【Hawk组】comment 贴

谦行天下UID: 2797557

【Hawk组】comment 的任务如下

由阅读组长（每一周换一次）每天找出2篇comment（前一天晚上要贴到网上），每个组员每周7篇comment以上（含7篇）

comment来源于各大报刊杂志，为组长感兴趣，或是对issue有利的内容
好处在于：
1.提升见解
2.学习语句语法
3.搜集例子
从7月11日（星期日）开始试行

谦行天下UID: 2797557

1-1

China and TaiwanKnow your customer
That China is trying to bribe Taiwan, not browbeat it, is good news. But Taiwanese caution is still warranted Jul 1st 2010

THE Economic Co-operation Framework Agreement, or ECFA, reached this week between Taiwan and China was hailed by both sides as one of the most important landmarks on the road to lasting peace since 1949. That was when the Communists routed the Nationalist Kuomintang, the KMT, leaving it with Taiwan as a last redoubt. The ECFA is indeed a welcome development, though it guarantees neither peace nor China’s ultimate goal, the “reunification” of Taiwan with the mainland. It should be taken for what it is: a trade deal that should help Taiwan both economically and politically.

Fear that it brings Chinese sovereignty closer has made the ECFA bitterly divisive in Taiwan itself. Its critics point out that China has never ruled out the use of force to bring about unification, nor stopped adding to its battery of coastal missiles menacing the island. They regard the ECFA as war by another means; a Trojan horse that Taiwan should have shunned.

These critics are right about China’s intentions—to win support in Taiwan. But there are still at least three good reasons why Taiwan (and the West) should welcome the deal.

First, it is, as befits a sop to public opinion, a good one for Taiwan’s export-oriented economy (see comment 1-2). It not only opens up the Chinese market further; it also reduces the risk that Taiwan, the world’s 17th-biggest exporter, will be left isolated, by the “noodle-bowl” of bilateral trade agreements, in which its regional competitors are entangling their economies.

Second, its impact on Taiwan’s domestic politics will be limited. Voters there understand China’s intentions very well and are unlikely to be swayed by a few tariff cuts. A tiny minority favours imminent unification. A slightly larger minority would like the island to declare formal independence soon. But, since a declaration of independence might provoke a Chinese invasion, the vast majority would like to prolong Taiwan’s current, peculiar status of de facto independence. Politics in Taiwan looks like a battle between pro-independence and pro-unification camps. In fact it is about how best to preserve the status quo.

Since the alternative might mean a war, possibly even with America, Chinese moderates also have an interest in that status quo. That is the third advantage of the ECFA. In China it can be used to show hardliners that, slowly, progress is being made towards unification. China’s bellicose approach to Taiwan as it embraced democracy in the 1990s achieved the opposite: its sabre-rattling boosted support for Taiwan’s pro-independence opposition.

The wonders of democracy

Those who accept bribes should do so warily. Taiwan needs to be careful that the secretive way ECFA has been negotiated does not become a model for the future. The Beijing regime has always preferred to clinch deals behind closed doors. It remains petrified of democracy in Taiwan, and in particular of anything, such as a referendum on ECFA, that might smack of a plebiscite on Taiwan’s future. And it is still not clear whether China will now tolerate its other trading partners signing trade agreements with Taiwan. This could provide China with the chance for a new form of blackmail over Taiwan.

Against that, such skulduggery would lose China the goodwill it has bought this week. China has always played a huge role in Taiwan’s politics. Better that it should play it the ECFA way, with trade and other benefits meant to entice and reward, and gain popularity, than the old one, with belligerent threats and diplomatic pressure designed to frighten and coerce.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

1-2

China and TaiwanThe ties that bind?
Worries in Taiwan that economic interdependence will succeed for China where sabre-rattling failed Jul 1st 2010 | Taipei

CHANTING opposition to unification with China, tens of thousands of protesters massed on June 26th outside the office in Taipei of Taiwan’s president, Ma Ying-jeou of the Nationalist party, or Kuomintang (KMT). Their target was the Economic Co-operation Framework Agreement (ECFA), one of the most significant agreements between China and Taiwan since 1949, when the Communists routed the KMT in the civil war. One placard, with a doctored image of Mr Ma kissing the cheek of China’s president, Hu Jintao, scolded: “Don’t embrace the enemy.”

The main opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) said 100,000 demonstrators took part; the police estimated just 32,000. The DPP denounces the agreement as a threat to jobs on Taiwan. Worse, the independence-leaning party complains, it could be a step on the way to Taiwan’s eventual incorporation into China.

Both warnings are overblown. But Taiwan is entering a lengthy season of frantic politics in which a nuanced debate about trade will be an early casualty. In November mayoral elections will be held in Taiwan’s five key municipalities. The DPP is hoping for a boost as it prepares for parliamentary and presidential polls in 2012.

Taiwan’s government says the ECFA, signed on June 29th in Chongqing, the KMT’s old civil-war headquarters, will prevent Taiwan’s economic marginalisation. Because of Chinese pressure, Taiwan has been excluded from a recent spate of free-trade agreements (FTAs). This has worried the government, especially since an FTA between China and the ten-member Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) came into effect this year.

China’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao, has promised that Taiwan, which enjoys a big trade surplus with China, will “benefit more” from the ECFA than the mainland. Indeed, over the next two years China will lower tariffs for 539 categories of imports, worth $13.8 billion a year, and open 11 service categories, including banking. To appease an important lobby, the deal includes 18 farming and fishery categories, with no reciprocal liberalisation in Taiwan. Overall, Taiwan will lift tariffs for only 267 categories of imports from China, worth $2.9 billion.

Mr Ma hopes the pact will demonstrate the benefits of his pragmatism in dealings with China. Unlike his predecessor, the DPP’s Chen Shui-bian (now in jail for corruption), he has not trumpeted Taiwan’s separate identity. Rather, the KMT has reached agreements allowing scheduled flights across the strait and Chinese tourists to visit Taiwan.

The DPP portrays the pact as a Trojan horse. Its leader, Tsai Ing-wen, has rejected the government’s assertion that there will be a net employment gain of 260,000. In a rare televised debate with Mr Ma, she said 5m jobs in Taiwan would be adversely “affected” by the pact. A DPP spokeswoman, Hsieh Huai-hui, says her party fears the ECFA will “strengthen interdependence”. China, she says, will use it as a stepping stone toward political integration.

The DPP gained some ammunition in early June when a Chinese spokesman gave a seemingly negative response to Mr Ma’s oft-stated hope that the ECFA might encourage other countries to sign FTAs with Taiwan. They have hitherto held back so as not to upset China. The Chinese spokesman’s remarks, though not explicitly ruling out such FTAs, drew a rare rebuke from Mr Ma’s government.

A government committee’s rejection of proposals for a referendum on the ECFA has also galvanised opposition. China recoils at any hint of a plebiscite in Taiwan, fearing one might one day be used to justify a formal declaration of independence or to block reunification. Mr Ma has denied opposing an ECFA referendum, but the DPP suggests the committee’s decision reflected Chinese pressure on the KMT.

The DPP can still get thousands of people onto the streets, but it has struggled to expand its support beyond 30-40% of the electorate. It also lacks a convincing challenger to Mr Ma in the 2012 elections. Many analysts believe that Su Tseng-chang, its candidate in the Taipei mayoral election later this year, would do better than Ms Tsai. Mr Su is unlikely to win in Taipei, a KMT stronghold. But an honourable defeat might boost his presidential hopes.

Devising a strategy for dealing with China will be hard for the DPP. Harping on about the ECFA may not go down well with voters if the risks the DPP stresses do not materialise. The government predicts GDP will grow by more than 6% this year after contracting by nearly 2% in 2009. Merchandise exports to China, which account for almost 30% of Taiwan’s total, have been helping to power this recovery.

