昨天向一位同事請教一些我也不知道算是電子學還是VLSI方面的問題.其實我一開始問的是"什麼是Soft-core",不過熱心的他竟然從CMOS開始跟我解釋,然後是gate logic,然後是RTL,然後是netlist,然後是mask...
做人就是別太鐵齒.以前我大學時就是最討厭和電路有關的東西,只要是和電路有關的課都是低空掠過,只有把層次拉高到architecture時才覺得親切許多.當時的想法主要是: 管你low-level的雜七雜八細節,全給我abstract好往上拉就好了! 不過很多時候,abstraction不好做,別人做好的你也未必信得過啊...該學的東西就還是乖乖學一學吧...
再次感謝我的熱心同事!
參考圖:
http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/defineterm.jhtml?term=softcore
2007年6月27日 星期三
2007年6月7日 星期四
Unix核心 介紹
http://bbs.nsysu.edu.tw/txtVersion/treasure/linux/M.1013884061.A.html
我同事多年前寫的一篇文章,應該算是讀書心得筆記吧.沒想到他竟對Unix系統如此熟悉,實在是相當驚人.
另外,我也覺得年紀真是有差,像我這個年紀的人,如果是上大學才開始接觸電腦,大概十之八九都成了Windows的奴隸了.前兩天他問我能否說出五個OS,我的答案是: 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP (真是近乎腦殘的答案!)
PS. 後來我還跟他說,相較於他那篇文章的第一句"在出國前, 送給陪伴我大學四年的TAnet & UNIX...",我的版本則是"在出國前, 送給陪伴我大學四年的HiNet & Windoes..." (再次腦殘!)
我同事多年前寫的一篇文章,應該算是讀書心得筆記吧.沒想到他竟對Unix系統如此熟悉,實在是相當驚人.
另外,我也覺得年紀真是有差,像我這個年紀的人,如果是上大學才開始接觸電腦,大概十之八九都成了Windows的奴隸了.前兩天他問我能否說出五個OS,我的答案是: 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP (真是近乎腦殘的答案!)
PS. 後來我還跟他說,相較於他那篇文章的第一句"在出國前, 送給陪伴我大學四年的TAnet & UNIX...",我的版本則是"在出國前, 送給陪伴我大學四年的HiNet & Windoes..." (再次腦殘!)
2007年6月3日 星期日
English Quiz 217
(English Quiz 217)
1. Caution also defines Topshop's approach to the U.S. There's no denying the lure of the American market: while fast fashion accounts for around 12% of the British clothing market, that figure drops to just 1% in the U.S., according to Bain, a consulting firm. Spying massive opportunities, Topshop's European rivals have been quick to pile in. Spain's Zara has two dozen stores in the U.S.; Swedish chain H&M boasts more than 100. Not Topshop. Though it is content to market individual collections in America — alongside Barneys' agreement to flog the Moss range, Topshop's Unique line already sells in the Opening Ceremony boutique in New York City — it has not yet followed with any stand-alone stores. The track record of British clothing retailers in the U.S. is not particularly auspicious. A number of retailers, including the ubiquitous U.K. chain Next, have retreated after failing to find their feet in the competitive U.S. market.
Q: 試翻 "The track record ... in the competitive U.S. market."
2. While it looks into diversifying its supply chain, Topshop's go-slow approach to the American market is especially prudent. And glitzy department stores are an ideal venue to test market the Topshop brand. Moss's 50-piece collection might seem cheap compared to most else Barneys has to offer — prices range from around $24 for a strappy tank top to $300 for a leather jacket — but these days, says Robert Burke, a retail consultant in New York, fashion retail's territorial lines are blurring. "Traditional categories no longer exist, he says, "There's almost a reverse snobbery today: people really like the idea of mixing a variety of price points." In other words, few fashionistas think twice about pairing a $1,000 jacket with a $20 T shirt anymore. Launching Moss's opening collection in Barneys, Burke says, makes "perfect sense." Even so, opening stand-alone stores in the U.S. is clearly one of Green's ultimate goals. "I'm not going to get enough scale out of Barneys," he says, adding that he set up a series of real estate meetings in the U.S. to coincide with the Barneys launch. But with competitors like H&M and Zara already flourishing in the U.S., is there room for Topshop? "H&M and Zara are hitting the ball out of the park," reckons Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates, a New York-based retail consultancy. But thanks to its broader customer appeal, Davidowitz says, the potential for Topshop "is better than either of these."
Q: 試翻 "While it looks into ... is especially prudent."
3. Not that there isn't plenty of opportunity to occupy Topshop at home. The company is looking at ways of expanding its brand into new areas in the U.K., too, from confectionery to luggage to footwear. With Topshop stores already selling 35,000 pairs of shoes each week, says Green, "We've got a very good shoe business. Is there a Topshop shoe business in its own right?" With a brand this strong, it's difficult to see why not. Earlier this month, 21-year-old student Caroline Dickinson joined thousands of shoppers for the launch of Moss's collection in London. She waited in line for four hours to buy a $100 white cotton dress to wear at her university ball. By the time she got inside the store, however, she was told that item wasn't available. Unperturbed, Dickinson emerged a quarter of an hour later and a few hundred dollars lighter with two other dresses and a couple of vests. And she vowed to track down the white frock another day. That is the kind of loyalty any retailer would envy.
Q: 試翻 "Not that ... from confectionery to luggage to footwear."
1. Caution also defines Topshop's approach to the U.S. There's no denying the lure of the American market: while fast fashion accounts for around 12% of the British clothing market, that figure drops to just 1% in the U.S., according to Bain, a consulting firm. Spying massive opportunities, Topshop's European rivals have been quick to pile in. Spain's Zara has two dozen stores in the U.S.; Swedish chain H&M boasts more than 100. Not Topshop. Though it is content to market individual collections in America — alongside Barneys' agreement to flog the Moss range, Topshop's Unique line already sells in the Opening Ceremony boutique in New York City — it has not yet followed with any stand-alone stores. The track record of British clothing retailers in the U.S. is not particularly auspicious. A number of retailers, including the ubiquitous U.K. chain Next, have retreated after failing to find their feet in the competitive U.S. market.
Q: 試翻 "The track record ... in the competitive U.S. market."
2. While it looks into diversifying its supply chain, Topshop's go-slow approach to the American market is especially prudent. And glitzy department stores are an ideal venue to test market the Topshop brand. Moss's 50-piece collection might seem cheap compared to most else Barneys has to offer — prices range from around $24 for a strappy tank top to $300 for a leather jacket — but these days, says Robert Burke, a retail consultant in New York, fashion retail's territorial lines are blurring. "Traditional categories no longer exist, he says, "There's almost a reverse snobbery today: people really like the idea of mixing a variety of price points." In other words, few fashionistas think twice about pairing a $1,000 jacket with a $20 T shirt anymore. Launching Moss's opening collection in Barneys, Burke says, makes "perfect sense." Even so, opening stand-alone stores in the U.S. is clearly one of Green's ultimate goals. "I'm not going to get enough scale out of Barneys," he says, adding that he set up a series of real estate meetings in the U.S. to coincide with the Barneys launch. But with competitors like H&M and Zara already flourishing in the U.S., is there room for Topshop? "H&M and Zara are hitting the ball out of the park," reckons Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates, a New York-based retail consultancy. But thanks to its broader customer appeal, Davidowitz says, the potential for Topshop "is better than either of these."
Q: 試翻 "While it looks into ... is especially prudent."
3. Not that there isn't plenty of opportunity to occupy Topshop at home. The company is looking at ways of expanding its brand into new areas in the U.K., too, from confectionery to luggage to footwear. With Topshop stores already selling 35,000 pairs of shoes each week, says Green, "We've got a very good shoe business. Is there a Topshop shoe business in its own right?" With a brand this strong, it's difficult to see why not. Earlier this month, 21-year-old student Caroline Dickinson joined thousands of shoppers for the launch of Moss's collection in London. She waited in line for four hours to buy a $100 white cotton dress to wear at her university ball. By the time she got inside the store, however, she was told that item wasn't available. Unperturbed, Dickinson emerged a quarter of an hour later and a few hundred dollars lighter with two other dresses and a couple of vests. And she vowed to track down the white frock another day. That is the kind of loyalty any retailer would envy.
Q: 試翻 "Not that ... from confectionery to luggage to footwear."
English Quiz 217
(English Quiz 217)
1. Caution also defines Topshop's approach to the U.S. There's no denying the lure of the American market: while fast fashion accounts for around 12% of the British clothing market, that figure drops to just 1% in the U.S., according to Bain, a consulting firm. Spying massive opportunities, Topshop's European rivals have been quick to pile in. Spain's Zara has two dozen stores in the U.S.; Swedish chain H&M boasts more than 100. Not Topshop. Though it is content to market individual collections in America — alongside Barneys' agreement to flog the Moss range, Topshop's Unique line already sells in the Opening Ceremony boutique in New York City — it has not yet followed with any stand-alone stores. The track record of British clothing retailers in the U.S. is not particularly auspicious. A number of retailers, including the ubiquitous U.K. chain Next, have retreated after failing to find their feet in the competitive U.S. market.
Q: 試翻 "The track record ... in the competitive U.S. market."
2. While it looks into diversifying its supply chain, Topshop's go-slow approach to the American market is especially prudent. And glitzy department stores are an ideal venue to test market the Topshop brand. Moss's 50-piece collection might seem cheap compared to most else Barneys has to offer — prices range from around $24 for a strappy tank top to $300 for a leather jacket — but these days, says Robert Burke, a retail consultant in New York, fashion retail's territorial lines are blurring. "Traditional categories no longer exist, he says, "There's almost a reverse snobbery today: people really like the idea of mixing a variety of price points." In other words, few fashionistas think twice about pairing a $1,000 jacket with a $20 T shirt anymore. Launching Moss's opening collection in Barneys, Burke says, makes "perfect sense." Even so, opening stand-alone stores in the U.S. is clearly one of Green's ultimate goals. "I'm not going to get enough scale out of Barneys," he says, adding that he set up a series of real estate meetings in the U.S. to coincide with the Barneys launch. But with competitors like H&M and Zara already flourishing in the U.S., is there room for Topshop? "H&M and Zara are hitting the ball out of the park," reckons Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates, a New York-based retail consultancy. But thanks to its broader customer appeal, Davidowitz says, the potential for Topshop "is better than either of these."
Q: 試翻 "While it looks into ... is especially prudent."
3. Not that there isn't plenty of opportunity to occupy Topshop at home. The company is looking at ways of expanding its brand into new areas in the U.K., too, from confectionery to luggage to footwear. With Topshop stores already selling 35,000 pairs of shoes each week, says Green, "We've got a very good shoe business. Is there a Topshop shoe business in its own right?" With a brand this strong, it's difficult to see why not. Earlier this month, 21-year-old student Caroline Dickinson joined thousands of shoppers for the launch of Moss's collection in London. She waited in line for four hours to buy a $100 white cotton dress to wear at her university ball. By the time she got inside the store, however, she was told that item wasn't available. Unperturbed, Dickinson emerged a quarter of an hour later and a few hundred dollars lighter with two other dresses and a couple of vests. And she vowed to track down the white frock another day. That is the kind of loyalty any retailer would envy.
