2008. The trouble, say critics, is that much of the extra government spending is turning out to be permanent—and so the economy is starting to resemble a Toyota with the accelerator stuck to the floor(是說經濟快速增長到停不下來嗎？).
The strain is showing. Businesses are chasing after scarce skilled labour. Inflation(通貨膨脹) for the 12 months to April reached 5.3%, above the Central Bank’s target of 4.5%. Imports are set to top exports this year, for the first time since 2000, and the current-account deficit should widen to 3% of GDP.

spurt: Move with increasing speed
scarce:  Not enough; hard to find
            Deficient in quantity or number compared with the demand

The authorities are starting to worry. Last month the Central Bank raised its benchmark Selic interest rate by 0.75%, the first rise in nearly two years. Many economists in São Paulo believe that this one will be followed by others, taking the rate from its low of 8.75% to 13% by next year.

The government’s critics say that lax fiscal policy is making the Central Bank’s task harder, increasing the risk of the boom ending in a sharp slowdown next year. When he became president in 2003, Lula stuck to the sound fiscal policies he inherited from his predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Thanks to faster growth and higher tax revenues, between 2003 and 2008 Lula’s government managed to keep public debt in check(有under control的意思) even while expanding spending. By treating the recession as “a licence to spend”, the government is now undermining the credibility it piled up, says Raul Velloso, a public-finance specialist in Brasilia.

undermine: Destroy property or hinder normal operations

Officials share those concerns—up to a point. The government has withdrawn nearly all of the tax breaks it enacted to boost demand during the recession. On May 13th ministers declared that they would shave 10 billion reais ($5.4 billion) from the running costs of the federal government this year. That followed a similar announcement of another 21 billion reais of cuts in March. But this hardly amounts to slamming on the brakes. The cuts are to the generous (and notional) budget approved by Congress. Even if implemented in full(可以用到AGMT里的讓步句型), they will merely slow the rate of increase in government spending, keeping it constant or slightly lower as a share of GDP, concedes Nelson Barbosa, a senior finance official.

The government is still injecting money into the economy in two controversial ways. First, the National Development Bank (BNDES), whose loans cost about half the Selic rate, has expanded its lending by almost half. It has been able to do this because the treasury granted it two long-term credits totalling 180 billion reais. Those credits, for which the BNDES has offered IOUs, have led to accusations of creative accounting. While adding to the government’s gross debt, they have not driven up the more closely watched figure for public debt, net of assets: at 42.7% of GDP, this is back to its level of mid-2008, and is much lower than the debt burdens of European countries.

accusation:  A formal charge of wrongdoing brought against a person; the act of imputing blame or guilt
drive up: to make sth such as prices rise.

Second, the government has jacked up its payroll spending. The number of federal civil servants has increased fairly modestly since 2003 (by around 10%). But they have been treated generously: the total federal wage bill more than doubled in nominal terms between 2003 and 2009, while inflation was less than 50%. Lula has pushed up the minimum wage much faster than inflation too. That has helped to make the income distribution less skewed, and boosted consumer demand. But it has a knock-on effect on pension benefits.

jeck up: to increase sth, esp prices, by a large amount.

Mr Barbosa insists that faster growth will allow the government to squeeze payroll and pension spending gently over the coming years. The BNDES helped sustain investment when the financial markets seized up. The latest bout of financial turmoil has seen the real depreciate by 5% or so this month. But Brazil’s stockpile of international reserves means it is well-placed to withstand market panics. Mr Barbosa says that the critics should look at the long-term trend, under which real interest rates (ie, after inflation) have fallen from up to 20% in 2003 to between 5% and 10%. Once the new monetary squeeze is over they will fall further, he says.

Certainly many Europeans would love to have Brazil’s problems. Its economy has acquired underlying strength. Companies are scurrying to satisfy the demand for consumer goods of a rapidly expanding lower-middle class, while China continues to suck in Brazil’s exports of raw materials. Productivity is rising. Costs per unit of labour are increasing at only about half the rate of real wages, reckons José Roberto Mendonça de Barros, a consultant and former finance official.