China’s backing for Mr Ma is clear. It studiously avoided any criticism of Taiwan itself when America approved $6.4 billion-worth of arms sales to the island in January. But for all its efforts to show goodwill, it has made no attempt to scale down its military deployments on the coast facing the island, where its missile build-up continues. A defence-ministry official in Taipei points to a map of the island and sweeps his arm around to its east to show where, in the past year or so, Chinese naval forces have begun to extend their war-gaming reach. China is still, he says, a “clear and present danger”. Greed for China’s market is good for the KMT’s electoral prospects; but fear of its long-term intentions can still boost the DPP.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

1-1 学习 China and Taiwan Know your customer That China is trying to bribe Taiwan, not browbeat【恫吓】 it, is good news. But Taiwanese caution is still warranted【保证的】 Jul 1st 2010 THE Economic Co-operation Framework Agreement, or ECFA, reached this week between Taiwan and China was hailed【欢迎】 by both sides as one of the most important landmarks on the road to lasting peace since 1949. That was when the Communists routed the Nationalist Kuomintang, the KMT【国民党】, leaving it with Taiwan as a last redoubt【防御性障碍物】. The ECFA is indeed a welcome development, though it guarantees neither peace nor China’s ultimate goal, the “reunification” of Taiwan with the mainland. It should be taken for what it is: a trade deal that should help Taiwan both economically and politically. redoubt【防御性障碍物】 Fear that it brings Chinese sovereignty closer has made the ECFA bitterly divisive in Taiwan itself. Its critics point out that China has never ruled out【取消】 the use of force to bring about unification, nor stopped adding to its battery of【一套】 coastal missiles menacing【威胁】 the island. They regard the ECFA as war by another means; a Trojan horse that Taiwan should have shunned【躲避】. a Trojan horse ：a subversive group that supports the enemy and engages in espionage or sabotage; an enemy in your midst These critics are right about China’s intentions—to win support in Taiwan. But there are still at least three good reasons why Taiwan (and the West) should welcome the deal. First, it is, as befits a sop to public opinion, a good one for Taiwan’s export-oriented economy (see comment 1-2). It not only opens up the Chinese market further; it also reduces the risk that Taiwan, the world’s 17th-biggest exporter, will be left isolated, by the “noodle-bowl” of bilateral trade agreements, in which its regional competitors are entangling their economies. noodle-bowl Second, its impact on Taiwan’s domestic politics will be limited. Voters there understand China’s intentions very well and are unlikely to be swayed【影响】 by a few tariff cuts【降低关税】. A tiny minority favours imminent【迫近的】 unification. A slightly larger minority would like the island to declare formal independence soon. But, since a declaration of independence might provoke a Chinese invasion, the vast majority would like to prolong Taiwan’s current, peculiar【特殊的】 status of de facto independence. Politics in Taiwan looks like a battle between pro-independence and pro-unification camps. In fact it is about how best to preserve the status quo. A tiny minority A slightly larger minority de facto ：实际上的 Since the alternative might mean a war, possibly even with America, Chinese moderates【稳健派】 also have an interest in that status quo【现状】. That is the third advantage of the ECFA. In China it can be used to show hardliners【强硬路线牌】 that, slowly, progress is being made towards unification. China’s bellicose approach to Taiwan as it embraced democracy in the 1990s achieved the opposite: its sabre-rattling boosted support for Taiwan’s pro-independence opposition. The wonders of democracy Those who accept bribes should do so warily【警惕的】. Taiwan needs to be careful that the secretive way ECFA has been negotiated does not become a model for the future. The Beijing regime has always preferred to clinch deals【做出最后的一个定论】 behind closed doors. It remains petrified of democracy in Taiwan, and in particular of anything, such as a referendum【公民投票权】 on ECFA, that might smack of【带有什么的味道】 a plebiscite【公民投票】 on Taiwan’s future. And it is still not clear whether China will now tolerate its other trading partners signing trade agreements with Taiwan. This could provide China with the chance for a new form of blackmail【敲诈】 over Taiwan. Against that, such skulduggery【诡计】 would lose China the goodwill it has bought this week. China has always played a huge role in Taiwan’s politics. Better that it should play it the ECFA way, with trade and other benefits meant to entice and reward, and gain popularity, than the old one, with belligerent threats and diplomatic pressure designed to frighten and coerce.

comment： This article uses colorful expression and express tiny differences clearly.

agnes2010UID: 2794922

1-1
by Agnes

China and Taiwan Know your customer
That China is trying to bribe Taiwan, not browbeat it, is good news. But Taiwanese caution is still warranted Jul 1st 2010
Browbeat-intimidate-bully

THE Economic Co-operation Framework Agreement, or ECFA, reached this week between Taiwan and China was hailed by both sides as one of the most important landmarks on the road to lasting peace 【被双方赞颂为通向持久和平导读的重要里程碑】since 1949. That was when the Communists routed the Nationalist Kuomintang, the KMT, leaving it with Taiwan as a last redoubt【最后阵地
庇护所】. The ECFA is indeed a welcome development, though it guarantees neither peace nor China’s ultimate goal, the “reunification” of Taiwan with the mainland. It should be taken for what it is:【应被解读为：】 a trade deal that should help Taiwan both economically and politically.
THE Economic Co-operation Framework Agreement 两岸经济架构合作协议
Rout-defeat-conquer

Fear that it brings Chinese sovereignty closer has made the ECFA bitterly divisive【造成……有激烈的分歧】 in Taiwan itself. Its critics point out that China has never ruled out the use of force to bring about unification, nor stopped adding to its battery of coastal missiles menacing the island. They regard the ECFA as war by another means; a Trojan horse that Taiwan should have shunned.
Menace-threaten-intimidate-warn 对……造成威胁
Shun-evade-avoid 回避

These critics are right about China’s intentions—to win support in Taiwan. But there are still at least three good reasons why Taiwan (and the West) should welcome the deal.

First, it is, as befits a sop to public opinion, a good one for Taiwan’s export-oriented economy【外向型经济】 (see comment 1-2). It not only opens up the Chinese market further; it also reduces the risk that Taiwan, the world’s 17th-biggest exporter, will be left isolated, by the “noodle-bowl” of bilateral trade agreements, in which its regional competitors are entangling their economies.
Sop-a concession given to mollify or placate
Mollify-pacify-placate 使平静
抚慰
Befit v.适合于

Second, its impact on Taiwan’s domestic politics will be limited. Voters there understand China’s intentions very well and are unlikely to be swayed by a few tariff cuts. A tiny minority favours imminent unification. A slightly larger minority would like the island to declare formal independence soon. But, since a declaration of independence might provoke a Chinese invasion, the vast majority would like to prolong Taiwan’s current, peculiar status of de facto independence. Politics in Taiwan looks like a battle between pro-independence and pro-unification camps. In fact it is about how best to preserve the status quo.
De facto –actual-factual 事实上存在的

Since the alternative might mean a war, possibly even with America, Chinese moderates also have an interest in that status quo. That is the third advantage of the ECFA. In China it can be used to show hardliners that, slowly, progress is being made towards unification.【大一统正在进行】 China’s bellicose approach to Taiwan as it embraced democracy in the 1990s achieved the opposite【起到了反面作用】: its sabre-rattling boosted support for Taiwan’s pro-independence opposition.
Status quo- conjuncture 现状
Bellicose-contentious-combative 好战的
Sabre-rattling 武力恫吓-seeking to intimidate by an aggressive display of military power

The wonders of democracy

Those who accept bribes should do so warily. Taiwan needs to be careful that the secretive way ECFA has been negotiated does not become a model for the future. The Beijing regime has always preferred to clinch deals【解决交易】 behind closed doors.【大陆政权一向偏好关起门来交易】It remains petrified of democracy in Taiwan, and in particular of anything, such as a referendum on ECFA, that might smack of a plebiscite on Taiwan’s future. And it is still not clear whether China will now tolerate its other trading partners signing trade agreements with Taiwan. This could provide China with the chance for a new form of blackmail over Taiwan.
Warily-in a wary manner 谨慎小心的


Against that, such skulduggery would lose China the goodwill【赔掉……的美好意愿】 it has bought this week. China has always played a huge role in Taiwan’s politics. Better that it should play it the ECFA way, with trade and other benefits meant to entice and reward, and gain popularity, than the old one, with belligerent threats and diplomatic pressure designed to frighten and coerce.
Skulduggery欺诈
Entice-lure-attract引诱
Belligerent 好战的
Coerce-compel-force 压制

谦行天下UID: 2797557

1-2 学习

China and Taiwan
The ties that bind?
Worries in Taiwan that economic interdependence will succeed for China where sabre-rattling failed
Jul 1st 2010 | Taipei
interdependence：相互依赖

CHANTING【咒念】 opposition to unification with China【应理解为：反对大统一】, tens of thousands of protesters massed on June 26th outside the office in Taipei of Taiwan’s president, Ma Ying-jeou of the Nationalist party【国民党】, or Kuomintang (KMT). Their target was the Economic Co-operation Framework Agreement (ECFA), one of the most significant agreements between China and Taiwan since 1949, when the Communists routed the KMT in the civil war. One placard【海报】, with a doctored image of Mr Ma kissing the cheek of China’s president, Hu Jintao, scolded【责骂】: “Don’t embrace the enemy.”