Q: 試翻 "Not that ... from confectionery to luggage to footwear."
1. Caution also defines Topshop's approach to the U.S. There's no denying the lure of the American market: while fast fashion accounts for around 12% of the British clothing market, that figure drops to just 1% in the U.S., according to Bain, a consulting firm. Spying massive opportunities, Topshop's European rivals have been quick to pile in. Spain's Zara has two dozen stores in the U.S.; Swedish chain H&M boasts more than 100. Not Topshop. Though it is content to market individual collections in America — alongside Barneys' agreement to flog the Moss range, Topshop's Unique line already sells in the Opening Ceremony boutique in New York City — it has not yet followed with any stand-alone stores. The track record of British clothing retailers in the U.S. is not particularly auspicious. A number of retailers, including the ubiquitous U.K. chain Next, have retreated after failing to find their feet in the competitive U.S. market.
Q: 試翻 "The track record ... in the competitive U.S. market."
2. While it looks into diversifying its supply chain, Topshop's go-slow approach to the American market is especially prudent. And glitzy department stores are an ideal venue to test market the Topshop brand. Moss's 50-piece collection might seem cheap compared to most else Barneys has to offer — prices range from around $24 for a strappy tank top to $300 for a leather jacket — but these days, says Robert Burke, a retail consultant in New York, fashion retail's territorial lines are blurring. "Traditional categories no longer exist, he says, "There's almost a reverse snobbery today: people really like the idea of mixing a variety of price points." In other words, few fashionistas think twice about pairing a $1,000 jacket with a $20 T shirt anymore. Launching Moss's opening collection in Barneys, Burke says, makes "perfect sense." Even so, opening stand-alone stores in the U.S. is clearly one of Green's ultimate goals. "I'm not going to get enough scale out of Barneys," he says, adding that he set up a series of real estate meetings in the U.S. to coincide with the Barneys launch. But with competitors like H&M and Zara already flourishing in the U.S., is there room for Topshop? "H&M and Zara are hitting the ball out of the park," reckons Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates, a New York-based retail consultancy. But thanks to its broader customer appeal, Davidowitz says, the potential for Topshop "is better than either of these."
Q: 試翻 "While it looks into ... is especially prudent."
3. Not that there isn't plenty of opportunity to occupy Topshop at home. The company is looking at ways of expanding its brand into new areas in the U.K., too, from confectionery to luggage to footwear. With Topshop stores already selling 35,000 pairs of shoes each week, says Green, "We've got a very good shoe business. Is there a Topshop shoe business in its own right?" With a brand this strong, it's difficult to see why not. Earlier this month, 21-year-old student Caroline Dickinson joined thousands of shoppers for the launch of Moss's collection in London. She waited in line for four hours to buy a $100 white cotton dress to wear at her university ball. By the time she got inside the store, however, she was told that item wasn't available. Unperturbed, Dickinson emerged a quarter of an hour later and a few hundred dollars lighter with two other dresses and a couple of vests. And she vowed to track down the white frock another day. That is the kind of loyalty any retailer would envy.
Q: 試翻 "Not that ... from confectionery to luggage to footwear."
English Quiz 216
(English Quiz 216)
1. Moss's new line is only the latest in Topshop's recent successes among "fast-fashion" retailers, which specialize in almost constantly updating collections of cool clothing at prices so low the clothes are almost disposable. Over the past nine years, Topshop has carved an enviable niche atop this hypercompetitive sector in Britain by appealing to a broader demographic than its competitors, by getting its new designs quickly to market and — in a category where inexpensive too often equals cheap — by emphasizing quality. Topshop's combination of fashion and value has "changed the way we dress," says Lauretta Roberts, editor of Drapers, the British fashion-business bible. That mix has also made it a hit not just with the masses but with celebrities and fashion bigwigs as well. No American fashion editor's trip to the U.K. is complete, for example, without a pilgrimage to Topshop.
Q: 試翻 "Over the past nine years, ... by emphasizing quality."
2. The Topshop formula is proving not just popular, but profitable, too. The chain made around $200 million in pretax earnings last year on revenues of approximately $1.14 billion. That's about half the total profits and a third of sales at the privately owned Arcadia Group. It wasn't always this way. As recently as the late 1990s, says Nick Bubb, a retail analyst at Pali International in London, profits were as little as one-tenth last year's haul. How did Topshop turn it around? By heading (relatively) upscale. Tired of its reputation for tackiness and losing out to budget chains in the '90s, Topshop's managers decided to stop competing just on price. "The decision was made to create a fashion authority," says Mary Homer, a joint managing director of Topshop who's been at the retailer for 20 years. (Green, a retail entrepreneur with years of experience in various types of businesses, acquired Arcadia in 2002, and helped execute the strategy already under way.) The company now employs 22 of its own designers, up from around a dozen in 2002, and they aim to create new looks just as deftly as they copy those from the catwalks.
Q: 試翻 "Tired of its reputaiton ... just on price."
3. Getting new fashions into stores even faster than before also became a central part of Topshop's revival. While traditional clothing retailers might take six weeks to get a design to sales floors, Topshop's trucks are delivering new duds to its outlets usually just two weeks after suppliers have received the order. The result: Topshop debuts hundreds of new pieces in its London flagship outlet every week. And if the emphasis on speed and stylishness means Topshop's togs are a bit more expensive, then so be it. That's a premium the chain's customers have come to expect and are willing to pay for. "If we can get it in four weeks in the U.K., we'll buy it at four weeks in the U.K. rather than buying it cheaper" elsewhere over a longer time frame, says Karyn Fenn, Topshop's other joint managing director. With 300 stores in the U.K and 100 international outlets (all of them franchises) in Asia, Europe and Latin America, Topshop is looking to expand its reach further overseas. "There's no lack of demand," Green says. Even after opening its biggest international store in Stockholm, he says, Scandinavia still holds tremendous potential. But to grow much larger, Topshop will have to make some radical changes. Today, no matter where its smock dresses or miniskirts are stitched together — or where they're destined — everything passes through the U.K. "The existing franchising model and supply chain would not work for significant global expansion and will need to be adapted," Green says. To construct an efficient, decentralized distribution system is a logistics puzzle management is now attempting to solve.
Q: 試翻 "And if the emphasis ... are willing to pay for."
1. Moss's new line is only the latest in Topshop's recent successes among "fast-fashion" retailers, which specialize in almost constantly updating collections of cool clothing at prices so low the clothes are almost disposable. Over the past nine years, Topshop has carved an enviable niche atop this hypercompetitive sector in Britain by appealing to a broader demographic than its competitors, by getting its new designs quickly to market and — in a category where inexpensive too often equals cheap — by emphasizing quality. Topshop's combination of fashion and value has "changed the way we dress," says Lauretta Roberts, editor of Drapers, the British fashion-business bible. That mix has also made it a hit not just with the masses but with celebrities and fashion bigwigs as well. No American fashion editor's trip to the U.K. is complete, for example, without a pilgrimage to Topshop.
Q: 試翻 "Over the past nine years, ... by emphasizing quality."
2. The Topshop formula is proving not just popular, but profitable, too. The chain made around $200 million in pretax earnings last year on revenues of approximately $1.14 billion. That's about half the total profits and a third of sales at the privately owned Arcadia Group. It wasn't always this way. As recently as the late 1990s, says Nick Bubb, a retail analyst at Pali International in London, profits were as little as one-tenth last year's haul. How did Topshop turn it around? By heading (relatively) upscale. Tired of its reputation for tackiness and losing out to budget chains in the '90s, Topshop's managers decided to stop competing just on price. "The decision was made to create a fashion authority," says Mary Homer, a joint managing director of Topshop who's been at the retailer for 20 years. (Green, a retail entrepreneur with years of experience in various types of businesses, acquired Arcadia in 2002, and helped execute the strategy already under way.) The company now employs 22 of its own designers, up from around a dozen in 2002, and they aim to create new looks just as deftly as they copy those from the catwalks.
Q: 試翻 "Tired of its reputaiton ... just on price."
3. Getting new fashions into stores even faster than before also became a central part of Topshop's revival. While traditional clothing retailers might take six weeks to get a design to sales floors, Topshop's trucks are delivering new duds to its outlets usually just two weeks after suppliers have received the order. The result: Topshop debuts hundreds of new pieces in its London flagship outlet every week. And if the emphasis on speed and stylishness means Topshop's togs are a bit more expensive, then so be it. That's a premium the chain's customers have come to expect and are willing to pay for. "If we can get it in four weeks in the U.K., we'll buy it at four weeks in the U.K. rather than buying it cheaper" elsewhere over a longer time frame, says Karyn Fenn, Topshop's other joint managing director. With 300 stores in the U.K and 100 international outlets (all of them franchises) in Asia, Europe and Latin America, Topshop is looking to expand its reach further overseas. "There's no lack of demand," Green says. Even after opening its biggest international store in Stockholm, he says, Scandinavia still holds tremendous potential. But to grow much larger, Topshop will have to make some radical changes. Today, no matter where its smock dresses or miniskirts are stitched together — or where they're destined — everything passes through the U.K. "The existing franchising model and supply chain would not work for significant global expansion and will need to be adapted," Green says. To construct an efficient, decentralized distribution system is a logistics puzzle management is now attempting to solve.
Q: 試翻 "And if the emphasis ... are willing to pay for."
English Quiz 215
(English Quiz 215)
1. It is one thing to conquer a country. It is quite another to stay there and try to force-feed your ideas onto a part of the world that has its own traditions. It is when empires strive to impose their ideals onto the conquered at bayonet point that even the most powerful occupying armies find themselves provoking violent resistance.
Q: 試翻 "It is when ... provoking violent resistance."
2. After the tough time the U.S. has had trying to maintain its garrisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, this lesson may seem very contemporary. But it is one that has been learned before, notably by the British in India exactly 150 years ago. On the evening of Sunday, May 10, 1857, some 300 Indian troops (called sepoys) in the town of Meerut mutinied against their officers. They shot as many as they could, then rode through the night to the old Mughal capital of Delhi. There they massacred every Christian man,woman and child and declared the 82-year-old Mughal Emperor Zafar their leader. The rhetoric of the uprising explicitly revolved around the threat that the British posed to Indian religions. As the sepoys told Zafar on May 11, "We have joined hands to protect our religion and our faith." British men and women who had converted to Islam were not hurt, but Indians who had converted to Christianity were cut down immediately. What lay behind the uprising? The British, through the East India Company, had been trading in India since the early 17th century. But the commercial relationship changed toward the end of the 18th century as the authority of the Mughal Empire collapsed and a new group of conservatives came into power in London, determined to expand British ascendancy. Lord Wellesley, the British Governor-General from 1798 to 1805, called his new approach the Forward Policy. Wellesley made clear that he was determined to establish British dominance over all European rivals and believed it was better pre-emptively to remove hostile Muslim regimes that presumed to resist the West's growing power.