But commodity prices are starting to weaken. Faster growth would be more assured if the government made room for lower interest rates and installed better infrastructure. The next president, elected in October, will have to tackle this. The economy’s red-hot start to the election year has increased the chance that it will be Lula’s candidate, Dilma Rousseff, who gets the chance to try.

azure9UID: 2789030

Don’t sweat it
Development and public-health initiatives will matter much more to malaria than the climate will
May 19th 2010 | From The Economist online

ONE of the obvious problems with predicting the future effects of climate change is that they haven’t happened. This makes climate studies highly dependent on models, which invariably and unavoidably make simplifying assumptions. This means that using their results to say anything of practical import needs care and caveats, both of which can often be in short supply, or stripped out to make a point.

However, it is now ever more possible for studies of climate change to look at the past, not the future. The 20th century saw a fair amount of warming, and it is sometimes possible to compare what this warming did and didn’t do with what future warming might or might not do. This is what a paper published in Nature this week does in an attempt to re-examine, and perhaps close down, long-running debates about malaria and climate change.

Both the malaria parasite and the mosquitoes which spread it respond to temperature and moisture. Understanding those responses makes it possible to model what changes in climate might mean to the incidence of the disease. Such models have suggested that in a warmer world the area subject to endemic malaria would increase, perhaps quite a lot, though some places would see a reduction due to increased aridity. The caveats here include noting that the climate models can make no great claims to accuracy at the regional level and that such an approach does almost nothing to deal with changes in land use, wealth and public health programmes.

One of the main thrusts of the new Nature paper, which is an offshoot of a project funded by the Wellcome Trust to produce an accurate worldwide atlas of where cases of malaria actually take place, is to see how much of what happened to the spread of malaria in the 20th century can be explained by what happened to the climate. The answer, according to Peter Gething of Oxford University and his colleagues there and in Florida, is not much. They conclude that claims that a warming climate has led to more widespread disease and death due to malaria are largely at odds with the evidence, which shows the areas effected shrinking, and the size of the effect shrinking too. Increases in the spread and severity of the disease burden foreseen over the next 40 years by the biological models are far smaller than the decreases in comparable measures seen over the past century.
The second tack of their argument is to compare the sort of effect seen in biology-based models of where malaria might spread with both models of and data on the effects direct intervention against the disease can have. Again the effects due to climate are small, even negligible, compared with the effects that interventions have achieved already and might achieve in decades to come. The marginal areas where climate might enlarge the area at risk are also, the article argues, the areas where the greatest declines in transmission have recently been seen thanks to increased intervention

The conclusion is clear. People who are thinking about what to do about malaria should bear in mind that the biological basis of its distribution may change in a warmer world. Those thinking about the overall danger that climate change represents should not spend their time worrying about its impact on malaria.

Caveats that count
Is there a wider conclusion to draw about computer models such as those that underlay frightening statements about malaria in a climate-changed world? Perhaps; but like the models themselves, it comes with caveats.

Scientists tend to model what can be modelled, and natural scientists, in particular, tend to prefer models that incorporate at least some aspects of the underlying processes which they are interested in, rather than working purely on empirical correlations. This means that if you search the scientific literature for approaches to the future, you will tend to find answers based on natural processes. If other knowledge suggests that natural processes aren’t the most important aspect of the problem at hand, then it’s a good idea to look at the models with that provision in the forefront of your mind.

The other vital lesson is that the caveats matter. Pretty much every paper presenting a biology-based model of malaria’s dependence on climate contains a warning that changes in economy, technology and society matter too, and aren’t in the model. To transmit the model’s results without important caveats is reckless.

The recklessness may, at times, be deliberate. In the reporting of climate change, as in the reporting of pretty much everything else, bad news gets a better airing than good. There is no doubt that some environmental advocates are willing to exploit that dynamic to the full. Paul Reiter, a researcher into medical entomology at the Institut Pasteur, has spent the past decade pushing back against exaggerated claims about the effects of climate on malaria. But he and others have not done so in vain.