The main opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)【民进党】 said 100,000 demonstrators took part; the police estimated just 32,000. The DPP denounces the agreement as a threat to jobs on Taiwan. Worse, the independence-leaning party complains, it could be a step on the way to Taiwan’s eventual incorporation into China.

Both warnings are overblown【过分的】. But Taiwan is entering a lengthy season of frantic politics in which a nuanced debate about trade will be an early casualty. In November mayoral【市长的】 elections will be held in Taiwan’s five key municipalities【自治市】. The DPP is hoping for a boost as it prepares for parliamentary and presidential polls in 2012.

Taiwan’s government says the ECFA, signed on June 29th in Chongqing, the KMT’s old civil-war headquarters, will prevent Taiwan’s economic marginalisation【边缘化】. Because of Chinese pressure, Taiwan has been excluded from【拒绝进入】 a recent spate【洪水】 of free-trade agreements (FTAs). This has worried the government, especially since an FTA between China and the ten-member Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) came into effect this year.

China’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao, has promised that Taiwan, which enjoys a big trade surplus with China, will “benefit more” from the ECFA than the mainland. Indeed, over the next two years China will lower tariffs for 539 categories of imports, worth $13.8 billion a year, and open 11 service categories, including banking. To appease an important lobby, the deal includes 18 farming and fishery categories, with no reciprocal liberalisation【自由化，开放】 in Taiwan. Overall, Taiwan will lift tariffs for only 267 categories of imports from China, worth $2.9 billion.

Mr Ma hopes the pact will demonstrate the benefits of his pragmatism【实用主义】 in dealings with China. Unlike his predecessor, the DPP’s Chen Shui-bian (now in jail for corruption), he has not trumpeted【鼓吹】 Taiwan’s separate identity. Rather, the KMT has reached agreements allowing scheduled flights across the strait and Chinese tourists to visit Taiwan.

The DPP portrays the pact as a Trojan horse. Its leader, Tsai Ing-wen, has rejected the government’s assertion that there will be a net employment gain of 260,000. In a rare televised debate with Mr Ma, she said 5m jobs in Taiwan would be adversely “affected” by the pact. A DPP spokeswoman, Hsieh Huai-hui, says her party fears the ECFA will “strengthen interdependence”. China, she says, will use it as a stepping stone toward political integration.

The DPP gained some ammunition【弹药】 in early June when a Chinese spokesman gave a seemingly negative response to Mr Ma’s oft-stated【再三声明】 hope that the ECFA might encourage other countries to sign FTAs with Taiwan. They have hitherto【迄今】 held back so as not to upset China. The Chinese spokesman’s remarks, though not explicitly ruling out such FTAs, drew a rare rebuke from【受到罕有的谴责】 Mr Ma’s government.

A government committee’s rejection of proposals for a referendum on the ECFA has also galvanised【给通电，这是GRE单词，今儿见到过】 opposition. China recoils【畏缩】 at any hint of a plebiscite in Taiwan, fearing one might one day be used to justify a formal declaration of independence or to block reunification. Mr Ma has denied opposing an ECFA referendum, but the DPP suggests the committee’s decision reflected Chinese pressure on the KMT.

The DPP can still get thousands of people onto the streets, but it has struggled to expand its support beyond 30-40% of the electorate. It also lacks a convincing challenger to Mr Ma in the 2012 elections. Many analysts believe that Su Tseng-chang, its candidate in the Taipei mayoral election later this year, would do better than Ms Tsai. Mr Su is unlikely to win in Taipei, a KMT stronghold. But an honourable defeat might boost his presidential hopes.

Devising a strategy for dealing with China will be hard for the DPP. Harping on【反复诉说】 about the ECFA may not go down well with voters if the risks the DPP stresses do not materialise【物质化】. The government predicts GDP will grow by more than 6% this year after contracting by nearly 2% in 2009. Merchandise exports to China, which account for almost 30% of Taiwan’s total, have been helping to power this recovery.

China’s backing for Mr Ma is clear. It studiously【故意的】 avoided any criticism of Taiwan itself when America approved $6.4 billion-worth of arms sales to the island in January. But for all its efforts to show goodwill, it has made no attempt to scale down its military deployments【部署】 on the coast facing the island, where its missile build-up continues. A defence-ministry official in Taipei points to a map of the island and sweeps his arm around to its east to show where, in the past year or so, Chinese naval forces have begun to extend their war-gaming reach. China is still, he says, a “clear and present danger”. Greed for China’s market is good for the KMT’s electoral prospects; but fear of its long-term intentions can still boost the DPP.【总结句】

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

1-1学习

China and Taiwan Know your customer
That China is trying to bribe Taiwan, not browbeat it, is good news. But Taiwanese caution is still warranted Jul 1st 2010

THE Economic Co-operation Framework Agreement, or ECFA, reached this week between Taiwan and China was hailed by[为…喝彩] both sides as one of the most important landmarks on the road to lasting peace since 1949. That was when the Communists routed(sended) the Nationalist Kuomintang, the KMT, leaving it with Taiwan as a last redoubt[防守阵地]. The ECFA is indeed a welcome development, though it guarantees neither peace nor China’s ultimate goal, the “reunification” of Taiwan with the mainland. It should be taken for what it is: a trade deal that should help Taiwan both economically and politically.

Fear that it brings Chinese sovereignty closer has made the ECFA bitterly divisive[痛苦的分离] in Taiwan itself. Its critics point out that China has never ruled out[把…排除在外] the use of force to bring about unification, nor stopped adding to its battery[排炮，炮组] of coastal missiles menacing the island. They regard the ECFA as war by another means; a Trojan horse[特洛伊木马] that Taiwan should have shunned.

These critics are right about China’s intentions—to win support in Taiwan. But there are still at least three good reasons why Taiwan (and the West) should welcome the deal.

First, it is, as befits a sop to public opinion, a good one for Taiwan’s export-oriented economy[出口型经济] (see comment 1-2). It not only opens up the Chinese market further; it also reduces the risk that Taiwan, the world’s 17th-biggest exporter, will be left isolated[被孤立起来], by the “noodle-bowl” of bilateral trade agreements, in which its regional competitors are entangling their economies.

Second, its impact on Taiwan’s domestic politics will be limited. Voters there understand China’s intentions very well and are unlikely to be swayed【摇摆】 by a few tariff cuts[税率下降]. A tiny minority favours imminent unification. A slightly larger minority would like the island to declare formal independence soon. But, since a declaration of independence might provoke a Chinese invasion, the vast majority would like to prolong Taiwan’s current（大多数意见是维持现状）, peculiar status of de facto independence【事实上的独立】. Politics in Taiwan looks like a battle between pro-independence and pro-unification camps[蓝营绿营？]. In fact it is about how best to preserve the status quo【现状】.
sway-swing-affect
status quo-currents:in the former or same state

Since the alternative might mean a war, possibly even with America, Chinese moderates[温和派] also have an interest in that status quo. That is the third advantage of the ECFA. In China it can be used to show hardliners that, slowly, progress is being made towards unification. China’s bellicose approach to Taiwan as it embraced democracy in the 1990s achieved the opposite: its sabre-rattling【炫耀武力】 boosted support for Taiwan’s pro-independence opposition【阻力】.