3. The Forward Policy soon developed an evangelical flavor; the plan was to impose not just British laws and technology on India but also British Christian values. That way India would be not only ruled but redeemed. Local laws that offended Christian sensibilities were abrogated. The burning of widows, for example, was banned. One of the company directors, Charles Grant, spoke for many when he wrote of how he believed that Providence had brought the British to India for a higher purpose: "Is it not necessary to conclude that our Asiatic territories were given to us, not merely that we might draw an annual profit from them, but that we might diffuse among their inhabitants, long sunk in darkness, vice and misery, the light and benign influences of Truth?" The reaction came with the Great Mutiny of 1857. Of the 139,000 sepoys in the Bengal Army--the largest modern army in Asia--all but 7,796 turned against their masters. Before long, the mutiny had snowballed into the largest and bloodiest anticolonial revolt facing any European empire in the entire course of the 19th century. There are many echoes linking the uprising to the Islamic resistance the U.S. faces today. Though the great majority of sepoys were Hindus, in Delhi a flag of jihad was raised in the principal mosque, and some of the insurgents described themselves as mujahedin or jihadis. Eventually, the uprising was crushed, but only after some of the most vicious fighting seen at any point in Indian or British history. Innocent British women and children were killed by the rebels; in response, the British destroyed entire cities. Delhi, a bustling and sophisticated city of half a million souls, was left an empty ruin.
Q: 試翻 "The Forward Policy ... not only ruled but redeemed."
4. The lessons of 1857 can be seen today on the streets of Iraq. No one likes being conquered by people of a different faith, then being force-fed improving ideas. The British in 1857 discovered that nothing so easily radicalizes a people or undermines the moderate aspect of Islam than aggressive Western intrusion in the East. The histories of Islamic fundamentalism and Western imperialism have often been closely intertwined--so much so that thinking of 1857, we might remember the celebrated dictum of Edmund Burke: that those who fail to learn from history are always destined to repeat it.
Q: 試翻 "Tge British in 1857 ... in the East."
1. It is one thing to conquer a country. It is quite another to stay there and try to force-feed your ideas onto a part of the world that has its own traditions. It is when empires strive to impose their ideals onto the conquered at bayonet point that even the most powerful occupying armies find themselves provoking violent resistance.
Q: 試翻 "It is when ... provoking violent resistance."
2. After the tough time the U.S. has had trying to maintain its garrisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, this lesson may seem very contemporary. But it is one that has been learned before, notably by the British in India exactly 150 years ago. On the evening of Sunday, May 10, 1857, some 300 Indian troops (called sepoys) in the town of Meerut mutinied against their officers. They shot as many as they could, then rode through the night to the old Mughal capital of Delhi. There they massacred every Christian man,woman and child and declared the 82-year-old Mughal Emperor Zafar their leader. The rhetoric of the uprising explicitly revolved around the threat that the British posed to Indian religions. As the sepoys told Zafar on May 11, "We have joined hands to protect our religion and our faith." British men and women who had converted to Islam were not hurt, but Indians who had converted to Christianity were cut down immediately. What lay behind the uprising? The British, through the East India Company, had been trading in India since the early 17th century. But the commercial relationship changed toward the end of the 18th century as the authority of the Mughal Empire collapsed and a new group of conservatives came into power in London, determined to expand British ascendancy. Lord Wellesley, the British Governor-General from 1798 to 1805, called his new approach the Forward Policy. Wellesley made clear that he was determined to establish British dominance over all European rivals and believed it was better pre-emptively to remove hostile Muslim regimes that presumed to resist the West's growing power.
3. The Forward Policy soon developed an evangelical flavor; the plan was to impose not just British laws and technology on India but also British Christian values. That way India would be not only ruled but redeemed. Local laws that offended Christian sensibilities were abrogated. The burning of widows, for example, was banned. One of the company directors, Charles Grant, spoke for many when he wrote of how he believed that Providence had brought the British to India for a higher purpose: "Is it not necessary to conclude that our Asiatic territories were given to us, not merely that we might draw an annual profit from them, but that we might diffuse among their inhabitants, long sunk in darkness, vice and misery, the light and benign influences of Truth?" The reaction came with the Great Mutiny of 1857. Of the 139,000 sepoys in the Bengal Army--the largest modern army in Asia--all but 7,796 turned against their masters. Before long, the mutiny had snowballed into the largest and bloodiest anticolonial revolt facing any European empire in the entire course of the 19th century. There are many echoes linking the uprising to the Islamic resistance the U.S. faces today. Though the great majority of sepoys were Hindus, in Delhi a flag of jihad was raised in the principal mosque, and some of the insurgents described themselves as mujahedin or jihadis. Eventually, the uprising was crushed, but only after some of the most vicious fighting seen at any point in Indian or British history. Innocent British women and children were killed by the rebels; in response, the British destroyed entire cities. Delhi, a bustling and sophisticated city of half a million souls, was left an empty ruin.
Q: 試翻 "The Forward Policy ... not only ruled but redeemed."
4. The lessons of 1857 can be seen today on the streets of Iraq. No one likes being conquered by people of a different faith, then being force-fed improving ideas. The British in 1857 discovered that nothing so easily radicalizes a people or undermines the moderate aspect of Islam than aggressive Western intrusion in the East. The histories of Islamic fundamentalism and Western imperialism have often been closely intertwined--so much so that thinking of 1857, we might remember the celebrated dictum of Edmund Burke: that those who fail to learn from history are always destined to repeat it.
Q: 試翻 "Tge British in 1857 ... in the East."
English Quiz 214
(English Quiz 214)
1. Could the world be home to a new theocracy? Starting last month, in a tropical country of 65 million, thousands of faithful, many dressed in religious garb, have marched the capital's streets demanding that the draft of the new constitution currently being debated enshrine their beliefs as the state faith. In our era of sectarian strife, many of us shudder at the prospect of another nation blending church and state. Look what happened in Iran and Afghanistan, we think, or what might have occurred if former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke had reigned supreme in America. Yet the marches in Thailand barely broke international headlines. Did I mention? The religion that sparked the protests is Buddhism.
Q: 試翻 "Starting last month, ... as the state faith."
2. In the West, Buddhism is often thought of as spirituality lite, the equivalent of golf to rougher contact sports—except with a better sartorial sense. Certainly, the saffron and burgundy robes, the serene statuary, all paint an exotic picture that brings to mind harmless, crystal-wearing Californians rather than religious fanatics. Our image of a clash of civilizations does not include renegade Buddhist monks. Nevertheless, we should be every bit as worried about the protest marches in Bangkok as those in other countries with different faiths, because the Thai call to prayer is being driven by the same worrying trends: nationalism and communalism. Thailand, famous worldwide for its golden Buddhist temples, is also home to millions of Muslims, most of whom live in the country's south. A religious-based insurgency there has claimed more than 2,000 lives since 2004, with some rebels calling for a separate Islamic homeland. Since Thailand's military coup last September, the violence has only gotten worse, even though the junta leader, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, is himself a Muslim. With many of the killings involving Muslims targeting Buddhists (although plenty of Muslims have been murdered as well), it's not surprising that sentiment in usually tolerant Thailand is turning hostile. "Ten years ago, it would have failed," says Mettanando Bhikkhu, a prominent Buddhist scholar in Bangkok, of the movement to make the religion the country's official faith. "But among these Buddhist nationalists, burning sentiments against other religions are very strong."
Q: 試翻 "Certainly, ... rather than religious fanatics."
3. Taking stock of the new mood, General Sonthi announced after the protests that he didn't mind if Buddhism was added to the constitution, so long as the move promoted peace in Thailand. Other junta members said they would not stand in the way of a state religion. The lack of government opposition is likely a sign of a weakened leadership aiming to please the public, rather than a reflection of personal zealotry. Yet many Buddhists in Thailand have no wish to see their faith enter politics. And Thai Muslims, most of whom already feel marginalized in this overwhelmingly Buddhist nation, will read any such move as more evidence of their second-class status. "It will inflame the south," says Panitan Wattanayagorn, a security specialist at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. "Muslim countries will believe we are against minorities." That would be a shame, since historically Thai culture has shown tolerance toward other cultures and religions. "Most Thais would like to find a compromise or middle path on this [constitutional] issue," says Panitan. A Buddhist theologian couldn't have said it any better.
Q: 試翻 "The lack of government opposition ... personal zealotry."
Q: 試翻 "And Thai Muslims, ... their second-class status."
1. Could the world be home to a new theocracy? Starting last month, in a tropical country of 65 million, thousands of faithful, many dressed in religious garb, have marched the capital's streets demanding that the draft of the new constitution currently being debated enshrine their beliefs as the state faith. In our era of sectarian strife, many of us shudder at the prospect of another nation blending church and state. Look what happened in Iran and Afghanistan, we think, or what might have occurred if former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke had reigned supreme in America. Yet the marches in Thailand barely broke international headlines. Did I mention? The religion that sparked the protests is Buddhism.
Q: 試翻 "Starting last month, ... as the state faith."
2. In the West, Buddhism is often thought of as spirituality lite, the equivalent of golf to rougher contact sports—except with a better sartorial sense. Certainly, the saffron and burgundy robes, the serene statuary, all paint an exotic picture that brings to mind harmless, crystal-wearing Californians rather than religious fanatics. Our image of a clash of civilizations does not include renegade Buddhist monks. Nevertheless, we should be every bit as worried about the protest marches in Bangkok as those in other countries with different faiths, because the Thai call to prayer is being driven by the same worrying trends: nationalism and communalism. Thailand, famous worldwide for its golden Buddhist temples, is also home to millions of Muslims, most of whom live in the country's south. A religious-based insurgency there has claimed more than 2,000 lives since 2004, with some rebels calling for a separate Islamic homeland. Since Thailand's military coup last September, the violence has only gotten worse, even though the junta leader, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, is himself a Muslim. With many of the killings involving Muslims targeting Buddhists (although plenty of Muslims have been murdered as well), it's not surprising that sentiment in usually tolerant Thailand is turning hostile. "Ten years ago, it would have failed," says Mettanando Bhikkhu, a prominent Buddhist scholar in Bangkok, of the movement to make the religion the country's official faith. "But among these Buddhist nationalists, burning sentiments against other religions are very strong."
Q: 試翻 "Certainly, ... rather than religious fanatics."
3. Taking stock of the new mood, General Sonthi announced after the protests that he didn't mind if Buddhism was added to the constitution, so long as the move promoted peace in Thailand. Other junta members said they would not stand in the way of a state religion. The lack of government opposition is likely a sign of a weakened leadership aiming to please the public, rather than a reflection of personal zealotry. Yet many Buddhists in Thailand have no wish to see their faith enter politics. And Thai Muslims, most of whom already feel marginalized in this overwhelmingly Buddhist nation, will read any such move as more evidence of their second-class status. "It will inflame the south," says Panitan Wattanayagorn, a security specialist at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. "Muslim countries will believe we are against minorities." That would be a shame, since historically Thai culture has shown tolerance toward other cultures and religions. "Most Thais would like to find a compromise or middle path on this [constitutional] issue," says Panitan. A Buddhist theologian couldn't have said it any better.
Q: 試翻 "The lack of government opposition ... personal zealotry."
Q: 試翻 "And Thai Muslims, ... their second-class status."