Look at what the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say about malaria. The 1995 report made much of the effects of climate on the basis of biological models, and exaggerated some of the risk through factual error. One does not need sophisticated insights into modelling or epistemology to realise that a climate-enabled spread of malarial mosquitoes to altitudes above 2,500 metres would have little impact, in itself, on Nairobi or Harare: pace the IPCC, both cities sit only about 1,500 metres above sea level.

Even in that report, though, there were caveats. The subsequent 2001 report strengthened them and softened the conclusion. In its 2007 report the IPCC pulled back from what it had said in 2001. In its next report, currently slated to appear in 2014, it will doubtless take the new Oxford work on board. If one is going to be optimistic about the future of malaria, one might also, with caution, be optimistic about the future of assessments of climate change. Things can, over time, get better, especially when the record of what has happened to date gets taken seriously. They will do so quicker if people accept both the usefulness and limits of models of the future, as well as the appeal of models of the past.

凝羽欲翔UID: 2733350

12-1

Brazil's booming economy Flying too high for safety A burst of Chinese-level growth cannot be sustained. But it hints at Brazil’s new-found strength, and is perfectly timed for the presidential election May 20th 2010 | SÃO PAULO | From The Economist print edition NEW skyscrapers are going up along Avenida Faria Lima in the business district of São Paulo. Sales of computers and cars are booming, while a glut（大量充斥，充满） of passengers has clogged（阻塞） the main airports. Brazil created 962,000 new formal-sector jobs between January and April—the highest figure for these months since records began in 1992. Everything indicates that over the past six months the economy has grown at an annualised（按年度计算的） pace of over 10%. Even allowing for an expected slackening, many analysts forecast that growth in 2010 will be 7%—the highest rate since 1986. The problem is that while it may be growing at Chinese speeds, Brazil is not China. Because it still saves and invests too little, most economists think it is restricted to a speed limit of 5% at the most, if it is not to crash. The growth spurt（喷发） is partly the result of the stimulus measures taken by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government when the world financial crisis briefly tipped the country into recession late in 2008. The trouble, say critics, is that much of the extra government spending is turning out to be permanent—and so the economy is starting to resemble a Toyota with the accelerator stuck to the floor. The strain is showing. Businesses are chasing after scarce skilled labour. Inflation for the 12 months to April reached 5.3%, above the Central Bank’s target of 4.5%. Imports are set to top exports this year, for the first time since 2000, and the current-account deficit should widen to 3% of GDP. The authorities are starting to worry. Last month the Central Bank raised its benchmark Selic interest rate by 0.75%, the first rise in nearly two years. Many economists in São Paulo believe that this one will be followed by others, taking the rate from its low of 8.75% to 13% by next year. The government’s critics say that lax（松懈的） fiscal policy is making the Central Bank’s task harder, increasing the risk of the boom ending in a sharp slowdown next year. When he became president in 2003, Lula stuck to the sound fiscal policies he inherited from his predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Thanks to faster growth and higher tax revenues, between 2003 and 2008 Lula’s government managed to keep public debt in check（控制公开赤字） even while expanding spending. By treating the recession as “a licence to spend”, the government is now undermining the credibility it piled up, says Raul Velloso, a public-finance specialist in Brasilia. Officials share those concerns—up to a point. The government has withdrawn nearly all of the tax breaks（所得税宽减额） it enacted to boost demand during the recession. On May 13th ministers declared that they would shave 10 billion reais ($5.4 billion) from the running costs of the federal government this year. That followed a similar announcement of another 21 billion reais of cuts in March. But this hardly amounts to（等于） slamming on the brakes（紧急刹车）. The cuts are to the generous (and notional) budget approved by Congress. Even if implemented in full, they will merely slow the rate of increase in government spending, keeping it constant or slightly lower as a share of GDP, concedes Nelson Barbosa, a senior finance official. After decades of breakneck expansion, big retail chains are slamming on the braks-hard. 经过多年来疯狂扩张后，一些大的零售商开始紧急刹车。 The government is still injecting money into the economy in two controversial ways. First, the National Development Bank (BNDES), whose loans cost about half the Selic rate（利率）, has expanded its lending by almost half. It has been able to do this because the treasury granted it two long-term credits totalling 180 billion reais. Those credits, for which the BNDES has offered IOUs, have led to accusations（控告，指责） of creative accounting. While adding to the government’s gross debt（总债务）, they have not driven up the more closely watched figure for public debt, net of assets: at 42.7% of GDP, this is back to its level of mid-2008, and is much lower than the debt burdens of European countries. Second, the government has jacked up its payroll spending. The number of federal civil servants has increased fairly modestly since 2003 (by around 10%). But they have been treated generously: the total federal wage bill more than doubled in nominal terms between 2003 and 2009, while inflation was less than 50%. Lula has pushed up the minimum wage much faster than inflation too. That has helped to make the income distribution less skewed（斜交的，歪斜的）, and boosted consumer demand. But it has a knock-on effect（撞击作用） on pension benefits. Mr Barbosa insists that faster growth will allow the government to squeeze（压榨） payroll and pension spending gently over the coming years. The BNDES helped sustain investment when the financial markets seized up. The latest bout of financial turmoil has seen the real depreciate by 5% or so this month. But Brazil’s stockpile（储存物资） of international reserves means it is well-placed to withstand market panics. Mr Barbosa says that the critics should look at the long-term trend, under which real interest rates (ie, after inflation) have fallen from up to 20% in 2003 to between 5% and 10%. Once the new monetary squeeze is over they will fall further, he says. Certainly many Europeans would love to have Brazil’s problems. Its economy has acquired underlying strength. Companies are scurrying（快跑） to satisfy the demand for consumer goods of a rapidly expanding lower-middle class, while China continues to suck in（吸入，卷入） Brazil’s exports of raw materials. Productivity is rising. Costs per unit of labour are increasing at only about half the rate of real wages, reckons José Roberto Mendonça de Barros, a consultant and former finance official. But commodity prices are starting to weaken. Faster growth would be more assured if the government made room for lower interest rates and installed better infrastructure. The next president, elected in October, will have to tackle this. The economy’s red-hot start to the election year has increased the chance that it will be Lula’s candidate, Dilma Rousseff, who gets the chance to try.

