Issue70 【六人作文小组】第4周第4次作业 （跪求板砖来拍！）

levinshireUID: 2559564

TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "In any profession-business, politics, education, government-those in power
should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is
revitalization through new leadership."
WORDS: 535          TIME: 2:35:31          DATE: 2009-1-29

提纲：
当权者自动退位是个好制度，但并不尽然
1.民主政治，四年或五年任期。避免培植私人势力。美国总统。
2.但是短期任期，也易导致只看短期利益。中国的地方官员，短平快。
3.也有长期任职的成功例子。萨马兰奇，松下，福特。
没有说任期短就一定好，长就一定不好，要看对Leader产生怎样的激励，来确保Enterprise的成功。

It is a good institution that those in power automatically step down after certain periods---
-say, five of four years----for the revitalization of new leadership will most probably bring
about new ideas and energies to achieve success of the enterprise. However, the assertion that
it is the surest path to success for any enterprise is inadequate. It is not always good and
necessary to change the leaders frequently.

First of all, in many cases the time limit of the leaders in certain enterprise does help to
guarantee the success of the enterprise. One of such successful examples is the four-year term
system of the US President. Every four years, the new president candidates would come to
compete for the position, and at the same time they would also compete to offer the best ideas
and approaches to benefit the country. Similarly, almost all the democratic nations today are
adopting such a system, and it could be marked as a symbol of progress in politics of
humanity. The institution that leaders step down after short period could help to maintain a
just and efficient administration, because short time limit reduces the chances for the
leaders to grow their own private power during their terms, and thus to a great extent avoids
the damaging of public good for private interests.

However, the institution that leaders could only be in their position for a short period also
poses certain risk: They will naturally focus more on those short-term programs, while the
long-term programs are often neglected. The local government officials of China have made good
illustrations of such risk. For the purpose of promotion, Chinese local government officials
are generally in favor of those programs whose benefits can come out faster, no matter the
benefits are big or small. As to some long-term programs that have potential much greater
benefits, they show little interest because they could not prove to the superiors their
abilities and efforts through the programs whose benefits could only reveal after they have
already stepped down from their positions.

Also, there are many enterprises that have succeeded without revitalization through new
leadership. The President of International Olympic Committee, Samaranch, had been the
president for about twenty years. The Committee didn't decline during this period. On the
contrary, it is during these twenty years that Samaranch have saved the modern Olympic Games
from nearly extinction to such great development as today. Besides, many famous industrial
companies such as Panasonic and Ford are all ruled and administrated by one leader during long
period to accomplish great successes. Those stories remind us that we can not rule out the
possibility that success could be also achieved without frequently changing the leaders.

As a conclusion, revitalization of new leadership is a good institution to keep justice and
efficiency of the leader's administration, and this institution has already been widely
adopted in many enterprises to achieve success.  However, there are also failures of such
institution, and long-term leaders not always lead to failures. Whether the revitalization of
leadership will ensure the success of the enterprise, in my view, depends on the specific
stimulation that the revitalization would have on the leaders' activities, under various
specific situations.

落下好多好多篇，暴汗颜无比！
而且依旧要写这么久，依旧文法不通表达不明，离考试只有14天了，甚急甚急。。。。
跪求板砖，跪求一切批评意见。。。

sneakerliuUID: 2481691

It is a good institution that those in power automatically step down after certain periods---
-say, five of four years----我没有尝试过打这个,用逗号也可以的for the revitalization of new leadership will most probably bring
about new ideas and energies to achieve success of the enterprise. However, the assertion that
it is the surest path to success for any enterprise is inadequate. It is not always good GOOD这个词本来就一般,用两次就不大好了,换成EFFICIENT吧 and
necessary to change the leaders frequently.