English Quiz 213
(English Quiz 213)
1. In 1902, Boston boardinghouse owner Jessie Barron bought Dow Jones & Co., publisher of the Wall Street Journal, with a down payment of $2,500. She did this at the behest of her longtime boarder and not-so-longtime second husband, financial writer Clarence Barron. But Mrs. Barron really was the owner, and when she died in 1918, her majority share passed to her daughter by her first marriage, Jane Bancroft. The Bancrofts have held a controlling stake in Dow Jones ever since. Jane's husband Hugh Bancroft was company president for a time, but since his death in 1933, the family has mostly kept its hands off. "I want you to do what's best for the company," Jane reportedly told her husband's successor, reporter turned manager Casey Hogate. "Don't you and the boys worry about dividends." The modern, globe-spanning Journal was thus built by "the boys" from the newsroom while the Bancrofts stood benignly by (though they did, as the Journal returned to health after the Depression, eventually start caring about dividends).
Q: 試翻 "The modern, ... start caring about dividens."
2. Now, as you have surely heard, the three dozen cousins who have a hand in voting the shares inherited from Jessie Barron face a momentous decision. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. has offered to buy them out at a staggeringly high price--$60 a share, or 75% higher than the market was valuing Dow Jones before the offer. The Bancrofts' initial answer was no, but there is disagreement within the family. If Murdoch ups his bid, anything could happen--and the current betting on Wall Street is that something will. With that, yet another leading family would depart an American news business once dominated by such clans. Newspaper-owning families began selling out in a big way to corporate chains in the 1960s. The largest chains--Gannett, Knight-Ridder, Tribune, Times Mirror--mostly started out family run as well, but as they expanded, the family stake was diluted, and Wall Street came to call the shots. This wasn't all bad; lots of family-owned newspapers were horrible. Knight-Ridder in particular gained a reputation for improving the properties it bought. But with profits under severe pressure from the Internet, Wall Street has turned the screws. Knight-Ridder was sold off and busted up last year; Tribune, which bought Times Mirror in 2000, was acquired by vulture investor Sam Zell in April. Left standing are the great exceptions to the eat-or-be-eaten model, the family-owned companies behind the country's three best newspapers: the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. The Bancrofts were unique in their disengagement from the business they controlled. But their view of the company they inherited as a trust whose value exceeded the dividends it generated was shared by the more hands-on Sulzbergers of New York City and Grahams of Washington. "It's not just family ownership," says Alex Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy and co-author of two histories of newspaper families (the Sulzbergers as well as the Binghams of Louisville, Ky.). "It's a particular kind of family ownership that's nearly miraculous."
Q: 試翻 "Left standing are ... the Wall Street Journal."
3. That kind of near miraculous commitment can be awfully hard to maintain. In recent decades, all three families have made use of dual-class stock structures that allow them to take Wall Street's money while attempting to resist its pressures. At the New York Times Co., the Sulzbergers own 19% of the company but control 70% of the voting power. At the Washington Post Co., the Grahams own close to 40% of the company and get about 75% of the votes. At Dow Jones, the Bancrofts own 25% of the company and get 64% of the votes. The Grahams have so far escaped much criticism because their company has performed well (mainly thanks to its Kaplan educational subsidiary), but the New York Times Co.'s outside shareholders have been clamoring for an end to the dual-share setup. Still, they don't have the votes to force a change. The biggest danger to family control inevitably comes from the family members themselves.
Q: 試翻 "The Grahams have so far ... and end to the dual-share setup."
4. That's the case at Dow Jones. A decade ago, two of the younger Bancroft cousins began agitating for more shareholder-friendly management. They've gotten their way, to an extent. For the first time since Hugh Bancroft, the company has a CEO who didn't rise through the reporting and editing ranks. But the stock continued to flounder until Murdoch came along with his hugely attractive offer. It is a lot to ask of a bunch of far-flung cousins to run the business they own as a public trust. Lately there has been much talk of restructuring news organizations as actual trusts--that is, nonprofits. Florida's St. Petersburg Times is the biggest American paper that works this way; overseas the Guardian in England and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in Germany are foundation owned. Creating these entities, though, requires a far greater sacrifice than any made so far by the Bancrofts, Grahams and Sulzbergers: they would have to hand over their shares without recompense.
Q: 試翻 "Creating these entities, ... without recompense."
5. Which leaves Murdoch. As he emphasized in a letter to the Bancrofts, his company is a family enterprise too . He inherited Australia's Adelaide News from his father in 1952, and his children will get his stake in News Corp. It's yet another dual-share setup, with the Murdochs holding (after a share swap currently awaiting regulatory approval) 13% of company stock and 39% of the votes. That is no majority--one key difference between the Murdochs and the Bancrofts. A bigger difference is that Murdoch has treated News Corp. not as a trust but as a vehicle to get richer and more powerful. From one newspaper in a provincial Australian city, he has built a global empire that now encompasses 20th Century Fox, MySpace and the Times of London. The man has shown a remarkable ability to sniff opportunity where others don't. But he is 76, he won't be around forever, and it's hard to say what News Corp. will be in the absence of his controversial genius. Quite possibly, it will be yet another family media business that stops being a family business.
1. In 1902, Boston boardinghouse owner Jessie Barron bought Dow Jones & Co., publisher of the Wall Street Journal, with a down payment of $2,500. She did this at the behest of her longtime boarder and not-so-longtime second husband, financial writer Clarence Barron. But Mrs. Barron really was the owner, and when she died in 1918, her majority share passed to her daughter by her first marriage, Jane Bancroft. The Bancrofts have held a controlling stake in Dow Jones ever since. Jane's husband Hugh Bancroft was company president for a time, but since his death in 1933, the family has mostly kept its hands off. "I want you to do what's best for the company," Jane reportedly told her husband's successor, reporter turned manager Casey Hogate. "Don't you and the boys worry about dividends." The modern, globe-spanning Journal was thus built by "the boys" from the newsroom while the Bancrofts stood benignly by (though they did, as the Journal returned to health after the Depression, eventually start caring about dividends).
Q: 試翻 "The modern, ... start caring about dividens."
2. Now, as you have surely heard, the three dozen cousins who have a hand in voting the shares inherited from Jessie Barron face a momentous decision. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. has offered to buy them out at a staggeringly high price--$60 a share, or 75% higher than the market was valuing Dow Jones before the offer. The Bancrofts' initial answer was no, but there is disagreement within the family. If Murdoch ups his bid, anything could happen--and the current betting on Wall Street is that something will. With that, yet another leading family would depart an American news business once dominated by such clans. Newspaper-owning families began selling out in a big way to corporate chains in the 1960s. The largest chains--Gannett, Knight-Ridder, Tribune, Times Mirror--mostly started out family run as well, but as they expanded, the family stake was diluted, and Wall Street came to call the shots. This wasn't all bad; lots of family-owned newspapers were horrible. Knight-Ridder in particular gained a reputation for improving the properties it bought. But with profits under severe pressure from the Internet, Wall Street has turned the screws. Knight-Ridder was sold off and busted up last year; Tribune, which bought Times Mirror in 2000, was acquired by vulture investor Sam Zell in April. Left standing are the great exceptions to the eat-or-be-eaten model, the family-owned companies behind the country's three best newspapers: the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. The Bancrofts were unique in their disengagement from the business they controlled. But their view of the company they inherited as a trust whose value exceeded the dividends it generated was shared by the more hands-on Sulzbergers of New York City and Grahams of Washington. "It's not just family ownership," says Alex Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy and co-author of two histories of newspaper families (the Sulzbergers as well as the Binghams of Louisville, Ky.). "It's a particular kind of family ownership that's nearly miraculous."
Q: 試翻 "Left standing are ... the Wall Street Journal."
3. That kind of near miraculous commitment can be awfully hard to maintain. In recent decades, all three families have made use of dual-class stock structures that allow them to take Wall Street's money while attempting to resist its pressures. At the New York Times Co., the Sulzbergers own 19% of the company but control 70% of the voting power. At the Washington Post Co., the Grahams own close to 40% of the company and get about 75% of the votes. At Dow Jones, the Bancrofts own 25% of the company and get 64% of the votes. The Grahams have so far escaped much criticism because their company has performed well (mainly thanks to its Kaplan educational subsidiary), but the New York Times Co.'s outside shareholders have been clamoring for an end to the dual-share setup. Still, they don't have the votes to force a change. The biggest danger to family control inevitably comes from the family members themselves.
Q: 試翻 "The Grahams have so far ... and end to the dual-share setup."
4. That's the case at Dow Jones. A decade ago, two of the younger Bancroft cousins began agitating for more shareholder-friendly management. They've gotten their way, to an extent. For the first time since Hugh Bancroft, the company has a CEO who didn't rise through the reporting and editing ranks. But the stock continued to flounder until Murdoch came along with his hugely attractive offer. It is a lot to ask of a bunch of far-flung cousins to run the business they own as a public trust. Lately there has been much talk of restructuring news organizations as actual trusts--that is, nonprofits. Florida's St. Petersburg Times is the biggest American paper that works this way; overseas the Guardian in England and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in Germany are foundation owned. Creating these entities, though, requires a far greater sacrifice than any made so far by the Bancrofts, Grahams and Sulzbergers: they would have to hand over their shares without recompense.
Q: 試翻 "Creating these entities, ... without recompense."
5. Which leaves Murdoch. As he emphasized in a letter to the Bancrofts, his company is a family enterprise too . He inherited Australia's Adelaide News from his father in 1952, and his children will get his stake in News Corp. It's yet another dual-share setup, with the Murdochs holding (after a share swap currently awaiting regulatory approval) 13% of company stock and 39% of the votes. That is no majority--one key difference between the Murdochs and the Bancrofts. A bigger difference is that Murdoch has treated News Corp. not as a trust but as a vehicle to get richer and more powerful. From one newspaper in a provincial Australian city, he has built a global empire that now encompasses 20th Century Fox, MySpace and the Times of London. The man has shown a remarkable ability to sniff opportunity where others don't. But he is 76, he won't be around forever, and it's hard to say what News Corp. will be in the absence of his controversial genius. Quite possibly, it will be yet another family media business that stops being a family business.
English Quiz 212
(English Quiz 212)
1. According to Deloitte's 2006 Annual Review of Football Finance, the top five earners in the 2004-05 season — Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and Newcastle United — accounted for almost half of both revenue and salary costs. And though average club revenue hit $124 million in 2004-05, the ratio of revenue at the richest club to that of the poorest is 4.7:1, well over twice the NFL's rate and almost double the NBA's. While income from TV rights in the NFL is split evenly between all 32 teams, half of domestic rights in the Premier League are divided according to the number of times a team is aired and its final league position. The result: the top club pockets almost twice the amount that the bottom team does — and only the top few clubs access money-spinning European club competition the following season. In the U.S. there are mechanisms such as salary caps in place to ensure a competitive balance, but there's no sign of anything like that in the Premiership. "What we have is almost like a two-tier league structure," says Birkbeck's Chadwick: "Those that can win the Premier League, and those that won't." That may not matter as much as you might think. Though only four different teams have won the Premier League since 1992, most fans seem unperturbed by a lack of competitiveness. Midway through a survey of thousands of supporters, Birkbeck's Chadwick says top-flight followers still consider the league "exciting and unpredictable." And financial prospects for smaller teams are brightening. More of them are now profitable, according to the Deloitte report. These days, "to be the 10th or 12th club in the best league is still good," says Chris Lee, head of Professional Sports Business at Barclays, which acts as banker for half of the Premier League's clubs. "Not all clubs are making a profit, but there's not so much of an excuse now."
Q: 試翻 "The result: ... the following season."
