About three-quarters of Americans, according to surveys, think the country is on the wrong track. About two-thirds of the public disapprove of the job performance of President Bush, and an even higher number disdain Congress. The media are excited about the prospect of a wealthy businessman running for President as an independent who could tap into broad public disgruntlement with the partisan politicians in Washington. 2007 Yes. But also 1992. The main difference between the two situations is that Michael Bloomberg is richer—and saner—than Ross Perot. But one similarity might be this: the American people were wrong then and may be wrong now. The widespread pessimism in the early 1990s about the course of the country turned out to be unwarranted. The rest of the decade featured impressive economic growth, a falling crime rate, successful reform of the welfare system and a reasonably peaceful world. Perhaps the problems weren"t so bad in the first place, or perhaps the political system produced politicians, like Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, who were able to deal with the problems. But, in any case, the country got back on course. That"s not to say all was well in the 1990s, especially in foreign policy. Responsibilities in places ranging from Bosnia to Rwanda to Afghanistan were shirked, and gathering dangers weren"t dealt with. Still, the sour complaints and dire predictions of 1992—oh, my God, the budget deficit will do us in!—were quickly overtaken by events. What"s more, the fear of many conservatives that we might be at the mercy of unstoppable forces of social disintegration turned out to be wrong. Indeed, the dire predictions were rendered obsolete so quickly that one wonders whether we were, in 1992, really just indulging in some kind of post-cold-war victory. Sometimes the public mood is...well, moody. Today we"re moody again. We are obviously fighting a difficult and, until recently, badly managed war in Iraq, whose outcome is uncertain. This accounts for much of the pessimism. It also doesn"t help that the political system seems incapable of dealing with big problems like immigration, an energy policy and health care. Still, is the general feeling that everything is going to the dogs any more justified today than it was 15 years ago Not really. Think of it this way: Have events in general gone better or worse than most people would have predicted on Sept. 12, 2001 There"s been no successful second attack here in the U.S.—and very limited terrorist successes in Europe or even in the Middle East. We"ve had 5.5 years of robust economic growth, low unemployment and a stock-market recovery. Social indicators in the U.S. are mostly stable or improving—abortions, teenage births and teenage drug use are down and education scores are up a bit. As for American foreign policy since 9-11, it has not produced the results some of us hoped for, and there are many legitimate criticisms of the Bush Administration"s performance. But, in fact, despite the gloom and doom from critics left and right (including, occasionally, me), the world seems to present the usual mixed bag of difficult problems and heartening developments. The key question, of course, is the fate of Iraq. A decent outcome—the defeat of alameda in what it has made the central front in the war on terrorism and enough security so there can be peaceful rule by a representative regime—seems to me achievable, if we don"t lose our nerve here at home. With success in Iraq, progress elsewhere in the Middle East will be easier. The balance sheet is uncertain. But it is by no means necessarily grim. The phrase "going to the dogs"(paragraph 3)most probably means
A. becoming worse.
B. becoming lazier.
C. becoming crazier.
D. becoming easier.
查看答案
Some of the concerns surrounding Turkey"s application to join the European Union, to be (1)_____ on by the EU"s Council of Ministers on December 17th, are economic—in particular, the country"s relative poverty. Its GDP per head is less than a third of the average for the 15 pre-2004 members of the EU. (2)_____ it is not far off that of Latvia—one of the ten new members which (3)_____ on May 1st 2004, and it is much the same as (4)_____ of two countries, Bulgaria and Romania, which this week concluded (5)_____ talks with the EU that could make them full members on January 1st 2007. (6)_____, the country"s recent economic progress has been, according to Donald Johnston, the secretary-general of the OECD, stunning. GDP in the second quarter of the year was 13.4% higher than a year earlier, a (7)_____ of growth that no EU country comes close to (8)_____. Turkey"s (9)_____ rate has just fallen into single figures for the first time since 1972, and this week the country (10)_____ agreement with the IMF on a new three-year, $10 billion economic program that will help Turkey (11)_____ inflation toward European levels, and enhance the economy"s resilience. Resilience has not historically been the country"s economic strong point. (12)_____, throughout the 1990s growth oscillated like an electrocardiogram (13)_____ a violent heart attack. This (14)_____ has been one of the main reasons why the country has failed dismally to attract much-needed foreign direct investment. Its stock of such investment is lower now than it was in the 1980s, and annual (15)_____ have scarcely ever reached $1 billion. One deterrent to foreign investors is due to (16)_____ on January 1st 2005. On that day, Turkey will take away the right of virtually every one of its citizens to call themselves a millionaire. Six zeros will be removed from the face value of the lira(里拉,货币单位); one unit of the local (17)_____ will henceforth be worth what 1 million are now—i.e., about 0.53 (0.53欧元). Goods will have to be (18)_____ in both the new and old lira for the whole of the year, (19)_____ foreign bankers and (20)_____ can begin to look forward to a time in Turkey when they will no longer have to juggle mentally with indeterminate strings of zeros.