The wonders of democracy

Those who accept bribes【贿赂】 should do so warily【小心翼翼地】. Taiwan needs to be careful that the secretive way ECFA has been negotiated does not become a model for the future. The Beijing regime【北京政府】 has always preferred to clinch deals【达成交易】 behind closed doors. It remains petrified【呆板的】 of democracy in Taiwan, and in particular of anything, such as a referendum on ECFA, that might smack of a plebiscite【全民公决的暗示】 on Taiwan’s future. And it is still not clear whether China will now tolerate its other trading partners signing trade agreements with Taiwan. This could provide China with the chance for a new form of blackmail over Taiwan.

Against that, such skulduggery【作假】 would lose China the goodwill it has bought this week. China has always played a huge role in Taiwan’s politics. Better that it should play it the ECFA way, with trade and other benefits meant to entice and reward, and gain popularity, than the old one, with belligerent threats and diplomatic pressure designed to frighten and coerce[用武力威胁和外交压力来恐吓和胁迫].
entice-lure-tempt

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

1-2学习

China and Taiwan The ties that bind?
Worries in Taiwan that economic interdependence will succeed for China where sabre-rattling failed Jul 1st 2010 | Taipei

CHANTING【呼喊大声叫】 opposition to unification with China, tens of thousands of protesters massed【上万的抗议者聚集】 on June 26th outside the office in Taipei of Taiwan’s president, Ma Ying-jeou of the Nationalist party【国民党】, or Kuomintang (KMT). Their target was the Economic Co-operation Framework Agreement (ECFA), one of the most significant agreements between China and Taiwan since 1949, when the Communists routed the KMT in the civil war【内战】. One placard【标语牌】, with a doctored image【P过的画】 of Mr Ma kissing the cheek of China’s president, Hu Jintao, scolded【讽刺】: “Don’t embrace the enemy.”
scold-upbraid-berate-rail-revile-vituperate

The main opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)【民进党】 said 100,000 demonstrators took part【参加】; the police estimated just 32,000. The DPP denounces the agreement as a threat to jobs on Taiwan. Worse, the independence-leaning party complains, it could be a step on the way to Taiwan’s eventual incorporation【合并】 into China.

Both warnings are overblown【夸大其词】. But Taiwan is entering a lengthy season of frantic politics in which a nuanced【细小的】 debate about trade will be an early casualty. In November mayoral elections will be held in Taiwan’s five key municipalities. The DPP is hoping for a boost as it prepares for parliamentary and presidential polls in 2012.

Taiwan’s government says the ECFA, signed on June 29th in Chongqing, the KMT’s old civil-war headquarters, will prevent Taiwan’s economic marginalisation【边缘化】. Because of Chinese pressure, Taiwan has been excluded from a recent spate of free-trade agreements (FTAs). This has worried the government, especially since an FTA between China and the ten-member Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) came into effect this year.

China’s prime minister【总理】, Wen Jiabao, has promised that Taiwan, which enjoys a big trade surplus【盈余，即贸易顺差吧】 with China, will “benefit more” from the ECFA than the mainland. Indeed, over the next two years China will lower tariffs for 539 categories of imports【降低539类产品的进口关税】, worth $13.8 billion a year, and open 11 service categories, including banking. To appease an important lobby, the deal includes 18 farming and fishery categories, with no reciprocal liberalisation in Taiwan. Overall, Taiwan will lift tariffs for only 267 categories of imports from China, worth $2.9 billion.

Mr Ma hopes the pact will demonstrate the benefits of his pragmatism【实用主义】 in dealings with China. Unlike his predecessor, the DPP’s Chen Shui-bian (now in jail for corruption【贪污】), he has not trumpeted【大声宣告】 Taiwan’s separate identity. Rather, the KMT has reached agreements allowing scheduled flights across the strait and Chinese tourists to visit Taiwan.

The DPP portrays【描绘】 the pact as a Trojan horse. Its leader, Tsai Ing-wen【蔡英文，没听过啊】, has rejected the government’s assertion that there will be a net employment gain of 260,000. In a rare televised debate with Mr Ma, she said 5m jobs in Taiwan would be adversely “affected” by the pact. A DPP spokeswoman, Hsieh Huai-hui, says her party fears the ECFA will “strengthen interdependence”. China, she says, will use it as a stepping stone toward political integration【统一】.

The DPP gained some ammunition in early June when a Chinese spokesman gave a seemingly negative response to Mr Ma’s oft-stated【再三表示】 hope that the ECFA might encourage other countries to sign FTAs with Taiwan. They have hitherto【到现在】 held back so as not to upset China. The Chinese spokesman’s remarks, though not explicitly ruling out such FTAs, drew a rare rebuke【指责】 from Mr Ma’s government.

A government committee’s rejection of proposals for a referendum on the ECFA has also galvanised【笼络】 opposition. China recoils at any hint of a plebiscite in Taiwan, fearing one might one day be used to justify a formal declaration of independence or to block reunification. Mr Ma has denied opposing an ECFA referendum, but the DPP suggests the committee’s decision reflected Chinese pressure on the KMT.

The DPP can still get thousands of people onto the streets, but it has struggled to expand its support beyond 30-40% of the electorate. It also lacks a convincing challenger to Mr Ma in the 2012 elections. Many analysts believe that Su Tseng-chang, its candidate in the Taipei mayoral election later this year, would do better than Ms Tsai. Mr Su is unlikely to win in Taipei, a KMT stronghold【根据地】. But an honourable defeat might boost his presidential hopes.

Devising【想出】 a strategy for dealing with China will be hard for the DPP. Harping【唠叨】 on about the ECFA may not go down well with voters if the risks the DPP stresses do not materialise. The government predicts GDP will grow by more than 6% this year after contracting by nearly 2% in 2009. Merchandise exports【商品出口】 to China, which account for almost 30% of Taiwan’s total, have been helping to power this recovery.

China’s backing for【支持】 Mr Ma is clear. It studiously avoided any criticism of Taiwan itself when America approved $6.4 billion-worth of arms sales to the island in January. But for all its efforts to show goodwill, it has made no attempt to scale down its military deployments on the coast facing the island, where its missile build-up continues. A defence-ministry official in Taipei points to a map of the island and sweeps his arm around to its east to show where, in the past year or so, Chinese naval forces have begun to extend their war-gaming reach. China is still, he says, a “clear and present danger”. Greed【贪婪】 for China’s market is good for the KMT’s electoral prospects; but fear of its long-term intentions can still boost the DPP.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

2-1【注：7月12日作业】

July 10, 2010Teacher Evaluation, School Closure Resolutions Pass


The American Federation of Teachers' delegates just passed two important resolutions, on teacher evaluation and school closures, so let's take each of them in turn.

Resolution five, you may recall, codifies the AFT's evaluation framework and affirms that test scores, used appropriately and as one of several measures, can be considered in a teacher's evaluation.

It was expected to generate quite a debate and possibly even amendment attempts, but in the end, it passed fairly swiftly. A whole slew of candidates, including the presidents of major affiliates, spoke in favor of the resolution: Mary Cathryn Ricker of St. Paul, Minn.; Keith Johnson of Detroit; Brenda Smith from Douglas County, Colo.; Fran Lawrence of Toledo, Ohio; and Tom Dooher of Minnesota.

Those supporting the resolution said that it would create avenues to define the profession, while others invoked arguments of the if-you're-not-at-the-table-you're-on-the-menu variety:

Colleen Callahan, a member of the Rhode Island state affiliate, had this to say: "There are too many people who would like us to be silent on this issue. ... Teachers want us to take the lead and support them on their professional growth and development."