2. Profitability would no doubt be helped if clubs could bring wages under control. Over the past decade, according to Deloitte, Premier League wages rose an average of 20% a year. Top earners like Chelsea's Michael Ballack and Thierry Henry of Arsenal reportedly pocket around $12.5 million each year. But in 2004-05, for the first time since 1992, total wages dipped, and the ratio of wages to revenue is lower than it is in most of the other big European leagues. Clubs threatened with relegation out of the Premiership (three teams are dropped each year, and three added) are wising up to performance-related pay schemes. From next season, even the worst team will net around $54 million in media and TV revenue, almost as much as the $60 million that Chelsea took home for winning the league last year. And relegated teams get "parachute payments" that soften the blow of tumbling down a division. With that kind of stability, building a brand in Asia and other foreign markets may not seem such a stretch, even for relatively small clubs. Despite losing money last season, Sheffield United bought China's Chengdu Five Bull football team (and duly renamed the side the Blades, to match the English club's moniker). Since then, United has opened a city-center bar and retail outlet at the stadium. Analysts are impressed. "If a club hasn't got a high profile or heaps of cash, building relationships in the local market is a cost-effective way to build brand awareness and suit longer-term Asian sensibilities," says Geoffrey Gold, ceo of Football Dynamics Asia, the Jakarta-based consultants.
Q: 試翻 "And relegated teams ... down a division."
3. To lend a bigger hand to mid- or low-placed sides like Villa and Sheffield, the Premier League could learn from the NBA. Rather than basketball teams marketing themselves individually, the NBA represents the collective interest of the league when it sells itself in places like China. "The NBA has the vision, focus and drive that the [Premier League] doesn't," says Terry Rhoads, general manager of Shanghai's Zou Marketing, who has advised both the NFL and the NBA on selling to China. "The [Premier League] clubs are taking the lead and there's no coordinated effort. Right now it's like the children leading the parents when it should be the other way around." Scudamore dismisses the comparison. The NBA, he says, "doesn't have global brands as clubs." Because it boasts legendary teams like Manchester United, he thinks, the Premier League has "a very different model." Closer to home, fans at Old Trafford stadium are grappling with marketing of a different kind. Even when there's no game on, there are plenty of ways to part a fan from his cash. You can join a tour party — as 200,000 fans do each year, paying $20 for the privilege. You can hit the Manchester United megastore, and look at anything from jewelry to lacy garters. It's not what the cloth-cap and meat-pie fans of yore would have bought. But then, the English Premier League left behind the world of those supporters long ago.
Q: 試翻 "Even when ... from his cash."
1. According to Deloitte's 2006 Annual Review of Football Finance, the top five earners in the 2004-05 season — Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and Newcastle United — accounted for almost half of both revenue and salary costs. And though average club revenue hit $124 million in 2004-05, the ratio of revenue at the richest club to that of the poorest is 4.7:1, well over twice the NFL's rate and almost double the NBA's. While income from TV rights in the NFL is split evenly between all 32 teams, half of domestic rights in the Premier League are divided according to the number of times a team is aired and its final league position. The result: the top club pockets almost twice the amount that the bottom team does — and only the top few clubs access money-spinning European club competition the following season. In the U.S. there are mechanisms such as salary caps in place to ensure a competitive balance, but there's no sign of anything like that in the Premiership. "What we have is almost like a two-tier league structure," says Birkbeck's Chadwick: "Those that can win the Premier League, and those that won't." That may not matter as much as you might think. Though only four different teams have won the Premier League since 1992, most fans seem unperturbed by a lack of competitiveness. Midway through a survey of thousands of supporters, Birkbeck's Chadwick says top-flight followers still consider the league "exciting and unpredictable." And financial prospects for smaller teams are brightening. More of them are now profitable, according to the Deloitte report. These days, "to be the 10th or 12th club in the best league is still good," says Chris Lee, head of Professional Sports Business at Barclays, which acts as banker for half of the Premier League's clubs. "Not all clubs are making a profit, but there's not so much of an excuse now."
Q: 試翻 "The result: ... the following season."
2. Profitability would no doubt be helped if clubs could bring wages under control. Over the past decade, according to Deloitte, Premier League wages rose an average of 20% a year. Top earners like Chelsea's Michael Ballack and Thierry Henry of Arsenal reportedly pocket around $12.5 million each year. But in 2004-05, for the first time since 1992, total wages dipped, and the ratio of wages to revenue is lower than it is in most of the other big European leagues. Clubs threatened with relegation out of the Premiership (three teams are dropped each year, and three added) are wising up to performance-related pay schemes. From next season, even the worst team will net around $54 million in media and TV revenue, almost as much as the $60 million that Chelsea took home for winning the league last year. And relegated teams get "parachute payments" that soften the blow of tumbling down a division. With that kind of stability, building a brand in Asia and other foreign markets may not seem such a stretch, even for relatively small clubs. Despite losing money last season, Sheffield United bought China's Chengdu Five Bull football team (and duly renamed the side the Blades, to match the English club's moniker). Since then, United has opened a city-center bar and retail outlet at the stadium. Analysts are impressed. "If a club hasn't got a high profile or heaps of cash, building relationships in the local market is a cost-effective way to build brand awareness and suit longer-term Asian sensibilities," says Geoffrey Gold, ceo of Football Dynamics Asia, the Jakarta-based consultants.
Q: 試翻 "And relegated teams ... down a division."
3. To lend a bigger hand to mid- or low-placed sides like Villa and Sheffield, the Premier League could learn from the NBA. Rather than basketball teams marketing themselves individually, the NBA represents the collective interest of the league when it sells itself in places like China. "The NBA has the vision, focus and drive that the [Premier League] doesn't," says Terry Rhoads, general manager of Shanghai's Zou Marketing, who has advised both the NFL and the NBA on selling to China. "The [Premier League] clubs are taking the lead and there's no coordinated effort. Right now it's like the children leading the parents when it should be the other way around." Scudamore dismisses the comparison. The NBA, he says, "doesn't have global brands as clubs." Because it boasts legendary teams like Manchester United, he thinks, the Premier League has "a very different model." Closer to home, fans at Old Trafford stadium are grappling with marketing of a different kind. Even when there's no game on, there are plenty of ways to part a fan from his cash. You can join a tour party — as 200,000 fans do each year, paying $20 for the privilege. You can hit the Manchester United megastore, and look at anything from jewelry to lacy garters. It's not what the cloth-cap and meat-pie fans of yore would have bought. But then, the English Premier League left behind the world of those supporters long ago.
Q: 試翻 "Even when ... from his cash."
English Quiz 211
(English Quiz 211)
1. For all its success at home, it is the Premiership's global reach that sets it apart from other sports leagues. That reflects good business sense. "We're a small island with a relatively small population," says Richard Scudamore, ceo of the Premier League. In Britain, "there's going to be limited domestic growth" for teams. But while the indicators at home are "fairly maxed out" — match-day attendance, for instance, averages 92% across the League — Scudamore says that recruiting the legions of potential foreign fans offers "huge global scope." The nature of the game helps. Purists have often mocked the English style of football, but with its fast pace and all-action style, it is undeniably exciting — especially in markets where football is relatively novel. Ask Dittha Jumpakaeg, p.r. manager for the Liverpool Thailand Fan Club. The Bangkok local doesn't remember exactly how old he was when he first watched Liverpool on TV, but he was hooked by the side's dazzling control. "It seemed the other side never touched the ball,'' he says. (They didn't.) Germany's Bundesliga occasionally aired in Thailand, Dittha says, but the German matches seemed slower, the players older. "Thais," he adds, "like a fast-paced game." (In 2004, then Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra actually tried to buy into Liverpool.) Now some 41 million of Manchester United's estimated 75 million fans worldwide are in Asia, according to MORI, and in a report for England's Football Association this year, academics at Warwick Business School found that 14% of Chinese football fans polled said they owned a Manchester United shirt.
Q: 試翻 "For all its success ... from other sports leagues."
2. Adding an Asian player to the ranks can help. Four Premiership teams now have Chinese players on their books, and since welcoming South Korea's Park Ji Sung into their line-up in 2005, Manchester United have become big in Seoul. Three-quarters of South Korea's football fans see the club as their favorite European side, according to Birkbeck, and more than 650,000 South Koreans have signed up for a club-branded credit or debit card since their launch a year ago. By launching local-language websites, teams can tailor marketing to fit an individual country, drumming up local advertising and sponsorship revenue. As part of its lofty pledge to become the world's biggest club by 2014, Chelsea, owned by Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, launched a Mandarin website in January in conjunction with Sina, China's leading portal; in late March, the club unveiled another aimed at South Korea. The London team is also playing benefactor. Apart from hosting the Chinese Olympic football team in London in February, the club sponsors the Asian Football Confederation's Vision Asia project to develop grassroots leagues across China. Next summer, Chelsea will embark on its first-ever tour of China.
3. The Premiership's triple play — losing the hooligans, luring big money at home, expanding overseas — has made it the envy of other sports leagues. In the 2005-06 season, estimated revenue hit $2.5 billion, much more than that of any other league in Europe. The Premiership still lags behind major U.S. leagues like the National Basketball Association (NBA) or the National Football League (NFL) — the latter earned more than $6 billion in 2005-06. But with only 20 clubs competing in the English league, average club takings are already more than in the NBA. There's more to come. For each of the three seasons of a new broadcast deal that begins later this year, domestic TV rights for the Premier League fetched $1.1 billion, compared with just $680 million for the deal that expires this summer. Taking Britain's smaller population into account, the League, under the new deal, will generate 50% more domestic broadcasting revenue per head than the NFL, and eight times that of the NBA, according to consultants Deloitte. Increasingly, that TV revenue is going to come from outside the U.K. The Premiership had a weekly global TV audience of 78 million last season, with broadcasters such as the Fox Soccer Channel in the U.S. and pccw in Hong Kong clamoring for a piece of the action. TV deals that put even the smaller Premier League sides on screens from Shanghai to Chicago are "a fantastic impetus to all clubs," reckons Dan Jones, a partner at Deloitte's Sports Business Group. Foreign channels covering more than 200 countries together stumped up $1.23 billion to air the league for the three seasons beginning 2007-08, paying just shy of double the current amount and contributing a quarter of the Premier League's central income. Scudamore told Time that he thinks overseas rights will soon be worth half of that collective pot. Such figures make American sports tycoons green; overall, foreign markets account for less than 5% of the NFL's revenue, and even for the NBA, a true global brand, overseas media rights amount to just $130 million a year.
Q: 試翻 "The Premiership's triple play ... other sports leagues."
Q: 試翻 "Foreign channels ... the Premier League's central income."
English Quiz 210
(English Quiz 210)
1. Before English football could take over the world, it had to sort itself out. And just as Liverpool's change of ownership has come to epitomize the state of the Premier League now, so its fortunes two decades ago demonstrated the depths to which the English game had plummeted. Though a powerhouse on the field — its teams were champions of Europe four times between 1977 and 1984 — Liverpool's fans had a reputation for being a dangerous disgrace. When some of them rioted at the 1985 European final in Brussels, 38 fans of the Italian team Juventus were killed. It would be five years before English teams were allowed to play again in European competitions. Back home, aging stadiums offered neither comfort nor safety; in 1989, 96 Liverpool fans were crushed to death on an over-crowded terrace at the Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield. Financially, too, the game was a mess. Most top-flight team owners poured money into their local team in the hope of boosting their social standing, not its bottom line. Even Manchester United, English football's most successful team in the last decade, was led through much of the '60s and '70s by an enterprising local butcher. (Not so these days: U.S. tycoon Malcolm Glazer, owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers National Football League franchise, swallowed the club in 2005.)