A. But
B. So
C. Though
D. While
In the dimly lit cyber-cafe at Sciences-Po, hot-house of the French elite, no Gauloise smoke fills the air, no dog-eared copies of Sartre lie on the tables. French students are doing what all students do: surfing the web via Google. Now President Jacques Chirac wants to stop this American cultural invasion by setting up a rival French search-engine. The idea was prompted by Google"s plan to put online millions of texts from American and British university libraries. If English books are threatening to swamp cyberspace, Mr. Chirac will not stand idly by. He asked his culture minister, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, and Jean-Noel Jeanneney, head of France"s Bibliothèque Nationale, to do the same for French texts—and create a home-grown search-engine to browse them. Why not let Google do the job Its French version is used for 74% of internet searches in France. The answer is the vulgar criteria it uses to rank results. "I do not believe", wrote Mr. Donnedieu de Vabres in Le Monde, "that the only key to access our culture should be the automatic ranking by popularity, which has been behind Google"s success". This is not the first time Google has met French resistance. A court has upheld a ruling against it, in a lawsuit brought by two firms that claimed its display of rival sponsored links (Google"s chief source of revenues) constituted trademark counterfeiting. The French state news agency, Agence France-Presse,has also filed suit against Google for copyright infringement. Googlephobia is spreading. Mr. Jeanneney has talked of the "risk of crushing domination by America in defining the view that future generations have of the world. "" I have nothing in particular against Google", he told L. Express, a magazine. "I simply note that this commercial company is the expression of the American system, in which the law of the market is king". Advertising muscle and consumer demand should not triumph over good taste and cultural sophistication. The flaws in the French plan are obvious. If popularity cannot arbitrate, what will Mr. Jeanneney wants a "committee of experts". He appears to be serious, though the supply of French-speaking experts, or experts speaking any language for that matter, would seem to be insufficient. And if advertising is not to pay, will the taxpayer The plan mirrors another of Mr. Chirac"s pet projects: a CNNà la francaise. Over a year ago, stung by the power of English-speaking television news channels in the Iraq war, Mr. Chirac promised to set up a French rival by the end of 2004. The project is bogged down by infighting. France"s desire to combat English, on the web or the airwaves, is understandable. Protecting France"s tongue from its citizens" inclination to adopt English words is an ancient hobby of the ruling elite. The Académie Francaise was set up in 1635 to that end. Linguists devise translations of cyber-terms, such as arrosage (spare) or bogue (bug). Laws limit the use of English on TV—" Super Nanny" and "Star Academy" are current pests—and impose translations of English slogans in advertising. Treating the invasion of English as a market failure that must be corrected by the state may look clumsy. In France it is just business as usual. The real conflict behind French resistance to Google is actually the one between
A. the French law and the American law.
B. the commercial value and the cultural value.
C. the traditional views and the modern views.
D. the law of market and the law of commerce.
Historically, the European Union has not bothered with funding much basic scientific research. Such activities have mainly remained the preserve of national governments, not least because giving scientists free rein can lead to discoveries that not only make money but ultimately enhance military might. That attitude is now changing. The European Commission proposes to establish a European Research Council(ERC) that would spend a maximum of 12 billion($14 billion) over seven years on" blue skies" research. While the plans are being generally welcomed by Europe"s member states, their details are problematic. The proposed ERC is intended to make Europe more competitive. Europe has some first-class universities, scientific institutions and research organizations, But, the ERC"s proponents argue, their activities are fragmented, so they are not reaching their full potential. In America, teams from across the country compete with each other for grants from the National Science Foundation. The proposed ERC is modeled on this scheme, It would award grants to individual research teams for a specific project, solely on the basis of scientific merit judged by peer review, If the ERC were created, scientists from across Europe would compete with each other for funds, rather than merely competing with their fellow countrymen, as hap pens at present. This compares with the limited funding for basic research that currently exists in the EU, which places its emphasis on collaboration between researchers. It is open only to researchers in a narrow range of disciplines chosen by the European Parliament and the commission. The ERC would be quite different, placing its emphasis on competition between researchers and leaving scientists themselves to decide which areas of science to pursue. Helga Nowotny, who chairs the European Research Advisory Board—an advisory body to the commission—says that winning a grant from the ERC could come to be seen as unmistakable recognition of research excellence. The quality of European research needs to be stepped up a notch. Between 1980 and 2003, Europe had 68 Nobel laureates in medicine, physics and chemistry compared with 154 in America. With competition from China and India, Europe"s share could fall further. One of the reasons for Europe"s relatively weak performance is thought to be a lack of genuine competition between Europe"s researchers. Another is its poor ability to