azure9UID: 2789030

Dicing with data
Google and especially Facebook should change the way they look after people’s personal information
May 20th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

IN THE space of a week two of the best-known internet companies have found themselves in a pickle over privacy. Facebook faces criticism for making more information about its users available by default. Meanwhile Google has been castigated by a bevy of privacy regulators for inadvertently collecting data from unsecured Wi-Fi networks in people’s homes as part of a project to capture images of streets around the world.

Although the two cases are distinct, they have revived fears that online privacy is being trampled underfoot as internet behemoths race to grab as much data as possible. And they have provoked calls for tougher action by regulators and governments to prevent web firms from abusing the mountains of personal data they now hold. Danah Boyd, a social-networking expert, has even argued that Facebook, with its hordes of members around the world, is now so embedded in people’s lives that it should be regulated as a utility.

The firms have fought back. Facebook claims that most of its users are comfortable with the changes it has introduced, including one that lets it share detailed customer data with some external sites. It has blamed the furore on media hysteria; only a few privacy activists have publicly committed “Facebook suicide” by closing their accounts (see article). As for Google, it has apologised for its “mistake” and says that leaders of its Street View project knew nothing about the software that allowed its roving vehicles to capture snippets of e-mails.

Friends or foes?
At its most extreme, the attack on Facebook and Google makes little sense. Treating them as utilities seems excessive, for two reasons. They are not essential services that enjoy a local or national monopoly; people who feel their privacy is being violated are free to hop to other web services (remember AltaVista and MySpace?), though many sites deliberately make it hard for them to take their data with them. A second reason to tread carefully is that strict regulation could stifle the rapid innovation in business models that has thrived on the internet. Instead, officials should concentrate on enforcing existing privacy rules—something they seem reassuringly keen to do. Canada’s privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, has given warning that her organisation may take action against Facebook for violating a deal reached last year requiring the network to seek users’ permission before sharing their data.