Q: 試翻 "And just as ... had plummeted."
2. But the 1990s brought change. The official report into the carnage at Hillsborough mandated that top grounds had to be all seated by mid-1994; the government even offered millions of pounds to help pay for reconstruction. Out went crumbling terracing; in came safer seating and improved facilities that made fans feel more like spectators than animals. And as the game began rebuilding its domestic appeal, a handful of chairmen with a sharper eye for profits made a bold move. For years, the top teams had threatened to split from England's four-tier, 120-year-old Football League, claiming that with a domestic game in the doldrums and top clubs impotent against Continental opposition, they needed a greater say over their own affairs — and the enhanced broadcast revenue they thought they could win. In 1992, England's top clubs walked out of the Football League to form the Premier League, a commercially independent alliance able to hammer out its own TV deals on behalf of all its teams.
Q: 試翻 "Out went ... more like spectatos than animals."
3. Nobody went short. Sky, a satellite-TV broadcaster that is part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire, forked out around $350 million to air the elite's first five seasons in Britain. (Having previously struggled for both cash and viewers, Sky's nascent business was given an enormous boost by snatching the football rights.) The game was transformed. For fans accustomed to the stodgy — albeit free — coverage offered by terrestrial channels, Sky's whizzy stats and graphics brought football up to date, and made it much more entertaining. Fans were treated to fireworks and dancing girls at grounds. For football, says Simon Chadwick, co-director of the Birkbeck Sport Business Centre, part of the University of London, the 1990s "was a monumental decade — probably the most important since [the setting up of the Football League] in the 19th century." As player salaries have ballooned, talented foreign players have made a beeline for England; there are now more than 300 overseas players on Premier League clubs' books. When the four top teams clashed one weekend in January — Liverpool against Chelsea, and Arsenal against Manchester United — players from 18 different countries, from Togo to Norway and Serbia to Brazil, took to the turf in those two games alone. Businesses have been keen to cozy up, too. Current league sponsor Barclays Bank recently committed $125 million in a new three-year deal, up 15% from its present agreement. As the presentation of the game changed, so did its fan base. Lured by the refurbished stadiums, Sky's clever marketing and the arrival of better players, new bottoms occupied the Premier League's shiny new seats. Among the converts were more women and those with cash. "It was clear the new fans were more affluent," says John Williams, director of the Sir Norman Chester Centre for Football Research at the University of Leicester.
Q: 試翻 "For fans accustomed to ... much more entertaining."
1. Before English football could take over the world, it had to sort itself out. And just as Liverpool's change of ownership has come to epitomize the state of the Premier League now, so its fortunes two decades ago demonstrated the depths to which the English game had plummeted. Though a powerhouse on the field — its teams were champions of Europe four times between 1977 and 1984 — Liverpool's fans had a reputation for being a dangerous disgrace. When some of them rioted at the 1985 European final in Brussels, 38 fans of the Italian team Juventus were killed. It would be five years before English teams were allowed to play again in European competitions. Back home, aging stadiums offered neither comfort nor safety; in 1989, 96 Liverpool fans were crushed to death on an over-crowded terrace at the Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield. Financially, too, the game was a mess. Most top-flight team owners poured money into their local team in the hope of boosting their social standing, not its bottom line. Even Manchester United, English football's most successful team in the last decade, was led through much of the '60s and '70s by an enterprising local butcher. (Not so these days: U.S. tycoon Malcolm Glazer, owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers National Football League franchise, swallowed the club in 2005.)
Q: 試翻 "And just as ... had plummeted."
2. But the 1990s brought change. The official report into the carnage at Hillsborough mandated that top grounds had to be all seated by mid-1994; the government even offered millions of pounds to help pay for reconstruction. Out went crumbling terracing; in came safer seating and improved facilities that made fans feel more like spectators than animals. And as the game began rebuilding its domestic appeal, a handful of chairmen with a sharper eye for profits made a bold move. For years, the top teams had threatened to split from England's four-tier, 120-year-old Football League, claiming that with a domestic game in the doldrums and top clubs impotent against Continental opposition, they needed a greater say over their own affairs — and the enhanced broadcast revenue they thought they could win. In 1992, England's top clubs walked out of the Football League to form the Premier League, a commercially independent alliance able to hammer out its own TV deals on behalf of all its teams.
Q: 試翻 "Out went ... more like spectatos than animals."
3. Nobody went short. Sky, a satellite-TV broadcaster that is part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire, forked out around $350 million to air the elite's first five seasons in Britain. (Having previously struggled for both cash and viewers, Sky's nascent business was given an enormous boost by snatching the football rights.) The game was transformed. For fans accustomed to the stodgy — albeit free — coverage offered by terrestrial channels, Sky's whizzy stats and graphics brought football up to date, and made it much more entertaining. Fans were treated to fireworks and dancing girls at grounds. For football, says Simon Chadwick, co-director of the Birkbeck Sport Business Centre, part of the University of London, the 1990s "was a monumental decade — probably the most important since [the setting up of the Football League] in the 19th century." As player salaries have ballooned, talented foreign players have made a beeline for England; there are now more than 300 overseas players on Premier League clubs' books. When the four top teams clashed one weekend in January — Liverpool against Chelsea, and Arsenal against Manchester United — players from 18 different countries, from Togo to Norway and Serbia to Brazil, took to the turf in those two games alone. Businesses have been keen to cozy up, too. Current league sponsor Barclays Bank recently committed $125 million in a new three-year deal, up 15% from its present agreement. As the presentation of the game changed, so did its fan base. Lured by the refurbished stadiums, Sky's clever marketing and the arrival of better players, new bottoms occupied the Premier League's shiny new seats. Among the converts were more women and those with cash. "It was clear the new fans were more affluent," says John Williams, director of the Sir Norman Chester Centre for Football Research at the University of Leicester.
Q: 試翻 "For fans accustomed to ... much more entertaining."
English Quiz 209
(English Quiz 209)
1. The two men know each other from Sarkozy's brief stint as French Finance Minister in 2004; they met regularly at E.U. ministerial meetings in Brussels. Aides say they get on well and respect each other, but so far that's all. Cozying up to each other is not yet on their agenda; Sarkozy's first two trips as President will be to Berlin and Brussels, not London. Still, in a country where being called Anglo-Saxon is often an insult, Sarkozy is openly admiring of the ability of Britain and the U.S. to create jobs. He promises to deregulate France's labor market and lower the nearly 9% unemployment rate, one of the highest in Europe and almost double that of Britain's. During a May 2 debate with his Socialist opponent, Segolene Royal, he lauded Britain--along with Ireland, Sweden and Denmark--for its success in combatting unemployment. That sort of attitude drew flak during the campaign--opponents tried to paint him as an American-style neoconservative--but it was a winning message. "He's as economically liberal as it's possible to be for a French politician," says Grant.
Q: 試翻 "Still, ... to create jobs."
2. There's certainly a lot of lost ground to make up. France has languished in the economic doldrums for the past few years, even as Britain has caught up and overtaken it. In 2002, according to statistics of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Britain's national income per capita exceeded France's for the first time, and since then the gap has grown sharply. Brits, long the poorer neighbors, are now on average 10% richer than the French. That's one important factor feeding a deepening mood of pessimism about the future in France--a mood that Sarkozy is pledging to change. Brown has challenges of his own. As the architect of Labour's economic policies, he has presided over an economy that has broken records by notching up an astonishing 58 consecutive quarters of growth. Yet he still faces the huge task of raising the quality of public services, particularly the health system, up to French levels. (The French have their own problems extracting value for money from their hospitals, but at least patients don't need to wait six months for a nonemergency medical procedure.) Both countries have a spending problem: French national debt has quintupled since 1980, while Britain is running a budget deficit equivalent to 3.5% of its GDP, according to Peter Spencer, an economics professor at the University of York. While consumer spending has helped fuel Britain's powerful growth, Spencer says, "the bottom line is that we are all living beyond our means."
Q: 試翻 "France has languished ... overtaken it."
3. And yet so far, the U.S., Britain and France have remained united on the need to maintain diplomatic and financial pressure on Iran--which Western policymakers quietly believe is having an impact on the regime's behavior. That could provide a basis for cooperation between the U.S. and Europe on other issues. Although he's unlikely to jettison France's combative and historic love-hate relationship, Sarkozy isn't afraid to say that he admires the U.S. That marks a sharp break with Chirac, who often couched his policies as a counterweight to U.S. influence and frequently called for a "multipolar world" that would dilute American power. But Sarkozy and Brown have provided hints that they intend to push Washington to pay more attention to issues beyond the Middle East, such as Third World development and global warming. In his victory speech, Sarkozy addressed "our American friends" and said, "I want to tell them that France will always be at their side when they need her. But I also want to say that friendship means accepting that friends can think differently and that a great nation like the U.S. has the duty not to impose obstacles to the fight against climate change." Persuading the current U.S. Administration to take more dramatic action on the environment may turn out to be an even more formidable task than curbing unemployment or reforming social services. But if the arrival of Sarkozy and Brown leads to closer cooperation on global issues between the U.S.'s two oldest European allies, then Washington will benefit in the long run. The world tends to be a more agreeable place when your friends get along.
Q: 試翻 "Although he's unlikely to ... would dilute American power."
1. The two men know each other from Sarkozy's brief stint as French Finance Minister in 2004; they met regularly at E.U. ministerial meetings in Brussels. Aides say they get on well and respect each other, but so far that's all. Cozying up to each other is not yet on their agenda; Sarkozy's first two trips as President will be to Berlin and Brussels, not London. Still, in a country where being called Anglo-Saxon is often an insult, Sarkozy is openly admiring of the ability of Britain and the U.S. to create jobs. He promises to deregulate France's labor market and lower the nearly 9% unemployment rate, one of the highest in Europe and almost double that of Britain's. During a May 2 debate with his Socialist opponent, Segolene Royal, he lauded Britain--along with Ireland, Sweden and Denmark--for its success in combatting unemployment. That sort of attitude drew flak during the campaign--opponents tried to paint him as an American-style neoconservative--but it was a winning message. "He's as economically liberal as it's possible to be for a French politician," says Grant.
Q: 試翻 "Still, ... to create jobs."
2. There's certainly a lot of lost ground to make up. France has languished in the economic doldrums for the past few years, even as Britain has caught up and overtaken it. In 2002, according to statistics of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Britain's national income per capita exceeded France's for the first time, and since then the gap has grown sharply. Brits, long the poorer neighbors, are now on average 10% richer than the French. That's one important factor feeding a deepening mood of pessimism about the future in France--a mood that Sarkozy is pledging to change. Brown has challenges of his own. As the architect of Labour's economic policies, he has presided over an economy that has broken records by notching up an astonishing 58 consecutive quarters of growth. Yet he still faces the huge task of raising the quality of public services, particularly the health system, up to French levels. (The French have their own problems extracting value for money from their hospitals, but at least patients don't need to wait six months for a nonemergency medical procedure.) Both countries have a spending problem: French national debt has quintupled since 1980, while Britain is running a budget deficit equivalent to 3.5% of its GDP, according to Peter Spencer, an economics professor at the University of York. While consumer spending has helped fuel Britain's powerful growth, Spencer says, "the bottom line is that we are all living beyond our means."