First of all, in many cases the time limit of the leaders in certain enterprise does help to
guarantee帮助保证?似乎多了点,GUARANTEE就可以了或者CONTRIBUTE TO the success of the enterprise. One of such successful examples is the four-year term
system of the US President. Every four years, the new president candidates would come to
compete for the position, and at the same time they would also compete to offer the best ideas
and approaches to benefit the country. Similarly, almost all the democratic nations today are
adopting这是一个动作,ADOPTS或者HAVE ADDOPTTED such a这个搭配是错的,把A去掉 system, and it could be marked as a symbol of progress in politics of
humanity. The institution that leaders step down after short period could help to maintain a
just and efficient administration, because short time limit reduces the chances for the
leaders to grow their own private power during their terms, and thus to a great extent avoids
the damaging of public good for private interests. 没必要说他是短的,说他是合适的就好

However, the institution situation? that leaders could only be in their position for a short period also
poses certain risk: They will naturally focus more on those short-term programs, while the
long-term programs are often neglected. The local government officials of China have made good
illustrations of such risk. For the purpose of promotion, Chinese local government officials
are generally in favor of those programs whose benefits can come out faster, no matter the
benefits are big or small. 说清楚他们任期短As to some long-term programs that have potential much greater
benefits, they show little interest because they could not prove to the superiors their
abilities and efforts through the programs whose benefits could only reveal after they have
already stepped down from their positions.我觉得这更象是社会道德的问题和法律的不健全,也就是说错误不在任期制度,而在于其他的方面.这是CONTINUITY的问题,实际上有解决的办法,我在二楼贴

Also, there are many enterprises that have succeeded without revitalization through new
leadership. The President of International Olympic Committee, Samaranch, had been the
president for about twenty years. The Committee didn't decline during this period. On the
contrary, it is during these twenty years that Samaranch have saved the modern Olympic Games
from nearly extinction to such great development as today. Besides, many famous industrial
companies such as Panasonic and Ford are all ruled and administrated by one leader during long
period to accomplish great successes. Those stories remind us that we can not rule out the
possibility that success could be also achieved without frequently changing the leaders.例子很好,我是限时,脑子里没商业的例子,所以就只好谈父亲了...

As a conclusion, revitalization of new leadership is a good institution to keep justice and
efficiency of the leader's administration, and this institution has already been widely
adopted in many enterprises to achieve success.  However, there are also failures of such
institution, and long-term leaders not always lead to failures. Whether the revitalization of
leadership will ensure the success of the enterprise, in my view, depends on the specific
stimulation that the revitalization would have on the leaders' activities, under various
specific situations.
加油!

sneakerliuUID: 2481691

Whereas, during previous presidential transition periods,
     the incoming President has had to serve with cabinet members
     from the prior administration, including subcabinet officials
     from the prior administration acting as cabinet members, for
     at least some period of time;
Whereas an incoming President cannot exercise the
     constitutional powers of the President, in order to ensure a
     smooth transition of Government, until noon on the 20th day
     of January, pursuant to the terms of the twentieth amendment
     to the Constitution;
       Whereas cooperation between the incoming and the outgoing
     President is therefore the only way to ensure a smooth
     transition of Government;
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/sres419.html  我在这里找到的

levinshireUID: 2559564

3# sneakerliu

:handshake 太强了。写作能力来自积累啊，果然没错。

对于我举中国官员的例子：我还是觉得任期是个原因，至少是部分原因；或者，过短的任期会导致这方面的问题吧。不知道西方国家怎么克服这个问题的，或者真如你所言这不是任期制度的问题？我现在有些转不过弯来，如果这个例子不好，我就需要修改一下提纲思路了。
还有，你觉得“任期制度”，“在任上”这些意思到底怎么表达地道些，我用了institution，但这个“制度”似乎放这里不太合适。

sneakerliuUID: 2481691

4# levinshire

任期当然是个原因，但我认为解决问题的方法不是去取消这个制度，同样一件事，有好的作用，但因为其缺点我们就放弃吗？应该做的事是想办法完善他（这个思路我在很多文章中都用）. 不是说你的例子不好，你完全可以说在法制不健全的时候这个制度会造成危害，所以我们现在不做。等完善了法律在做。你觉得呢？
任期的转换的确是TRANSITION后来我在白宫的网站上看到是说PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION可见。二楼贴的是美国政府文件的一段，指出了克服TRANSITION PERIOD 的方法。我们暂且认为是有效的。在任上个人觉得用HOLDING THE POWER吧。
加油！