However, even if, like this newspaper, you both distrust government intervention and believe the world has gained from the sharing of information on the web, there are plainly real grounds for concern. For instance, Google claims it discovered that its software had been accidentally recording private information for several years only after privacy officials in Germany demanded that it come clean about the data being collected. That is a stunning admission from a technology giant—and privacy watchdogs are right to investigate that.

Facebook’s problem is more fundamental. True, the social network has some of the most extensive privacy controls on the web, but these have now become so complex—and are tweaked so often—that even privacy experts find them bamboozling. The company also has a powerful incentive to push people into revealing more information. Facebook generates most of its revenue from targeted advertisements based on users’ demography and interests, so the more data users share publicly the more money it can mint from ads. It may well be betting that users are now so hooked that they are unlikely to revolt against a gradual loosening of privacy safeguards.

The worst thing is Facebook’s underlying prejudice against privacy. Sign up and it assumes you want to share as much data as possible; if not, you have to change the settings, which can be a fiddly business. The presumption should be exactly the opposite: the default should be tight privacy controls, which users may then loosen if they choose. If Facebook fails to simplify and improve its privacy policy, it will justly risk the wrath of regulators—and many more Facebook suicides.

azure9UID: 2789030

Dicing with data
Google and especially Facebook should change the way they look after people’s personal information
May 20th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

IN THE space of a week two of the best-known internet companies have found themselves in a pickle over privacy. Facebook faces criticism for making more information about its users available by default. Meanwhile Google has been castigated by a bevy of privacy regulators for inadvertently collecting data from unsecured Wi-Fi networks in people’s homes as part of a project to capture images of streets around the world.

pickle: Informal terms for a difficult situation
castigate: Censure severely
               Inflict severe punishment on
inadvertently: Without knowledge or intention

Although the two cases are distinct, they have revived fears that online privacy is being trampled underfoot as internet behemoths race to grab as much data as possible. And they have provoked calls for tougher action by regulators and governments to prevent web firms from abusing the mountains of personal data they now hold. Danah Boyd, a social-networking expert, has even argued that Facebook, with its hordes of members around the world, is now so embedded in people’s lives that it should be regulated as a utility.

untility:  A company that performs a public service; subject to government regulation

The firms have fought back. Facebook claims that most of its users are comfortable with the changes it has introduced, including one that lets it share detailed customer data with some external sites. It has blamed the furore on media hysteria; only a few privacy activists have publicly committed “Facebook suicide” by closing their accounts (see article). As for Google, it has apologised for its “mistake” and says that leaders of its Street View project knew nothing about the software that allowed its roving vehicles to capture snippets of e-mails.

furore: An interest followed with exaggerated zeal
           A sudden outburst
roving: (of groups of people) tending to travel and change settlements frequently

Friends or foes?
At its most extreme, the attack on Facebook and Google makes little sense. Treating them as utilities seems excessive, for two reasons. They are not essential services that enjoy a local or national monopoly; people who feel their privacy is being violated are free to hop to other web services (remember AltaVista and MySpace?), though many sites deliberately make it hard for them to take their data with them. A second reason to tread carefully is that strict regulation could stifle the rapid innovation in business models that has thrived on the internet. Instead, officials should concentrate on enforcing existing privacy rules—something they seem reassuringly keen to do. Canada’s privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, has given warning that her organisation may take action against Facebook for violating a deal reached last year requiring the network to seek users’ permission before sharing their data.

deliberately: With intention; in an intentional manner
                  In a deliberate unhurried manner
tread: Put down the foot, place the foot
stifle: Smother or suppress
reassuring: Restoring confidence and relieving anxiety

However, even if, like this newspaper, you both distrust government intervention and believe the world has gained from the sharing of information on the web, there are plainly real grounds for concern. For instance, Google claims it discovered that its software had been accidentally recording private information for several years only after privacy officials in Germany demanded that it come clean about the data being collected. That is a stunning admission from a technology giant—and privacy watchdogs are right to investigate that.