Lee Rutledge, from Baltimore, spoke directly to the student-achievement question, noting that the resolution requires districts to employ several methods for gauging the impact of teaching on learning. "If we leave [evaluation] to the states and districts, they will do it on the cheap. They will do it based on one test score," he said.

Still, two delegates out of the Chicago Teachers Union lobbied the body not to pass it. "The reason you're hearing so much from us is this: Arne Duncan came from our city. We know what the nation has in store for it," said Carol Caref of the CTU. "In Chicago, school closings and turnarounds have been going on for years, and the reason this [newly elected] Chicago delegation is here is because finally people in our union started fighting against them. This resolution does not take a strong stand against the use of standardized tests for evaluating teachers, and it needs to."

Right after that passed, the body considered, and passed, a resolution "opposing the unjustified closure of neighborhood schools." This one directs the AFT to oppose school closures based on "invalid measures that disregard the impact of neighborhood schools in the life of a community and do not offer solutions to improve teaching practices and supports for students," among other things.

I'll be eager to follow the results of that resolution in time, especially as the rubber hits the road on the School Improvement Grants. But in any case, the most interesting part of the debate was the addition of a significant amendment that contains some pretty harsh words about standardized testing. The amendment says that the union will now "expose the for-profit motives of high-stakes testing companies and end the improper use of test results which diminishes real learning and is used to punish students, teachers, families, schools, and districts, rather than build better schools."

Sounds like something the NEA, always more of an opponent of testing than the AFT, would have passed. And take note, it was supported by Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis, among other parties.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

2-2【7月12日作业】
July 06, 2010Ravitch Speaks to NEA Choir

Education historian and advocate Diane Ravitch, the author of the bestseller The Life and Death of the Great American School System, came to the RA today to collect her "Friend of the NEA" award. She got a standing ovation after her speech panning the No Child Left Behind Act, the Race to the Top, charter schools, the "privatization" of public schools, merit pay, and efforts to shift away from seniority and tenure, among many other things.

Suffice it to say that with an audience like the RA, which has big problems with all those things, her speech was akin to pouring gasoline on a fire. At the end, in fact, Ravitch stripped off her jacket and put on a T-shirt that read, "Public Schools: It's a Right, Not a Race," to great acclaim and applause.

The video of Ravitch's speech will probably go viral in less than five minutes so I'm not going to bother writing up her specific remarks. Overall, Ravitch's appearance at the RA says far more about her than it does about the the union. Her change of heart has been extensively documented by Education Week and others, and this award is more or less the capstone of that transition.

If this appearance is any indication, Ravitch now views herself as the defender of public education against forces that are bent on destroying it. On her Twitter page, she recently drew an allusion to the French Revolution, comparing her public protests to being on "the barricades." Today at the RA, she called her book tour a "whistlestop campaign."

It's worth pointing out that while Diane's book has received generally very positive reviews, others contend that Ravitch is selective in the research she cites to support her views.

In any case, NEA must be thrilled to have an influential public figure like Ravitch now aligned with its agenda. Whether the union really needs the help is an open question. It still enjoys support on Capitol Hill, and there are a bevy of lawmakers who are pushing back on things like Race to the Top, the School Improvement Grants, and No Child Left Behind.

Also, you wouldn't know it from this speech or the excitement it generated, but Ravitch and the NEA aren't on the same page about everything. Throughout her career, the education historian has taken a consistent tack on curriculum, arguing that it should be deep and rich and highly specific. But the NEA has never been as much of a leader on curricular issues as its sister union, the American Federation of Teachers. The NEA is, in fact, one of the leading proponents of the movement for "21st-century skills," a movement Ravitch despises and has claimed is nothing but an William Heard Kilpatrick-inspired brand of progressivism in sheep's clothes.

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 1:19 PM

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

1-1
China and Taiwan Know your customer
That China is trying to bribe Taiwan, not browbeat it, is good news. But Taiwanese caution is still warranted Jul 1st 2010

THE Economic Co-operation Framework Agreement, or ECFA, reached this week between Taiwan and China was hailed by both sides as one of the most important landmarks on the road【在……路上的里程碑】 to lasting peace since 1949. That was when the Communists routed the Nationalist Kuomintang, the KMT, leaving it with Taiwan as a last redoubt【最后阵地】. The ECFA is indeed a welcome development, though it guarantees neither peace nor China’s ultimate goal, the “reunification” of Taiwan with the mainland. It should be taken for what it is: a trade deal that should help Taiwan both economically and politically.

Fear that【句型】由于担心…… it brings Chinese sovereignty主权、独立国 closer has made the ECFA bitterly divisive in Taiwan itself. Its critics point out that China has never ruled out【排除】 the use of force to bring about unification, nor stopped adding to its battery of coastal missiles menacing the island. 【中国不但没有排除用武力解决统一问题的可能性，并且不停的在海岸线上部署着导弹。】They regard the ECFA as war by another means; a Trojan horse特洛伊木马 that Taiwan should have shunned避开、规避.

These critics are right about China’s intentions—to win support in Taiwan. But there are still at least three good reasons why Taiwan (and the West) should welcome the deal.

First, it is, as befits a sop to public opinion, a good one for Taiwan’s export-oriented economy外向型经济 (see comment 1-2). It not only opens up the Chinese market further; it also reduces the risk that Taiwan, the world’s 17th-biggest exporter, will be left isolated, by the “noodle-bowl” of bilateral【？】 trade agreements, in which its regional competitors are entangling使……纠缠 their economies.

Second, its impact on Taiwan’s domestic politics will be limited.这种总结句很好，我很不会写 Voters there understand China’s intentions very well and are unlikely to be swayed by a few tariff cuts减免关税. A tiny minority favors支持 imminent unification. A slightly larger minority would like the island to declare formal independence soon. But, since a declaration of independence might provoke激起 a Chinese invasion, the vast majority would like to prolong延长 Taiwan’s current, peculiar status情形 of de facto事实上的 independence. Politics in Taiwan looks like a battle between pro-independence and pro-unification camps. In fact it is about how best to preserve the status quo现状.

Since the alternative might mean a war, possibly even with America, Chinese moderates also have an interest in that status quo. That is the third advantage of the ECFA. 【第三个原因可以这样介绍】In China it can be used to show hardliners that, slowly, progress is being made towards unification. China’s bellicose approach to Taiwan as it embraced democracy in the 1990s achieved the opposite: its sabre-rattling boosted推动了 support for Taiwan’s pro-independence倾向支持独立的 opposition.

The wonders of democracy

Those who accept bribes should do so warily留心的，谨慎的. Taiwan needs to be careful that the secretive way ECFA has been negotiated does not become a model for the future. The Beijing regime政体、制度 has always preferred to clinch钉牢 deals behind closed doors. It remains petrified of democracy石化的民主 in Taiwan, and in particular of anything【什么意思？】, such as a referendum公民投票 on ECFA, that might smack of【？】 a plebiscite全民公决 on Taiwan’s future. And it is still not clear whether China will now tolerate its other trading partners signing trade agreements with Taiwan. This could provide China with the chance for a new form of blackmail勒索 over Taiwan.

Against that, such skulduggery舞弊、欺诈 would lose China the goodwill和善、亲切 it has bought this week. China has always played a huge role【起了很大的作用】 in Taiwan’s politics. Better that it should play it the ECFA way, 【这个句型是？？】with trade and other benefits meant to entice引诱、诱骗 and reward, and gain popularity, than the old one, with belligerent threats and diplomatic pressure designed to frighten and coerce强制.

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

【HOMEWORK】2-1
GRE words
new words
good expression
questions

July 10, 2010
Teacher Evaluation, School Closure Resolutions Pass

The American Federation of Teachers' delegates just passed two important resolutions, on teacher evaluation and school closures, so let's take each of them in turn.

Resolution five, you may recall, codifies编码整理 the AFT's evaluation framework and affirms that test scores, used appropriately and as one of several measures, can be considered in a teacher's evaluation.

