issue8 [展翅高飞]dicmi第七次issue作业，[Revised]~~~

dicmiUID: 183392

劳烦大家帮忙修改下哈：）
留链接来回拍~~：）:handshake:handshake


TOPIC: ISSUE8 - "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."
WORDS: 800+          TIME: 0:45:00 （限时没完成，棕色部分后加的:L）         DATE: 2006-7-17

提纲：
1。让步，有些信息不能公开
2。信息公开可以使上下一心，解决问题
3。信息公开可以有效监督领导人（Nixon的例子来自于北美范文，会不会被批阿~~）

Throughout the long history, countries are founded one after another. An undeniable fact is that every nation is founded primarily on the base of people, then the leaders. Hence, based on the structure of a nation, is it often necessary, even desirable for political leaders to withhold information from the public as the author claims? As far as I am concerned, I agree with the author that it is a must to reveal majority of information to public except some special occasions like counter terrorist actions and the like.

Admittedly, when the political leaders initiate some projects or military actions, it is often required to withhold such information from public rather than reveal it. Such information is so vital to national security that, after revealing it may bring disaster to public, if not properly handled. Therefore, in such occasions, we cannot overemphasize the need to keep people informed. To specific, we may take the counter terrorists actions for example. Simply put, if the plan of actions are revealed and subsequently be got by enemies, how could the U.S army successfully capture Saddam Hussein, the former president of Iraq, in a cellar of a remote village; how could the polices arrest the rapists or murders in some secret places; how could the governments destroy drug traffickers one by one? Undoubtedly, these actions are doomed to fail if the enemies learn the plan in advance Additionally, even aside from those military affairs, some potential disasters, if hastily revealed, may also cause public panic. Consider that, an approaching hurricane is revealed to the public, but without enough data predicting which direction it will go, which consequently may leads to people’s confusion. Obviously, in such cases, the immediate disclosure, to some extent, would have nothing negative effect but only deteriorate the situation, or even make it still worse.

However, except those minority occasions, to a large scale, it is the very obligation of political leaders to reveal information to public. The nation is founded by people, and the leaders are elected from people and hence should sever people. There is no pretext for political leaders to withhold information from public. Only by revealing related information can people help the leaders to deal with knotted issues. An apt example serves to illustrate this point must be SARS in 2003. At that time, the evil SARS swept most of the East Asian countries. In China, for example, through mass media, the government reveals the situation of SARS to public everyday, in order to keep people informed with the latest situation. In return, common people also devote their time and energy into the arduous task and finally defeat the SARS. Suppose that the government withheld the information, as the number of death increasing, the society was very likely to fall into chaos. To this point, a contrary example is the accident of Chernobyl Nuclear Station in Former Soviet Union. At the beginning, the political leaders tried every means to keep people under dark to the facts. Nonetheless, the result turns to so serious that so many people had injured or died in  this accident, which was also a direct fuse led to the breaking up of Former Soviet Union. From two opposite instances, a conclusion can be made that only by keeping people informed can people help the political leaders as well as the nations to overcome obstacles in front of the countries.

Moreover, revealing information also enable the public to supervise the political leads in oder to avoid corruption both political and financial. One proverb goes that, "Absolute power leads to absolute corruption". Grasping great power, the political leaders are very likely to be enticed by a variety of things including money, position, reputation and the like.To this point, one effective antidote to corruption must be timely report of leaders' financial situation which could be publicized to people. For supporting example, one need not go further to look at the American government. It is commonly known that everybody in U.S. could get a copy of their president's financing report from the officials or the internet. As a result, effective supervison could exerts positive pressures on the leaders, reminding them never commit any mistakes that may leads to corruption. On the contrary, in Watergate scandal, Nixon played an ignominious role in withholding the truths from the public, which may resulted from the insufficient of public supervision. Thus, to avoid such corruptions, what we need is effective measurements to supervise those leaders. And let the public get the necessary information in order to supervise is a wise decision nowadays.

In conclusion, taking the pyramid-like structure of a nation into account, it is a reasonable decision and requirement for political leader to reveal information to public, so that with the help from the public, the nation can solve some difficult problems. Nevertheless, unnecessarily extending the scope to all the information will have negative rather positive effects on the nation. In short, before revealing information, thoroughly consideration about the essence of the information should be conducted carefully.

[ 本帖最后由 dicmi 于 2006-8-3 22:01 编辑 ]

dicmiUID: 183392

up自己的

dicmiUID: 183392

沉了好久了。顶起来

苯石UID: 2169611

Seat taken.
写的好长啊...