Facebook’s problem is more fundamental. True, the social network has some of the most extensive privacy controls on the web, but these have now become so complex—and are tweaked so often—that even privacy experts find them bamboozling. The company also has a powerful incentive to push people into revealing more information. Facebook generates most of its revenue from targeted advertisements based on users’ demography(人口統計學) and interests, so the more data users share publicly the more money it can mint from ads. It may well be betting that users are now so hooked that they are unlikely to revolt against a gradual loosening of privacy safeguards.

generate: Bring into existence
               Give or supply
mint: Form by stamping, punching


The worst thing is Facebook’s underlying prejudice against privacy. Sign up and it assumes you want to share as much data as possible; if not, you have to change the settings, which can be a fiddly business. The presumption should be exactly the opposite: the default should be tight privacy controls, which users may then loosen if they choose. If Facebook fails to simplify and improve its privacy policy, it will justly risk the wrath of regulators—and many more Facebook suicides.

presumption: An assumption that is taken for granted
wrath:  Intense anger (usually on an epic scale

凝羽欲翔UID: 2733350

EDITORIAL
Jobs and the Class of 2010
Published: May 21, 2010

Commencement is supposed to be filled with hope, but for the class of 2010, these are grim times（困难的时候）. Over the past year, the unemployment rate for college graduates under age 25 has averaged 9.1 percent. For the roughly half of high school graduates under 25 and not in college, the average is 22.8 percent.

Worse, a deep labor recession, like this one, may be more than a temporary hardship. It could signal a long-term decline in living standards — downward（向下的） mobility（迁移率，机动性）.

Where you start out in your career has a big impact on where you end up. When jobs are scarce（缺乏的）, more college grads start out in lower-level jobs with lower starting salaries.

Academic research suggests that for many of these graduates, that correlates（相关的东西） to overall lower levels of career attainment（达成） and lower lifetime earnings.

Tough times for college grads mean even tougher times for high school graduates, because fewer jobs mean more competition from college-educated workers. In the past year, 59.5 percent of young high school grads on average had a job, compared with 70.2 percent in 2007.

The pat answer（妥协的回答） is that college students should consider graduate school as a way to delay a job search until things turn around, and that more high school students should go to college to improve their prospects（make their prospects more promising）.

For many undergraduates, especially those with large student debts, graduate school would be prohibitively expensive. And while more than half of this year’s high school grads are expected to be enrolled in college in the fall, most will have to work to help pay the bills. For them, college is not a retreat from a bad job market; a bad market is an obstacle to a college degree.

Washington has not been helping enough. The 2009 stimulus package — thanks to President Obama, Congressional Democrats and a few Republican senators — has supported some 2.5 million jobs, helping to avert a much deeper recession. The economy is still missing more than 10 million jobs, and unless more is done to spur employment, the impact on many new graduates and other workers will be harsh.

In his budget this year, Mr. Obama called for $266 billion in spending for jobs and stimulus. So far, Congress has passed only a $15 billion tax credit for hiring in 2010 and a few short-term extensions of unemployment benefits. On Thursday, Democratic Congressional leaders called for $80 billion to extend federal benefits and subsidies for the unemployed through 2010 and to provide more aid to states. More emergency spending is crucial to support consumer demand and, by extension, hiring. The Democratic proposal also calls for relatively modest sums for summer youth jobs, small-business lending and state infrastructure bonds.

The measures should be passed quickly. But recent debates suggests that the Republicans — in their role as nouveau deficit hawks — are likely to oppose more job-related spending unless it is paid for. The deficit needs to be addressed when the economy recovers. Right now, tax increases or spending cuts would only reduce economic activity, weakening the boost the measures are supposed to provide.

The White House and Democratic lawmakers need to make that case forcefully. Lawmakers owe it to their constituents (归因于)— and explaining the need for more job spending should not be that hard. Far too many Americans know how bad the situation is out there.

In the longer term, Congress will also need to do more to foster jobs and industries of the future, like green technology. Several taxes could be enacted to help finance longer-term efforts, including the bank tax proposed by President Obama. Congress and the administration should also consider a financial transactions tax, both to curb speculation and to raise revenue to rebuild the economy that was damaged, in large part, by the banks’ recklessness（不顾后果的，鲁莽的）.