It was expected to generate产生 quite a debate and possibly even amendment attempts修正案, but in the end, it passed fairly swiftly. A whole slew of candidates【？】, including the presidents of major affiliates联合, spoke in favor of the resolution: Mary Cathryn Ricker of St. Paul, Minn.; Keith Johnson of Detroit; Brenda Smith from Douglas County, Colo.; Fran Lawrence of Toledo, Ohio; and Tom Dooher of Minnesota.

Those supporting the resolution said that it would create avenues to define the profession, while others invoked恳求，祈求 arguments of the if-you're-not-at-the-table-you're-on-the-menu variety:【支持方的观点】
Colleen Callahan, a member of the Rhode Island state affiliate, had this to say: "There are too many people who would like us to be silent on this issue. ... Teachers want us to take the lead and support them on their professional growth and development."

Lee Rutledge, from Baltimore, spoke directly to the student-achievement question, noting that the resolution requires districts to employ several methods for gauging测量、衡量 the impact of teaching on learning. "If we leave [evaluation] to the states and districts, they will do it on the cheap. They will do it based on one test score," he said.

Still, two delegates out of the Chicago Teachers Union lobbied游说 the body not to pass it. "The reason you're hearing so much from us is this: Arne Duncan came from our city. We know what the nation has in store for it," said Carol Caref of the CTU. "In Chicago, school closings and turnarounds转变 have been going on for years, and the reason this [newly elected] Chicago delegation is here is because finally people in our union started fighting against them. This resolution does not take a strong stand against the use of standardized tests for evaluating teachers, and it needs to."

Right after that passed, the body considered, and passed, a resolution "opposing the unjustified closure of neighborhood schools." This one directs the AFT to oppose school closures based on "invalid measures that disregard the impact of neighborhood schools in the life of a community and do not offer solutions to improve teaching practices and supports for students," among other things.

I'll be eager to follow the results of that resolution in time, especially as the rubber hits the road on the School Improvement Grants. But in any case, the most interesting part of the debate was the addition of a significant amendment that contains some pretty harsh严厉的 words about standardized标准化 testing. The amendment says that the union will now "expose the for-profit motives of high-stakes高风险 testing companies and end the improper不合适的，错误的 use of test results which diminishes减小 real learning and is used to punish students, teachers, families, schools, and districts, rather than build better schools."

Sounds like something the NEA, always more of an opponent of testing than the AFT, would have passed. And take note, it was supported by Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis, among other parties.


【HOMEWORK】2-2
July 06, 2010
Ravitch Speaks to NEA(=National Education Association) Choir唱诗班
Education historian and advocate Diane Ravitch, the author of the bestseller The Life and Death of the Great American School System, came to the RA皇家学院 today to collect her "Friend of the NEA" award. She got a standing ovation【长时间起立鼓掌】 after her speech panning严厉批评 the No Child Left Behind Act, the Race to the Top, charter schools, the "privatization" of public schools, merit pay, and efforts to shift away from seniority and tenure, among many other things.

Suffice使……足够 it to say that with an audience like the RA, which has big problems with all those things, her speech was akin to 【与……无异】pouring gasoline on a fire【火上浇油】. At the end, in fact, Ravitch stripped off【脱掉】 her jacket and put on a T-shirt that read, "Public Schools: It's a Right, Not a Race,"【公共学校：权利，不是竞赛】 to great acclaim and applause.

The video of Ravitch's speech will probably go viral in less than five minutes so I'm not going to bother writing up her specific remarks. Overall, Ravitch's appearance at the RA says far more about her than it does about the the union. Her change of heart has been extensively documented by Education Week and others, and this award is more or less the capstone of that transition.

If this appearance is any indication, Ravitch now views herself as the defender of public education against forces that are bent on【一心做……】 destroying it. On her Twitter page, she recently drew an allusion暗示、暗指 to the French Revolution, comparing her public protests to being on "the barricades." Today at the RA, she called her book tour a "whistlestop campaign."

It's worth pointing out that while Diane's book has received generally very positive reviews【积极的反馈】, others contend竞争、斗争 that Ravitch is selective选择性的 in the research she cites to support her views.【有支持者，有反对者】

In any case【不管怎样】, NEA must be thrilled to have an influential public figure like Ravitch now aligned与……结盟 with its agenda. Whether the union really needs the help is an open question. It still enjoys support【得到……的支持】 on Capitol Hill美国国会山, and there are a bevy群= = of lawmakers who are pushing back on things like Race to the Top, the School Improvement Grants, and No Child Left Behind.

Also, you wouldn't know it from this speech or the excitement it generated, but Ravitch and the NEA aren't on the same page about everything. Throughout her career, the education historian has taken a consistent一贯的 tack行动方针 on curriculum, arguing that it should be deep and rich and highly specific非常具体. But the NEA has never been as much of a leader on curricular issues as its sister union, the American Federation of Teachers. The NEA is, in fact, one of the leading proponents of the movement for "21st-century skills," a movement Ravitch despises轻视 and has claimed is nothing but an William Heard Kilpatrick 注①-inspired brand of progressivism革新论 in sheep's clothes. 【披着羊皮的克搏屈革新论】

注①
克伯屈是美國著名的教育學家。
他反對傳統教育抹殺學生的興趣，桎梏兒童活躍的心靈，滯阻創造力和學習精神，因而批評傳統中的形式主義、嚴格主義，提供學校更多的學習自由。
他推展方案設計教學法，強調同時學習原理，貢獻良多。他還提倡了“兒童中心學校”，認為兒童的學習課程主要由兒童來決定，他認為兒童的天性是喜歡去學習和他有興趣有關聯的，或能解決他的困難事物。

谦行天下UID: 2797557

2-1【学习】
GRE words
new words
good expression
Proper Noun or Questions

July 10, 2010
Teacher Evaluation, School Closure Resolutions Pass


The American Federation of Teachers' delegates just passed two important resolutions, on teacher evaluation and school closures, so let's take each of them in turn.

Resolution five, you may recall, codifies the AFT's evaluation framework and affirms that test scores, used appropriately and as one of several measures, can be considered in a teacher's evaluation.

It was expected to generate quite a debate and possibly even amendment attempts, but in the end, it passed fairly swiftly. A whole slew[许多] of candidates, including the presidents of major affiliates, spoke in favor of[支持] the resolution: Mary Cathryn Ricker of St. Paul, Minn.; Keith Johnson of Detroit; Brenda Smith from Douglas County, Colo.; Fran Lawrence of Toledo, Ohio; and Tom Dooher of Minnesota.

swiftly[moving very fast]
speak in favor of - support- pass fairly swiftly

Those supporting the resolution said that it would create avenues to define the profession, while others invoked arguments of the if-you're-not-at-the-table-you're-on-the-menu variety[?]:

Colleen Callahan, a member of the Rhode Island state affiliate, had this to say: "There are too many people who would like us to be silent on this issue. ... Teachers want us to take the lead and support them on their professional growth and development."

Lee Rutledge, from Baltimore, spoke directly to the student-achievement question, noting that the resolution requires districts to employ several methods for gauging the impact of teaching on learning. "If we leave [evaluation] to the states and districts, they will do it on the cheap. They will do it based on one test score," he said.

Still, two delegates out of the Chicago Teachers Union lobbied the body not to pass it. "The reason you're hearing so much from us is this: Arne Duncan came from our city. We know what the nation has in store for it[?]," said Carol Caref of the CTU. "In Chicago, school closings and turnarounds[转场] have been going on for years, and the reason this [newly elected] Chicago delegation is here is because finally people in our union started fighting against them. This resolution does not take a strong stand against the use of standardized tests for evaluating teachers, and it needs to."

Right after that passed, the body considered, and passed, a resolution "opposing the unjustified closure of neighborhood schools." This one directs the AFT to oppose school closures based on "invalid measures that disregard the impact of neighborhood schools in the life of a community and do not offer solutions to improve teaching practices and supports for students," among other things.