苯石UID: 2169611

ding

[ 本帖最后由 苯石 于 2006-7-30 21:24 编辑 ]

苯石UID: 2169611

Throughout the long history, countries are founded one after another. An undeniable fact is that every nation is founded primarily on the base of people, then the leaders. Hence [这里看不出因果关系啊?] , based on the structure of a nation, is it often necessary, even desirable for political leaders to withhold information from the public as the author claims? As far as I am concerned, I agree with the author that it is a must [不错不错] to reveal majority of information to public except some special occasions like counter terrorist [可以用counter-terrorist] actions and the like.

Admittedly, when the political leaders initiate some projects or military actions, it is often required to withhold such information from public rather than reveal it. Such information is so vital to national security that, after revealing it may bring disaster to public, if not properly handled. Therefore, in such occasions, we cannot overemphasize the need to keep people informed. To specific [:confused:] , we may take the counter terrorists actions for example. Simply put, if the plan of actions are revealed and subsequently be got by enemies, how could the U.S army successfully capture Saddam Hussein, the former president of Iraq, in a cellar of a remote village; how could the polices [复数还是police] arrest the rapists or murders in some secret places; how could the governments destroy drug traffickers one by one? Undoubtedly, these actions are doomed to fail if the enemies learn [acknowledge] the plan in advance. Additionally, even aside from [aside from 与 additionally重复了] those military affairs, some potential disasters, if hastily revealed, may also cause public panic. Consider that, an approaching hurricane is revealed to the public, but without enough data predicting which direction it will go, which consequently may leads to people’s confusion. Obviously, in such cases, the immediate disclosure, to some extent, would have nothing negative effect but only deteriorate the situation [...would lead to nothing but negative consequences] , or even make it still worse [and make the situation even more complicated] .

However, except those minority [minor] occasions, to a large scale, it is the very obligation of political leaders to reveal information to public. The nation is founded by people, and the leaders are elected from people and hence should sever [should cater to the interests of] people. There is no pretext for political leaders to withhold information from public. Only by revealing related information can people help the leaders to deal with knotted [不错] issues. An apt example serves to illustrate this point must be SARS in 2003. At that time, the evil SARS swept most of the East Asian countries. In China [(where the deadly epidemic first broke out)], for example, through mass media, the government reveals the situation of SARS to public everyday, in order to keep people informed with the latest situation. In return, common people also devote their time and energy into the arduous task and finally defeat the SARS. Suppose that the government withheld the information, as the number of death increasing, the society was very likely to fall into chaos. [个人感觉SARS是一个反面教材. 当时地方官员隐瞒真相, 谎报疫情. 正是由于处理不当造成疫情扩大的!]  To this point, a contrary example is the accident of Chernobyl Nuclear Station in Former Soviet Union. At the beginning, the political leaders tried every means to keep people under dark to the facts. Nonetheless, the result turns [过去式] to so serious that so many people had injured or died in  this accident, which was also a direct fuse led to the breaking up of Former Soviet Union. From two opposite instances, a conclusion can be made that only by keeping people informed can people help the political leaders as well as the nations to overcome obstacles in front of the countries. [两个例子体现了不公布信息可能带来的不良后果: 民众恐慌, 不信任领导人. 但是段首的中心句没有能明确点出这个意思]

Moreover, revealing information also enable [enables] the public to supervise the political leads in oder to avoid corruption both political and financial [副词] . One proverb goes that, "Absolute power leads to absolute corruption". Grasping great power, the political leaders are very likely to be enticed by a variety of things including money, position, reputation and the like.To this point, one effective antidote to corruption must be timely report of leaders' financial situation which could be publicized to people. For supporting example, one need not go further to look at the American government. It is commonly known that everybody in U.S. could get a copy of their president's financing report from the officials or the internet [the Internet] . As a result, effective supervison could exerts positive pressures on the leaders, reminding them never [not to] commit any mistakes that may leads to corruption. On the contrary, in Watergate scandal, Nixon played an ignominious role in withholding the truths [不需要复数]  from the public, which may resulted from the insufficient of public supervision. Thus, to avoid such corruptions, what we need is effective measurements to supervise those leaders. And let the public get the necessary information in order to supervise is a wise decision nowadays. [Watergate是很常用的例子, 应该引用没有问题的]

In conclusion, taking the pyramid-like structure of a nation into account, it is a reasonable decision and requirement for political leader to reveal information to public, so that with the help from the public, the nation can solve some difficult problems. Nevertheless, unnecessarily extending the scope to all the information will have negative rather positive effects on the nation. In short, before revealing information, thoroughly consideration about the essence of the information should be conducted carefully.
[就说classified military information不要泄露就是了.最后一段不能太拖拉说一大堆]