Without a bigger vision, more money and political courage, the future for those just entering the job market and those already there looks bleak（前途暗淡的） for years to come.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

11-1

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, flank（位于~的侧面）ed 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 underscore（强调）s 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（正式的记录） 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（formalize standards） 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(向~致敬) 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（拖拉机-拖车）, 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. enact policy 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. be joined by被……赞同 Manufacturers want a single national standard set over the long term because that is easier to comply with（服从） 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（柴油） technology. “Diesel engines offer an unmatched combination of energy efficiency, work capability, reliability and now near-zero-emissions environmental performance,” he said.

azure9UID: 2789030

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Many Faiths, One Truth
By TENZIN GYATSO
Published: May 24, 2010

WHEN I was a boy in Tibet, I felt that my own Buddhist religion must be the best — and that other faiths were somehow inferior. Now I see how naïve I was, and how dangerous the extremes of religious intolerance can be today.
Related

Though intolerance may be as old as religion itself, we still see vigorous signs of its virulence. In Europe, there are intense debates about newcomers wearing veils or wanting to erect minarets and episodes of violence against Muslim immigrants. Radical atheists issue blanket condemnations of those who hold to religious beliefs. In the Middle East, the flames of war are fanned by hatred of those who adhere to a different faith.

Such tensions are likely to increase as the world becomes more interconnected and cultures, peoples and religions become ever more entwined. The pressure this creates tests more than our tolerance — it demands that we promote peaceful coexistence and understanding across boundaries.

Granted, every religion has a sense of exclusivity as part of its core identity. Even so, I believe there is genuine potential for mutual understanding. While preserving faith toward one’s own tradition, one can respect, admire and appreciate other traditions.

An early eye-opener for me was my meeting with the Trappist monk Thomas Merton in India shortly before his untimely death in 1968. Merton told me he could be perfectly faithful to Christianity, yet learn in depth from other religions like Buddhism. The same is true for me as an ardent Buddhist learning from the world’s other great religions.

A main point in my discussion with Merton was how central compassion was to the message of both Christianity and Buddhism. In my readings of the New Testament, I find myself inspired by Jesus’ acts of compassion. His miracle of the loaves and fishes, his healing and his teaching are all motivated by the desire to relieve suffering.

I’m a firm believer in the power of personal contact to bridge differences, so I’ve long been drawn to dialogues with people of other religious outlooks. The focus on compassion that Merton and I observed in our two religions strikes me as a strong unifying thread among all the major faiths. And these days we need to highlight what unifies us.

Take Judaism, for instance. I first visited a synagogue in Cochin, India, in 1965, and have met with many rabbis over the years. I remember vividly the rabbi in the Netherlands who told me about the Holocaust with such intensity that we were both in tears. And I’ve learned how the Talmud and the Bible repeat the theme of compassion, as in the passage in Leviticus that admonishes, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

In my many encounters with Hindu scholars in India, I’ve come to see the centrality of selfless compassion in Hinduism too — as expressed, for instance, in the Bhagavad Gita, which praises those who “delight in the welfare of all beings.” I’m moved by the ways this value has been expressed in the life of great beings like Mahatma Gandhi, or the lesser-known Baba Amte, who founded a leper colony not far from a Tibetan settlement in Maharashtra State in India. There he fed and sheltered lepers who were otherwise shunned. When I received my Nobel Peace Prize, I made a donation to his colony.

Compassion is equally important in Islam — and recognizing that has become crucial in the years since Sept. 11, especially in answering those who paint Islam as a militant faith. On the first anniversary of 9/11, I spoke at the National Cathedral in Washington, pleading that we not blindly follow the lead of some in the news media and let the violent acts of a few individuals define an entire religion.

Let me tell you about the Islam I know. Tibet has had an Islamic community for around 400 years, although my richest contacts with Islam have been in India, which has the world’s second-largest Muslim population. An imam in Ladakh once told me that a true Muslim should love and respect all of Allah’s creatures. And in my understanding, Islam enshrines compassion as a core spiritual principle, reflected in the very name of God, the “Compassionate and Merciful,” that appears at the beginning of virtually each chapter of the Koran.