Q: 試翻 "France has languished ... overtaken it."
3. And yet so far, the U.S., Britain and France have remained united on the need to maintain diplomatic and financial pressure on Iran--which Western policymakers quietly believe is having an impact on the regime's behavior. That could provide a basis for cooperation between the U.S. and Europe on other issues. Although he's unlikely to jettison France's combative and historic love-hate relationship, Sarkozy isn't afraid to say that he admires the U.S. That marks a sharp break with Chirac, who often couched his policies as a counterweight to U.S. influence and frequently called for a "multipolar world" that would dilute American power. But Sarkozy and Brown have provided hints that they intend to push Washington to pay more attention to issues beyond the Middle East, such as Third World development and global warming. In his victory speech, Sarkozy addressed "our American friends" and said, "I want to tell them that France will always be at their side when they need her. But I also want to say that friendship means accepting that friends can think differently and that a great nation like the U.S. has the duty not to impose obstacles to the fight against climate change." Persuading the current U.S. Administration to take more dramatic action on the environment may turn out to be an even more formidable task than curbing unemployment or reforming social services. But if the arrival of Sarkozy and Brown leads to closer cooperation on global issues between the U.S.'s two oldest European allies, then Washington will benefit in the long run. The world tends to be a more agreeable place when your friends get along.
Q: 試翻 "Although he's unlikely to ... would dilute American power."
English Quiz 208
(English Quiz 208)
1. Half a century ago, the Prime Minister of France came up with a novel idea. Then as now, the world was occupied with the specter of war in the Middle East--this one precipitated by Egypt's decision to nationalize the Suez Canal. As troops from France and Britain geared up to attempt to take back the canal, Guy Mollet, France's Socialist Prime Minister, secretly presented his British counterpart Anthony Eden with a proposal: What if France and Britain became one country? The idea was quickly dropped, and when its details were disclosed for the first time earlier this year, citizens of both countries had to suppress their incredulity. These days, it seems, France and Britain are separated by much more than the English Channel. Aside from their distinctive histories and identities, Britain and France in recent years have been on totally different trajectories--London up, Paris down. Personal relations between the two leaders of the past decade, President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Tony Blair, have been prickly. Opposing positions on everything from the war in Iraq to European farm subsidies have at times degenerated into public shouting matches. But the pendulum of history is about to swing again. In Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown, the two nations are soon to get new leaders who are closer in outlook and personality than any French President and British Prime Minister in living memory. While nobody dreams of reviving the Mollet plan, the two men have an opportunity to put Britain and France back into the same orbit--with potentially significant consequences for the U.S., which for the first time in years is being cheered rather than jeered by a French leader.
Q: 試翻 "While nobody dreams of ... a French leader."
2. At first sight, Brown and Sarkozy hardly seem like soul mates. Sarkozy, who won an easy victory in the French presidential run-off election on May 6, is the son of a Hungarian emigre aristocrat. A mediocre student who still refers painfully to the "humiliations" of his childhood, Sarkozy embraced Gaullist conservatism as a young man, when most of his French contemporaries were reveling in the make-love-not-war spirit of the late 1960s. He triumphed in the French vote by consistently painting himself as the candidate able to lift the nation out of its economic torpor. "Together we will write a new page in our history," he promised the country in his victory speech. By contrast, Brown, who, barring any last-minute surprise, will succeed Blair this summer, represents continuity: as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he has steered British government economic policy for the past decade. Brown is unlike Sarkozy in that his ambition has been evident since his youth. The son of a Scottish Presbyterian minister, Brown so excelled at school that he was accepted into the University of Edinburgh at age 16, then worked his way up through the ranks of Britain's Labour Party at a time when it was still saddled with socialist dogma.
Q: 試翻 "He triumphed in himself ... it economic torpor."
Q: 試翻 "By contrast, ... for the past decade."
3. For all these differences of background, however, Sarkozy and Brown have some unexpected similarities on the big issues: economics, national identity and foreign policy. Both extol the importance of a strong work ethic and advocate free markets--but with caveats. Both have a controversial nationalist bent: while Brown talks about the importance of "Britishness" and has openly resisted the idea of giving up the pound to join Europe's common currency, Sarkozy is seeking to establish tighter citizenship criteria for immigrants. Both feel warm about the U.S. but are cool toward President Bush. Neither gets emotional over the idea of European unity, preferring to see what works--and what doesn't. Both are impatient, often short-tempered and, say their critics, sometimes authoritarian. And both have had to wait their turn to assume power. Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, a London-based think tank, says Sarkozy, Brown and German Chancellor Angela Merkel could create a dynamic team at Europe's core. All three, he says, "are Atlanticist, economically liberal--more or less--and take a pragmatic rather than ideological approach to the European Union and its institutions."
Q: 試翻 "Both have controversial nationalist bent ... tighter citizenship criteria for immigrants."
1. Half a century ago, the Prime Minister of France came up with a novel idea. Then as now, the world was occupied with the specter of war in the Middle East--this one precipitated by Egypt's decision to nationalize the Suez Canal. As troops from France and Britain geared up to attempt to take back the canal, Guy Mollet, France's Socialist Prime Minister, secretly presented his British counterpart Anthony Eden with a proposal: What if France and Britain became one country? The idea was quickly dropped, and when its details were disclosed for the first time earlier this year, citizens of both countries had to suppress their incredulity. These days, it seems, France and Britain are separated by much more than the English Channel. Aside from their distinctive histories and identities, Britain and France in recent years have been on totally different trajectories--London up, Paris down. Personal relations between the two leaders of the past decade, President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Tony Blair, have been prickly. Opposing positions on everything from the war in Iraq to European farm subsidies have at times degenerated into public shouting matches. But the pendulum of history is about to swing again. In Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown, the two nations are soon to get new leaders who are closer in outlook and personality than any French President and British Prime Minister in living memory. While nobody dreams of reviving the Mollet plan, the two men have an opportunity to put Britain and France back into the same orbit--with potentially significant consequences for the U.S., which for the first time in years is being cheered rather than jeered by a French leader.
Q: 試翻 "While nobody dreams of ... a French leader."
2. At first sight, Brown and Sarkozy hardly seem like soul mates. Sarkozy, who won an easy victory in the French presidential run-off election on May 6, is the son of a Hungarian emigre aristocrat. A mediocre student who still refers painfully to the "humiliations" of his childhood, Sarkozy embraced Gaullist conservatism as a young man, when most of his French contemporaries were reveling in the make-love-not-war spirit of the late 1960s. He triumphed in the French vote by consistently painting himself as the candidate able to lift the nation out of its economic torpor. "Together we will write a new page in our history," he promised the country in his victory speech. By contrast, Brown, who, barring any last-minute surprise, will succeed Blair this summer, represents continuity: as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he has steered British government economic policy for the past decade. Brown is unlike Sarkozy in that his ambition has been evident since his youth. The son of a Scottish Presbyterian minister, Brown so excelled at school that he was accepted into the University of Edinburgh at age 16, then worked his way up through the ranks of Britain's Labour Party at a time when it was still saddled with socialist dogma.
Q: 試翻 "He triumphed in himself ... it economic torpor."
Q: 試翻 "By contrast, ... for the past decade."
3. For all these differences of background, however, Sarkozy and Brown have some unexpected similarities on the big issues: economics, national identity and foreign policy. Both extol the importance of a strong work ethic and advocate free markets--but with caveats. Both have a controversial nationalist bent: while Brown talks about the importance of "Britishness" and has openly resisted the idea of giving up the pound to join Europe's common currency, Sarkozy is seeking to establish tighter citizenship criteria for immigrants. Both feel warm about the U.S. but are cool toward President Bush. Neither gets emotional over the idea of European unity, preferring to see what works--and what doesn't. Both are impatient, often short-tempered and, say their critics, sometimes authoritarian. And both have had to wait their turn to assume power. Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, a London-based think tank, says Sarkozy, Brown and German Chancellor Angela Merkel could create a dynamic team at Europe's core. All three, he says, "are Atlanticist, economically liberal--more or less--and take a pragmatic rather than ideological approach to the European Union and its institutions."
Q: 試翻 "Both have controversial nationalist bent ... tighter citizenship criteria for immigrants."
English Quiz 207
(English Quiz 207)
1. Conservative Christians don't much like the idea that the Bible is corrupted or that its truths could be updated. The conflicts run deep enough that in 2001 the Vatican ruled Mormon baptisms invalid, and even the more liberal Presbyterians and United Methodists require that Mormons looking to convert be rebaptized. Southern Baptists have called Utah "a stronghold of Satan," and there are many bookshelves' worth of anti-Mormon literature in circulation. The church's aggressive missionary work is a particular challenge to other professing churches, which believe that converts to Mormonism are not truly saved. But old traditions of theological hostility conflict with constitutional traditions of religious tolerance and a modern trend toward political detente. When Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979, he was happy to welcome conservative Catholics and Mormons and Jews to increase his organization's throw weight on social issues. The fact that Romney personally emphasizes family, service and sobriety and opposes abortion and gay marriage has led some evangelical leaders to adopt a kind of "Don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to details of his faith. Romney has held quiet meetings around the country, and they have come away, by and large, impressed. "Southern Baptists understand they are voting for a Commander in Chief, not a Theologian in Chief," says Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's public-policy arm. "But he's gotta close the deal. Only Romney can make voters comfortable with his Mormonism. Others cannot do it for him."
Q: 試翻 "But old traditions ... toward political detente."
2. They're certainly willing to help, however. Pat Robertson invited Romney to give the commencement address at his Regent University, and the group Evangelicals for Mitt argues that religious conservatives are just as capable of separating faith and politics as liberal Democrats were when they elevated the highest-ranking Mormon in politics: Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid. Romney's strategists are well aware that the deadliest campaigns in Republican primaries are often the ones waged below the radar. But in this age it is impossible to track every scurrilous e-mail or answer every blog assault. "There are caricatures that pick some obscure aspect of your faith that you never even think about and assume that it was the central element of the church," Romney says, noting that Mormon leaders past and present "said all sorts of things, but they're not church doctrine." Both Romney and wife Ann regularly make a punch line of the fact that he's the only leading Republican contender who is still on his first marriage. And for the record, Romney's great-grandfather, who had five wives, was the last polygamist in the family line.
Q: 試翻 "Romney's strategists are well aware that ... below the radar."