attract young people into a research career. Recent estimates suggest that Europe needs an extra 700,000 researchers if it is to meet its overall target of raising spending (private, national and EU) on research and development to 3% of GDP by 2010. Many young scientists leave Europe for America once they have finished their training. Dr. Nowotny says the ERC could help here too. It could establish a scheme to give young researchers the opportunity to follow their own ideas and become independent at an earlier stage in their careers, encouraging talent to stay in Europe. The crucial issue now is whether the ERC will be able to set its own research agenda, free from the interference and bureaucracy of the commission and influence of member states. Last month, 22 leading European scientists charged with shaping the ERC"s scientific strategy met for the first time to start hammering out a charter and constitution. Serious concerns remain over the legal structure of the body. The final decision on the ERC"s legal form, on a date yet unspecified, rests with the European Parliament and member states in the European Council. If both are genuine in their support for the ERC and Europe"s aim of becoming more competitive, then they must find a way of keeping the ERC free from political interference. Europe would benefit from a competition for its best researchers which rewards scientific excellence. A quasi-competition that recognizes how many votes each member state is allotted would be pointless. According to ERC supporters, scientists are not reaching their full potential because
A. the European Union is not as competitive as the U.S..
B. member states cannot cooperate as should have.
C. Europe does not have enough top research institutions.
D. research activities in Europe lack enough competition.
Historically, the European Union has not bothered with funding much basic scientific research. Such activities have mainly remained the preserve of national governments, not least because giving scientists free rein can lead to discoveries that not only make money but ultimately enhance military might. That attitude is now changing. The European Commission proposes to establish a European Research Council(ERC) that would spend a maximum of 12 billion($14 billion) over seven years on" blue skies" research. While the plans are being generally welcomed by Europe"s member states, their details are problematic. The proposed ERC is intended to make Europe more competitive. Europe has some first-class universities, scientific institutions and research organizations, But, the ERC"s proponents argue, their activities are fragmented, so they are not reaching their full potential. In America, teams from across the country compete with each other for grants from the National Science Foundation. The proposed ERC is modeled on this scheme, It would award grants to individual research teams for a specific project, solely on the basis of scientific merit judged by peer review, If the ERC were created, scientists from across Europe would compete with each other for funds, rather than merely competing with their fellow countrymen, as hap pens at present. This compares with the limited funding for basic research that currently exists in the EU, which places its emphasis on collaboration between researchers. It is open only to researchers in a narrow range of disciplines chosen by the European Parliament and the commission. The ERC would be quite different, placing its emphasis on competition between researchers and leaving scientists themselves to decide which areas of science to pursue. Helga Nowotny, who chairs the European Research Advisory Board—an advisory body to the commission—says that winning a grant from the ERC could come to be seen as unmistakable recognition of research excellence. The quality of European research needs to be stepped up a notch. Between 1980 and 2003, Europe had 68 Nobel laureates in medicine, physics and chemistry compared with 154 in America. With competition from China and India, Europe"s share could fall further. One of the reasons for Europe"s relatively weak performance is thought to be a lack of genuine competition between Europe"s researchers. Another is its poor ability to attract young people into a research career. Recent estimates suggest that Europe needs an extra 700,000 researchers if it is to meet its overall target of raising spending (private, national and EU) on research and development to 3% of GDP by 2010. Many young scientists leave Europe for America once they have finished their training. Dr. Nowotny says the ERC could help here too. It could establish a scheme to give young researchers the opportunity to follow their own ideas and become independent at an earlier stage in their careers, encouraging talent to stay in Europe. The crucial issue now is whether the ERC will be able to set its own research agenda, free from the interference and bureaucracy of the commission and influence of member states. Last month, 22 leading European scientists charged with shaping the ERC"s scientific strategy met for the first time to start hammering out a charter and constitution. Serious concerns remain over the legal structure of the body. The final decision on the ERC"s legal form, on a date yet unspecified, rests with the European Parliament and member states in the European Council. If both are genuine in their support for the ERC and Europe"s aim of becoming more competitive, then they must find a way of keeping the ERC free from political interference. Europe would benefit from a competition for its best researchers which rewards scientific excellence. A quasi-competition that recognizes how many votes each member state is allotted would be pointless. ERC"s ultimate success seems to lie in
A. the hands of the European Parliament.
B. the support of member states of the EC.
C. the absence of political intervention.
D. the number of votes each member is allotted.