Finding common ground among faiths can help us bridge needless divides at a time when unified action is more crucial than ever. As a species, we must embrace the oneness of humanity as we face global issues like pandemics, economic crises and ecological disaster. At that scale, our response must be as one.

Harmony among the major faiths has become an essential ingredient of peaceful coexistence in our world. From this perspective, mutual understanding among these traditions is not merely the business of religious believers — it matters for the welfare of humanity as a whole.

azure9UID: 2789030

Op-Ed Columnist
Two Theories of Change
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: May 24, 2010

These were philosophers who confronted a world of superstition and feudalism and sought to expose it to the clarifying light of reason. Inspired by the scientific revolution, they had great faith in the power of individual reason to detect error and logically arrive at universal truth.

Their great model was Descartes. He aimed to begin human understanding anew. He’d discard the accumulated prejudices of the past and build from the ground up, erecting one logical certainty upon another.

What Descartes was doing for knowledge, others would do for politics: sweep away the old precedents and write new constitutions based on reason. This was the aim of the French Revolution.

But there wasn’t just one Enlightenment, headquartered in France. There was another, headquartered in Scotland and Britain and led by David Hume, Adam Smith and Edmund Burke. As Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote in her 2004 book, “The Roads to Modernity,” if the members of the French Enlightenment focused on the power of reason, members of the British Enlightenment emphasized its limits.

They put more emphasis on our sentiments. People are born with natural desires to be admired and to be worthy of admiration. They are born with moral emotions, a sense of fair play and benevolence. They are also born with darker passions, like self-love and tribalism, which mar rationalist enterprises. We are emotional creatures first and foremost, and politics should not forget that.

These two views of human nature produced different attitudes toward political change, articulated most brilliantly by Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke. Their views are the subject of a superb dissertation by Yuval Levin at the University of Chicago called “The Great Law of Change.”

As Levin shows, Paine believed that societies exist in an “eternal now.” That something has existed for ages tells us nothing about its value. The past is dead and the living should use their powers of analysis to sweep away existing arrangements when necessary, and begin the world anew. He even suggested that laws should expire after 30 years so each new generation could begin again.

Paine saw the American and French Revolutions as models for his sort of radical change. In each country, he felt, the revolutionaries deduced certain universal truths about the rights of man and then designed a new society to fit them.

Burke, a participant in the British Enlightenment, had a different vision of change. He believed that each generation is a small part of a long chain of history. We serve as trustees for the wisdom of the ages and are obliged to pass it down, a little improved, to our descendents. That wisdom fills the gaps in our own reason, as age-old institutions implicitly contain more wisdom than any individual could have.

Burke was horrified at the thought that individuals would use abstract reason to sweep away arrangements that had stood the test of time. He believed in continual reform, but reform is not novelty. You don’t try to change the fundamental substance of an institution. You try to modify from within, keeping the good parts and adjusting the parts that aren’t working.

If you try to re-engineer society on the basis of abstract plans, Burke argued, you’ll end up causing all sorts of fresh difficulties, because the social organism is more complicated than you can possibly know. We could never get things right from scratch.

Burke also supported the American Revolution, but saw it in a different light than Paine. He believed the British Parliament had recklessly trampled upon the ancient liberties the colonists had come to enjoy. The Americans were seeking to preserve what they had.
We Americans have never figured out whether we are children of the French or the British Enlightenment. Was our founding a radical departure or an act of preservation? This was a bone of contention between Jefferson and Hamilton, and it’s a bone of contention today, both between parties and within each one.

Today, if you look around American politics you see self-described conservative radicals who seek to sweep away 100 years of history and return government to its preindustrial role. You see self-confident Democratic technocrats who have tremendous faith in the power of government officials to use reason to control and reorganize complex systems. You see polemicists of the left and right practicing a highly abstract and ideological Jacobin style of politics.

The children of the British Enlightenment are in retreat. Yet there is the stubborn fact of human nature. The Scots were right, and the French were wrong. And out of that truth grows a style of change, a style that emphasizes modesty, gradualism and balance.