3. That still leaves the concerns of more secular voters. Weisberg observes that modern political discourse seems to permit the exploration of candidates' every secret except their most basic philosophical beliefs: "The crucial distinction is between someone's background and heritage, which they don't choose, and their views, which they do choose and which are central to the question of whether someone has the capacity to serve in the highest office in the country." He would raise the same concerns, he notes, about a Jew or a Methodist who believed the earth is less than 6,000 years old. Weisberg's characterization of Mormonism as "Scientology plus 125 years" did not stop Romney from naming L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth a favorite novel. "Someone who believes, seriously believes, in a modern hoax is someone we should think hard about," Weisberg argues, "whether they have the skepticism and intellectual seriousness to take on this job." Hewitt counters that Romney is facing a double standard, born of a barely hidden bias. "It is unreasonable to demand that a Mormon candidate expose and defend his deepest beliefs in rational terms in order to reassure voters that he is of sound mind," he says. He warns Evangelicals hostile to Romney's religion against colluding with those he sees as hostile to all religions. "The secular left that does not like people of faith in the public square is very happy to have a group of Fundamentalists raise this issue and be a battering ram," Hewitt argues. But if purely theological challenge becomes acceptable, he says, your own theology will be next: Which miracles do you believe in; what about this contradiction in Scripture?
Q: 試翻 "Hewitt counters that ... a barel hidden bias."
4. Romney's inspiration going forward may come less from Kennedy than from Dwight Eisenhower, whom Romney reveres to such an extent, he told the Atlantic Monthly, that he asked his grandchildren to call him "Ike" and Ann "Mamie." It was Eisenhower who presided over the first National Prayer Breakfast, saw the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance and IN GOD WE TRUST to dollar bills, and declared that "our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is." There has always been a certain virtue in vagueness when it comes to presidential piety, and Eisenhower, a Presbyterian convert raised by Jehovah's Witnesses, benefited from discussing spirituality in the most general terms. Romney has repeatedly said that "I think the American people want a person of faith to lead the country. I don't think Americans care what brand of faith someone has." "Romney has a bigger problem and a smaller problem than Kennedy," argues Richard N. Ostling, co-author of Mormon America: The Power and the Promise. "Bigger because the distance between the Mormon faith and conventional Judeo-Christian faith is wider. On the other hand, I think Americans are more tolerant than they once were." There are now two Buddhists and a Muslim in the House of Representatives. Is the U.S. open to electing someone from a new, different or marginal religious group? To Romney's disciples, it's an article of faith that the answer is yes.
Q: 試翻 "it was Eisenhower who presided over ... what it is."
1. Conservative Christians don't much like the idea that the Bible is corrupted or that its truths could be updated. The conflicts run deep enough that in 2001 the Vatican ruled Mormon baptisms invalid, and even the more liberal Presbyterians and United Methodists require that Mormons looking to convert be rebaptized. Southern Baptists have called Utah "a stronghold of Satan," and there are many bookshelves' worth of anti-Mormon literature in circulation. The church's aggressive missionary work is a particular challenge to other professing churches, which believe that converts to Mormonism are not truly saved. But old traditions of theological hostility conflict with constitutional traditions of religious tolerance and a modern trend toward political detente. When Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979, he was happy to welcome conservative Catholics and Mormons and Jews to increase his organization's throw weight on social issues. The fact that Romney personally emphasizes family, service and sobriety and opposes abortion and gay marriage has led some evangelical leaders to adopt a kind of "Don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to details of his faith. Romney has held quiet meetings around the country, and they have come away, by and large, impressed. "Southern Baptists understand they are voting for a Commander in Chief, not a Theologian in Chief," says Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's public-policy arm. "But he's gotta close the deal. Only Romney can make voters comfortable with his Mormonism. Others cannot do it for him."
Q: 試翻 "But old traditions ... toward political detente."
2. They're certainly willing to help, however. Pat Robertson invited Romney to give the commencement address at his Regent University, and the group Evangelicals for Mitt argues that religious conservatives are just as capable of separating faith and politics as liberal Democrats were when they elevated the highest-ranking Mormon in politics: Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid. Romney's strategists are well aware that the deadliest campaigns in Republican primaries are often the ones waged below the radar. But in this age it is impossible to track every scurrilous e-mail or answer every blog assault. "There are caricatures that pick some obscure aspect of your faith that you never even think about and assume that it was the central element of the church," Romney says, noting that Mormon leaders past and present "said all sorts of things, but they're not church doctrine." Both Romney and wife Ann regularly make a punch line of the fact that he's the only leading Republican contender who is still on his first marriage. And for the record, Romney's great-grandfather, who had five wives, was the last polygamist in the family line.
Q: 試翻 "Romney's strategists are well aware that ... below the radar."
3. That still leaves the concerns of more secular voters. Weisberg observes that modern political discourse seems to permit the exploration of candidates' every secret except their most basic philosophical beliefs: "The crucial distinction is between someone's background and heritage, which they don't choose, and their views, which they do choose and which are central to the question of whether someone has the capacity to serve in the highest office in the country." He would raise the same concerns, he notes, about a Jew or a Methodist who believed the earth is less than 6,000 years old. Weisberg's characterization of Mormonism as "Scientology plus 125 years" did not stop Romney from naming L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth a favorite novel. "Someone who believes, seriously believes, in a modern hoax is someone we should think hard about," Weisberg argues, "whether they have the skepticism and intellectual seriousness to take on this job." Hewitt counters that Romney is facing a double standard, born of a barely hidden bias. "It is unreasonable to demand that a Mormon candidate expose and defend his deepest beliefs in rational terms in order to reassure voters that he is of sound mind," he says. He warns Evangelicals hostile to Romney's religion against colluding with those he sees as hostile to all religions. "The secular left that does not like people of faith in the public square is very happy to have a group of Fundamentalists raise this issue and be a battering ram," Hewitt argues. But if purely theological challenge becomes acceptable, he says, your own theology will be next: Which miracles do you believe in; what about this contradiction in Scripture?
Q: 試翻 "Hewitt counters that ... a barel hidden bias."
4. Romney's inspiration going forward may come less from Kennedy than from Dwight Eisenhower, whom Romney reveres to such an extent, he told the Atlantic Monthly, that he asked his grandchildren to call him "Ike" and Ann "Mamie." It was Eisenhower who presided over the first National Prayer Breakfast, saw the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance and IN GOD WE TRUST to dollar bills, and declared that "our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is." There has always been a certain virtue in vagueness when it comes to presidential piety, and Eisenhower, a Presbyterian convert raised by Jehovah's Witnesses, benefited from discussing spirituality in the most general terms. Romney has repeatedly said that "I think the American people want a person of faith to lead the country. I don't think Americans care what brand of faith someone has." "Romney has a bigger problem and a smaller problem than Kennedy," argues Richard N. Ostling, co-author of Mormon America: The Power and the Promise. "Bigger because the distance between the Mormon faith and conventional Judeo-Christian faith is wider. On the other hand, I think Americans are more tolerant than they once were." There are now two Buddhists and a Muslim in the House of Representatives. Is the U.S. open to electing someone from a new, different or marginal religious group? To Romney's disciples, it's an article of faith that the answer is yes.
Q: 試翻 "it was Eisenhower who presided over ... what it is."
English Quiz 206
(English Quiz 206)
1. John F. Kennedy's election in 1960 was supposed to have laid the "religious question" to rest, yet it arises again with a fury. What does the Constitution mean when it says there should be no religion test for office? It plainly means that a candidate can't be barred from running because he or she happens to be a Quaker or a Buddhist or a Pentecostal. But Mitt Romney's candidacy raises a broader issue: Is the substance of private beliefs off-limits? You can ask if a candidate believes in school vouchers and vote for someone else if you disagree with the answer. But can you ask if he believes that the Garden of Eden was located in Jackson County, Mo., as the Mormon founder taught, and vote against him on the grounds of that answer? Or, for that matter, because of the kind of underwear he wears?
Q: 試翻 "John F. Kennedy's election ... with a fury."
2. Slate editor Jacob Weisberg threw down the challenge after reviewing some of Joseph Smith's more extravagant assertions. "He was an obvious con man," Weisberg wrote. "Romney has every right to believe in con men, but I want to know if he does, and if so, I don't want him running the country." That argument, counters author and radio host Hugh Hewitt, amounts to unashamed bigotry and opens the door to any person of any faith who runs for office being called to account for the mysteries of personal belief. He has published A Mormon in the White House?, a chronicle of Romney's rise as business genius, Olympic savior, political star. But Hewitt has a religious mission as well when he cites a survey in which a majority of Evangelicals said voting for a Mormon was out of the question. If that general objection means they would not consider Romney in 2008, Hewitt warns, then prejudice is legitimized, and "it will prove a disastrous turning point for all people of faith in public life." The Mormon question has settled in right next to the issue of whether a twice-divorced man has credibility discussing family values or whether changing one's mind on an issue like abortion is a sign of moral growth or cynical retreat. Unlike in 1960, today the argument is less about the role of religion in public life than in private. It is about what our faith says about our judgment and how our traditions shape our instincts--and about what we have the right to ask those who run for the highest office in the land. Whenever the subject of Romney's "Mormon problem" arises, a whole host of commentators offer the same solution: all Romney has to do is "pull a J.F.K.," they say, meaning he needs to make a game-changing speech of the kind Kennedy delivered in September 1960 to the growling Protestant ministers of greater Houston. Kennedy declared that he viewed the separation of church and state as sacred; his religious beliefs, he said, were his private affair. "But if the time should ever come," he vowed, "... when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office." Romney has echoed Kennedy's sentiments, declaring that he would no more take orders from Salt Lake City than Kennedy would from Rome. But he can hardly suggest to the devout voters of the G.O.P. base that religious views don't matter, don't warrant discussion or don't affect one's conduct in office. These are voters inclined to think the wall of church-state separation is too high; it is certainly not one any candidate can hide behind. So his challenge is to draw the lines about what's relevant and what's not.
Q: 試翻 "That argument, ... the mysteries of personal belief."
Q: 試翻 "Romney has echoed ... one's conduct in office."
3. Compared with the Roman Catholic Church, which had 42 million U.S. members in 1960, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) is newer and less familiar, its rituals more private. Romney supporters are offering Mormonism 101, emphasizing hard work, clean living and shared family values, to address the concerns of the 29% of Americans who say they would not vote for an LDS member for President. But when it comes to religiously conservative voters, the more people learn, the greater Romney's problem may become. And he will have to decide whether he's willing to provide the kind of public theology lesson that no other candidate has been asked to deliver. Many Evangelicals have been taught that Mormonism is a cult with a heretical understanding of Scripture and doctrine. Mormons reject the unified Trinity and teach that God has a body of flesh and blood. Though Mormons revere Christ as Saviour and certainly call themselves Christians, the church is rooted in a rebuke to traditional Christianity. Joseph Smith presented himself as a prophet whom God had instructed to restore his true church, since "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight." He described how an angel named Moroni provided him with golden tablets that told the story (written in what Smith called "reformed Egyptian" hieroglyphics, never seen before) of an ancient civilization of Israelites sent by God to America. The tablets included lessons Jesus taught during a visit to America after his Resurrection. Smith was able to read and translate the tablets with the help of special transparent stones he used as spectacles. He published them as the Book of Mormon in 1830. Twelve years later, Smith explained to a Chicago newspaper that "ignorant translators, careless transcribers or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" in the Bible, which he revised according to God's revelations. Mormons were subject to persecutions, and in 1844, as he was running for President, Smith was murdered by an angry mob. His successor, Brigham Young, led followers to Utah, the church proceeded to grow rapidly, and Mormon leaders were identified by the church as God's prophets on earth.
Q: 試翻 "Many Evangelicals have been taught that ... a body of flesh and blood."
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)