I'll be eager to follow the results of that resolution in time, especially as the rubber hits the road on the School Improvement Grants. But in any case, the most interesting part of the debate was the addition of a significant amendment that contains some pretty harsh words about standardized testing. The amendment says that the union will now "expose the for-profit motives of high-stakes testing companies and end the improper use of test results which diminishes real learning and is used to punish students, teachers, families, schools, and districts, rather than build better schools."

Sounds like something the NEA, always more of an opponent of testing than the AFT, would have passed. And take note, it was supported by Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis, among other parties.

========================================
2-2【学习】
GRE words
new words
good expression
Proper Noun or Questions

July 06, 2010
Ravitch Speaks to NEA Choir

Education historian and advocate Diane Ravitch, the author of the bestseller The Life and Death of the Great American School System, came to the RA today to collect her "Friend of the NEA" award. She got a standing ovation[热烈欢迎] after her speech panning the No Child Left Behind Act, the Race to the Top, charter schools, the "privatization" of public schools, merit pay, and efforts to shift away from seniority and tenure, among many other things.

Suffice it to say that with an audience like the RA, which has big problems with all those things, her speech was akin to[类似于] pouring gasoline on a fire[火上浇油]. At the end, in fact, Ravitch stripped off[脱去] her jacket and put on a T-shirt that read, "Public Schools: It's a Right, Not a Race," to great acclaim and applause.

The video of Ravitch's speech will probably go viral[?] in less than five minutes so I'm not going to bother writing up her specific remarks. Overall, Ravitch's appearance at the RA says far more about her than it does about the the union. Her change of heart has been extensively documented by Education Week and others, and this award is more or less the capstone[顶点] of that transition.

If this appearance is any indication, Ravitch now views herself as the defender of public education against forces that are bent on[专心致力于]destroying it. On her Twitter page, she recently drew an allusion to the French Revolution, comparing her public protests to being on "the barricades." Today at the RA, she called her book tour a "whistlestop[?] campaign."

It's worth pointing out that while Diane's book has received generally very positive reviews, others contend[声称] that Ravitch is selective in the research she cites to support her views.

In any case, NEA must be thrilled to have an influential public figure like Ravitch now aligned with its agenda. Whether the union really needs the help is an open question. It still enjoys support on Capitol Hill[美国国会山], and there are a bevy[一群] of lawmakers who are pushing back on things like Race to the Top, the School Improvement Grants, and No Child Left Behind.

Also, you wouldn't know it from this speech or the excitement it generated, but Ravitch and the NEA aren't on the same page about everything. Throughout her career, the education historian has taken a consistent tack on[添加] curriculum, arguing that it should be deep and rich and highly specific. But the NEA has never been as much of a leader on curricular issues as its sister union, the American Federation of Teachers. The NEA is, in fact, one of the leading proponents of the movement for "21st-century skills," a movement Ravitch despises and has claimed is nothing but an William Heard Kilpatrick-inspired brand of progressivism in sheep's clothes.

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 1:19 PM

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

Capitol Hill
2-1【注：7月12日作业】
GRE words
new words
good expression
questions


July 10, 2010Teacher Evaluation, School Closure Resolutions Pass


The American Federation of Teachers' delegates just passed two important resolutions, on teacher evaluation and school closures, so let's take each of them in turn.

Resolution five, you may recall, codifies the AFT's evaluation framework and affirms that test scores, used appropriately and as one of several measures, can be considered in a teacher's evaluation.

It was expected to generate quite a debate and possibly even amendment attempts, but in the end, it passed fairly swiftly. A whole slew of candidates, including the presidents of major affiliates[分公司], spoke in favor of the resolution: Mary Cathryn Ricker of St. Paul, Minn.; Keith Johnson of Detroit; Brenda Smith from Douglas County, Colo.; Fran Lawrence of Toledo, Ohio; and Tom Dooher of Minnesota.

Those supporting the resolution said that it would create avenues to define the profession, while others invoked arguments of the if-you're-not-at-the-table-you're-on-the-menu variety:

Colleen Callahan, a member of the Rhode Island state affiliate, had this to say: "There are too many people who would like us to be silent on this issue. ... Teachers want us to take the lead and support them on their professional growth and development."

Lee Rutledge, from Baltimore, spoke directly to the student-achievement question, noting that the resolution requires districts to employ several methods for gauging[测量] the impact of teaching on learning. "If we leave [evaluation] to the states and districts, they will do it on the cheap. They will do it based on one test score," he said.

Still, two delegates out of the Chicago Teachers Union lobbied the body not to pass it. "The reason you're hearing so much from us is this: Arne Duncan came from our city. We know what the nation has in store for it," said Carol Caref of the CTU. "In Chicago, school closings and turn arounds have been going on for years, and the reason this [newly elected] Chicago delegation is here is because finally people in our union started fighting against them. This resolution does not take a strong stand against the use of standardized tests for evaluating teachers, and it needs to."

Right after that passed, the body considered, and passed, a resolution "opposing the unjustified closure of neighborhood schools." This one directs the AFT to oppose school closures based on "invalid[无效] measures that disregard the impact of neighborhood schools in the life of a community and do not offer solutions to improve teaching practices and supports for students," among other things.

I'll be eager to follow the results of that resolution in time, especially as the rubber hits the road on the School Improvement Grants. But in any case, the most interesting part of the debate was the addition of a significant amendment that contains some pretty harsh[严厉的] words about standardized testing. The amendment says that the union will now "expose the for-profit motives of high-stakes[高风险] testing companies and end the improper use of test results which diminishes real learning and is used to punish students, teachers, families, schools, and districts, rather than build better schools."

Sounds like something the NEA, always more of an opponent of testing than the AFT, would have passed. And take note, it was supported by Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis, among other parties.
没读懂。。。头大。。。
===============================================================================================

2-2【7月12日作业】
July 06, 2010 Ravitch Speaks to NEA Choir

Education historian and advocate Diane Ravitch, the author of the bestseller The Life and Death of the Great American School System, came to the RA【皇家学院】 today to collect her "Friend of the NEA" award. She got a standing ovation【热烈鼓掌】 after her speech panning[M-W5.a harsh criticism考过] the No Child Left Behind Act, the Race to the Top, charter schools, the "privatization" of public schools, merit[值得] pay, and efforts to shift away from seniority and tenure, among many other things.

Suffice it to say that with an audience like the RA, which has big problems with all those things, her speech was akin【同类的】 to pouring gasoline on a fire. At the end, in fact, Ravitch stripped【脱掉，剥夺】 off her jacket and put on a T-shirt that read, "Public Schools: It's a Right, Not a Race," to great acclaim and applause.

The video of Ravitch's speech will probably go viral[?有毒的] in less than five minutes so I'm not going to bother writing up her specific remarks. Overall, Ravitch's appearance at the RA says far more about her than it does about the the union. Her change of heart has been extensively documented by Education Week and others, and this award is more or less the capstone【定点】 of that transition【过渡】.

If this appearance is any indication, Ravitch now views herself as the defender of public education against forces that are bent【决心】 on destroying it. On her Twitter page, she recently drew an allusion【暗示】 to the French Revolution, comparing her public protests to being on "the barricades." Today at the RA, she called her book tour a "whistlestop campaign【停口哨运动？】."

It's worth pointing out that while Diane's book has received generally very positive reviews, others contend that Ravitch is selective in the research she cites to support her views.

In any case, NEA must be thrilled【兴奋】 to have an influential public figure like Ravitch now aligned with its agenda. Whether the union really needs the help is an open question. It still enjoys support on Capitol Hill【国会山】, and there are a bevy【一群】 of lawmakers who are pushing back on things like Race to the Top, the School Improvement Grants, and No Child Left Behind.

Also, you wouldn't know it from this speech or the excitement it generated, but Ravitch and the NEA aren't on the same page about everything. Throughout【自始至终】 her career, the education historian has taken a consistent tack on curriculum, arguing that it should be deep and rich and highly specific. But the NEA has never been as much of a leader on curricular issues as its sister union, the American Federation of Teachers. The NEA is, in fact, one of the leading proponents【支持者】 of the movement for "21st-century skills," a movement Ravitch despises and has claimed is nothing but an William Heard Kilpatrick-inspired brand【品牌】 of progressivism in sheep's clothes.