1. 语言方面有进步啊,厉害厉害.
2. 不过语法错误还要减少就更好了.
3. 举正反两个例子对照的方法不错. 不过如果考试时间紧取其一就可以了
that's all.

dicmiUID: 183392

这篇写的很早了。。。

这么说反而现在退步了。。。倒。。郁闷阿。

dicmiUID: 183392

修改稿

TOPIC: ISSUE8 - "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."
WORDS: 860          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2006-7-17

提纲：
1。让步，有些信息不能公开
2。信息公开可以使上下一心，解决问题
3。信息公开可以有效监督领导人（Nixon的例子来自于北美范文，会不会被批阿~~）

Throughout the long history, countries are established one after another. Severing as a guide, the leaders direct their people to achieve the independence. Then, a question arouse, is it justifiable for political leaders to withhold information from the public as the author claims? In my observation, I basically agree with the author that it is a must to reveal majority of information to public. Nonetheless, in some special occasions like counter-terrorist actions, it is necessary for leaders hold in information.

Truly, in the occasions entangled with national security or social stability, the leaders should be cautious with that information and withhold it from the public. Such information is so pivotal that, after revealing it may bring disaster to public, if not properly handled. Therefore, in this case, to withhold the information from the public is justified. To specific, consider the counter-terrorist actions for example. Simply put, if the plan of actions are revealed and subsequently be learned by enemies, how could the U.S army successfully capture Saddam Hussein, the former president of Iraq, in a cellar of a remote village; how could the police arrest the rapists or murders in some secret places; how could the governments destroy drug traffickers one after another? Undoubtedly, were these plans acknowledged by enemies beforehand, hardly could these actions achieve the expected goals. Additionally, for instance, when there is a slight decline of the national economy, leader should withhold such information from public and spare no effort to improve the economy situation to make it ameliorate to a normal level rather than expose this negative information to the public. If so, people may begin to worry and lost the trust of the stability of national economy, which will make the situation even worse. Obviously, in such cases, the immediate disclosure, to some extent, would lead to nothing but negative consequences, and make the situations even more complicated.

Yet, aside from those occasions, to a large scale, it is the very obligation of political leaders to reveal information to public. The nation is founded by people, and the leaders are elected by people and hence should sever people. There is no pretext for political leaders to withhold information from public. Only by revealing related information can people help the leaders to deal with knotted issues. An apt example serves to illustrate this point must be SARS in 2003. At that time, the evil SARS swept most of the East Asian countries. In China where the fatal epidemic fist broke out, for example, through mass media, the government reveals the situation of SARS to public everyday, in order to keep people informed with the latest situation. In return, common people also devote their time and energy into the arduous task and finally defeat the SARS. Suppose that the government withheld the information, as the number of death increasing, the society was very likely to fall into chaos. To this point, a contrary example is the accident of Chernobyl Nuclear Station in Former Soviet Union. At the beginning, the political leaders tried every means to keep people under dark to the facts. Nonetheless, the result turned out to be so serious that so many people had injured or died in this accident, which was also a direct fuse led to the breaking up of Former Soviet Union. From two opposite instances, a conclusion can be made that political leaders are required to keep people informed so as to win the support from the people.

Moreover, revealing information also enable the public to supervise the political leaders in order to avoid corruption both politically and financially. One saying goes that, "Absolute power leads to absolute corruption". Grasping great power, the political leaders are very likely to be enticed by a variety of things including money, position, reputation and the like. To address this problem, one effective antidote to corruption must be timely report of leaders' financial situation which could be publicized to people. For supporting example, one need not go further than the American government. It is commonly known that every citizen in U.S. could get a copy of their president's financing report from the officials or the internet. By doing so, effective supervision could exerts positive pressures on the leaders, reminding them never commit any mistakes that may leads to corruption. Contrarily to that, in Watergate scandal, Nixon played an ignominious role in withholding the truths from the public, which may resulted from the insufficient of public supervision. Thus, to avoid such corruptions, what we need is effective measurements to supervise those leaders. And let the public get the necessary information in order to supervise is a wise decision nowadays.

In conclusion, taking the pyramid-like structure of a nation into account, it is a reasonable decision and requirement for political leader to reveal information to public, so that with the help from the public, the nation can solve some difficult problems. Nevertheless, when it comes to some sensitive information, leaders are justifiable to withhold those from public.