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 1:19 PM

==================================================================================================
In the early 1950’s, historians who studied preindustrial[工业革命前] Europe (which we may define here as Europe in the period from roughly 1300 to 1800) began, for the first time in large numbers, to investigate more of the preindustrial European population than the 2 or 3 percent who comprised the political and social elite: the kings, generals, judges, nobles, bishops, and local magnates【财主】 who had hitherto usually filled history books. One difficulty, however, was that few of the remaining 97 percent recorded their thoughts or had them chronicled by contemporaries.【剩下的97%的思想很少被记录】 Faced with this situation, many historians based their investigations on the only records that seemed to exist: birth, marriage, and death records. As a result, much of the early work on the nonelite was aridly【贫瘠】 statistical in nature; reducing the vast majority of the population to a set of numbers was hardly more enlightening than ignoring them altogether. Historians still did not know what these people thought or felt.中心句

One way out of this dilemma was to turn to the records of legal courts, for here the voices of the nonelite can most often be heard, as witnesses, plaintiffs【原告】, and defendants. These documents have acted as “a point of entry into the mental world of the poor.” Historians such as Le Roy Ladurie have used the documents to extract case histories, which have illuminated【阐明】 the attitudes of different social groups (these attitudes include, but are not confined to, attitudes toward crime and the law) and have revealed how the authorities administered justice. It has been societies that have had a developed police system and practiced Roman law(Roman law: n.罗马法the legal system of the ancient Romans that includes written and unwritten law, is based on the traditional law and the legislation of the city of Rome, and in form comprises legislation of the assemblies, resolves of the senate, enactments of the emperors, edicts of the praetors, writings of the jurisconsults, and the codes of the later emperors), with its written depositions, whose court records have yielded the most data to historians. In Anglo-Saxon【盎格鲁撒克逊人，英语发源地之一】 countries hardly any of these benefits obtain, but it has still been possible to glean【搜集】 information from the study of legal documents.

The extraction【摘录】 of case histories is not, however, the only use to which court records may be put. Historians who study preindustrial Europe have used the records to establish a series of categories of crime and to quantify indictments that were issued over a given number of years. This use of the records does yield some information about the nonelite, but this information gives us little insight into the mental lives of the nonelite. We also know that the number of indictments【起诉书】 in preindustrial Europe bears【承受】 little relation to the number of actual criminal acts, and we strongly suspect that the relationship has varied【各式各样的】 widely over time. In addition, aggregate population estimates are very shaky【可疑】, which makes it difficult for historians to compare rates of crime per thousand in one decade of the preindustrial period with rates in another decade. Given these inadequacies, it is clear why the case history use of court records is to be preferred.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

3-1【7月13日作业】【注：为GRE阅读题，因与issue43有关，故贴此作为comment练习】

In the early 1950’s, historians who studied preindustrial Europe (which we may define here as Europe in the period from roughly 1300 to 1800) began, for the first time in large numbers, to investigate more of the preindustrial European population than the 2 or 3 percent who comprised the political and social elite: the kings, generals, judges, nobles, bishops, and local magnates who had hitherto usually filled history books. One difficulty, however, was that few of the remaining 97 percent recorded their thoughts or had them chronicled by contemporaries. Faced with this situation, many historians based their investigations on the only records that seemed to exist: birth, marriage, and death records. As a result, much of the early work on the nonelite was aridly statistical in nature; reducing the vast majority of the population to a set of numbers was hardly more enlightening than ignoring them altogether. Historians still did not know what these people thought or felt.

One way out of this dilemma was to turn to the records of legal courts, for here the voices of the nonelite can most often be heard, as witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants. These documents have acted as “a point of entry into the mental world of the poor.” Historians such as Le Roy Ladurie have used the documents to extract case histories, which have illuminated the attitudes of different social groups (these attitudes include, but are not confined to, attitudes toward crime and the law) and have revealed how the authorities administered justice. It has been societies that have had a developed police system and practiced Roman law, with its written depositions, whose court records have yielded the most data to historians. In Anglo-Saxon countries hardly any of these benefits obtain, but it has still been possible to glean information from the study of legal documents.

The extraction of case histories is not, however, the only use to which court records may be put. Historians who study preindustrial Europe have used the records to establish a series of categories of crime and to quantify indictments that were issued over a given number of years. This use of the records does yield some information about the nonelite, but this information gives us little insight into the mental lives of the nonelite. We also know that the number of indictments in preindustrial Europe bears little relation to the number of actual criminal acts, and we strongly suspect that the relationship has varied widely over time. In addition, aggregate population estimates are very shaky, which makes it difficult for historians to compare rates of crime per thousand in one decade of the preindustrial period with rates in another decade. Given these inadequacies, it is clear why the case history use of court records is to be preferred.

21. The author suggests that, before the early 1950’s, most historians who studied preindustrial Europe did which of the following?
(A) Failed to make distinctions among members of the preindustrial European political and social elite.
(B) Used investigatory methods that were almost exclusively statistical in nature.
(C) Inaccurately estimated the influence of the preindustrial European political and social elite.
(D) Confined their work to a narrow range of the preindustrial European population.
(E) Tended to rely heavily on birth, marriage, and death records.

22. According to the passage, the case histories extracted by historians have
(A) scarcely illuminated the attitudes of the political and social elite
(B) indicated the manner in which those in power apportioned justice
(C) focused almost entirely on the thoughts and feelings of different social groups toward crime and the law
(D) been considered the first kind of historical writing that utilized the records of legal courts
(E) been based for the most part on the trial testimony of police and other legal authorities

23. It can be inferred from the passage that much of the early work by historians on the European nonelite of the preindustrial period might have been more illuminating if these historians had
(A) used different methods of statistical analysis to investigate the nonelite
(B) been more successful in identifying the attitudes of civil authorities, especially those who administered justice, toward the nonelite
(C) been able to draw on more accounts, written by contemporaries of the nonelite, that described what this nonelite thought
(D) relied more heavily on the personal records left by members of the European political and social elite who lived during the period in question
(E) been more willing to base their research on the birth, marriage, and death records of the nonelite

24. The author mentions Le Roy Ladurie (line 26) in order to
(A) give an example of a historian who has made one kind of use of court records
(B) cite a historian who has based case histories on the birth, marriage, and death records of the nonelite
(C) identify the author of the quotation cited in the previous sentence
(D) gain authoritative support for the view that the case history approach is the most fruitful approach to court records
(E) point out the first historian to realize the value of court records in illuminating the beliefs and values of the nonelite

25. According to the passage, which of the following is true of indictments for crime in Europe in the preindustrial period?

(A) They have, in terms of their numbers, remained relatively constant over time.
(B) They give the historian important information about the mental lives of those indicted.
(C) They are not a particularly accurate indication of the extent of actual criminal activity.
(D) Their importance to historians of the nonelite has been generally overestimated.
(E) Their problematic relationship to actual crime has not been acknowledged by most historians.

26. It can be inferred from the passage that a historian who wished to compare crime rates per thousand in a European city in one decade of the fifteenth century with crime rates in another decade of that century would probably be most aided by better information about which of the following?
(A) The causes of unrest in the city during the two decades
(B) The aggregate number of indictments in the city nearest to the city under investigation during the two decades
(C) The number of people who lived in the city during each of the decades under investigation
(D) The mental attitudes of criminals in the city, including their feelings about authority, during each of the decades under investigation
(E) The possibilities for a member of the city’s nonelite to become a member of the political and social elite during the two decades

27. The passage would be most likely to appear as part of
(A) a book review summarizing the achievements of historians of the European aristocracy
(B) an essay describing trends in the practice of writing history
(C) a textbook on the application of statistical methods in the social sciences
(D) a report to the historical profession on the work of early-twentieth-century historians
(E) an article urging the adoption of historical methods by the legal profession

====================================
答案：DBCACB