翻译专业资格英语三级笔译实务 4个科目

我的练习

我的错题
(0道)

清空错题

我的收藏
(0道)

我的斩题
(0道)

我的笔记
(0道)

题库练习

顺序练习 0 / 0

随机练习 自定义设置练习量

题型乱序 按导入顺序练习

模拟考试 仿真模拟

题型练习 按题型分类练习

易错题 精选高频易错题

搜索

题库预览

Ban Ki-moon Stepped on the Stage On January 1 Ban Ki-moon， the new secretary-general, moved into the office on the 38th floor of United Nations headquarters in New York. Most of the talk has focused on whether it is appropriate that the world’s regions should “take turns” in holding such a key post. But the more important issue is what consequences will flow from having an Asian in the top job at the precise moment that Asia emerges into the geopolitical sun. A certain historical distance has always existed between the Asian region and the international organization. Most of New York’s energy is consumed by the Middle East and Africa， not Asia. The UN is Atlanticist in structure and sometimes in orientation. There have been several signs in recent years, however， of a quickening of interactions between the UN and Asia. First, the end of the cold war broke the superpower deadlock in the Security Council， conjured up new confidence about the organization’s place in international relations and was followed by the establishment of two of the UN’s largest and most complex peace operations, in Cambodia and East Timor. Second， the emergence of new and interconnected security threats in the region, including infectious diseases， resource scarcity, environmental catastrophes such as the 2004 tsunami， trafficking in drugs and people, and state failure， has demonstrated the advantages of international cooperation. As these threats escalate, so will the work of the UN and its agencies. Third， as the focus of international power moves towards them, Asian states are stepping up their engagement with the world body. The top five contributors of peacekeeping personnel are all from the UN’s Asian regional group. Both Japan and India remain intent on permanent membership of the Security Council. Most striking of all is China’s increasingly practical behavior in New York. China was once poorly represented， defensive in the Council and uninterested in peacekeeping: now it is ably represented， confident and skillful in the chamber and before the media, and deploys more peacekeeping personnel than any other permanent member. This is the stage onto which Mr. Ban stepped.

Parliamentary Elections in Afghanistan For the first time in three decades Afghanistan is holding parliamentary elections. It’s a momentous time for a country still trying to emerge from years of war. There’s been much criticism that these polls will only consolidate the power of the country’s powerful commanders， the warlords with dubious histories. But Lyse Doucet, who’s been covering Afghanistan since the late nineteen eighties， has discovered that in a nation where a new political culture is only slowly taking shape, the very existence of an election process has brought new energy to a lung-stagnant political life： Now there is a veritable forest of signs at every square and roundabout in Kabul and other cities, billboards selling luxury watches， promoting national unity the new Afghan army. But, for the past month billboard， walls and fences across this land have been telling another story. Everywhere you look there are the faces of election candidates, middle aged men in suits and ties， men with turbans and long thick beards as dark as the night or as white as the first Afghan snow, hardly anyone is smiling. Tradition says photography is serious business. Even. wedding photographs here barely coax a smile. And in a country where only 4 years ago， women were largely confined to their homes under an oppressive Taliban rule, there are their faces too： candidates like young Sabrina with a fetching canary yellow headscarf, Shukda with finely penciled eyebrow， gazing into the distance, cradling a pen in her hand. The faces are plastered everywhere， on every available bit of space, sometimes on top of each other. It’s led to Afghan cartoonists sketching someone’s face on top of someone else’s legs. At first glance， these walls are just an unsightly mess of photographs. But, like the carpets of old， if you know this nation’s history, you can read meaning. into what seem like random patterns. These layers of paper form a bright new canvas of a nation’s dark history. General Ulumi who once worked with the Soviet Red Army is running for parliament. There’s also Mullah Khaqsar who used to execute the writ of the Taliban. But there’s also Malalai Joya， the young woman who, a few years ago， bravely condemned the warlords in public. In this election, candidates must run as individuals， not as members of parties. But Afghans know who everyone is. They know their past. They know their father, their grandfather， or at least, they do in most cases. But what if they don’t？ In the last month of campaigning, in towns and villages across this country， Afghans, from village elders with wizened faces， to wide-eyed teenagers too young to vote, have sat cross legged in the shades of mulberry tress， or in air-conditioned rooms cooled with electricity powered by generators. They’ve pondered and argued and debated the questions of this time. One dimensional photograph, after all， only tells part of this new story. As one Afghan friend put it, in real life， many candidates with a past are two-faced. If elected to Parliament, it’s still not clear which face they will show. But whatever happens， the opening of Parliament will be the start of a new chapter. And no one here can say with certainty how that Afghan story will unfold.

Treading the world stage Yet this is not a time for the usual Brussels name game. The idea of a permanent president of the European Council was resisted by many smaller countries. But now it is being created， it would be ludicrous to fill it with a minor figure; a Juncker or a Schüssel. To the outside world—India or China， say—the president will speak for Europe. If the EU wants to be a serious global actor, that points to a world figure. Unless Ms Merkel steps forward， which is improbable, the only such person in the running is Mr. Blair. And there are two other arguments for him. First， he would disprove the notion that senior EU people must come from countries that join in all EU policies, including the euro， defence and justice and home affairs.This line was used to block Chris Patten as a commission president in 2004. But in an increasingly multispeed Europe, it would rule out nominees from more than half the EU countries. The EU president will not represent his government—indeed， though Mr. Brown says he backs Mr. Blair, few believe he is wholly sincere. If the criterion is “Europeanness”， France, Italy and Germany should be disqualified as they are the worst offenders when it comes to breaching EU rules. Europe might end up being run only by Belgians and Luxembourgeois. Mr. Blair has a second advantage： he would remind the notoriously sceptical British that they are important players. This worked only up to a point with Roy Jenkins as commission president in the late 1970s. Three decades on, a British EU president would give pause to those who maintain that Britain never has any influence in Brussels. As one top Eurocrat sums it up， “the boldest choice for Europe would be the three Bs: Blair， Barroso and Bildt.” If it works in classical music, why not for Europe？

The relationship between politicians and the press In the seaside town of Brighton in southern England the ruling Labour Party’s annual conference is getting underway. It’s a time for both Mps and grassroots members to take stock of how the party is doing， to discuss policy and to hear, hopefully inspiring speeches. The party delegates will be hoping too for plenty of coverage from the media assembled there. Newspapers in Britain have long had great influence over Governments， much to the resentment of the politicians. Almost seventy-five years ago, the then Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin accused the two big press barons， Lords Beaverbrook and Rothermere, of running their papers as “engines of propaganda” for the “personal wishes and personal dislikes of two men”. He famously accused them of seeking “power without responsibility—the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.” It’s hard to imagine the current Prime Minister Tony Blair attacking the tabloid press so publicly. The former editor of the Daily Mirror Piers Morgan claimed earlier this year that he met the Labour leader no fewer than fifty-eight times for lunches， dinners or interviews, a statistic which astonished many in Government and the media， who thought a party leader and Prime Minister should have had better ways to spend his time. But Tony Blair has good reason to court the press. In Britain, Labour， left-of-centre governments, have always had problems with national newspapers， most of whose owners traditionally supported the right-of-centre Conservative Party. This came to a head on Election Day in 1992 when Labour seemed set to win power for the first time in eighteen years. In those days, Britain’s biggest-selling daily paper， the sun, part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire， was no friend of Labour, indeed it had been Margaret Thatcher’s biggest cheerleader. That morning， on its front page, it depicted the bald head of the then Labour leader Neil Kinnock as a light bulb. Alongside ran the headline： “If Kinnock wins today, will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights？” Labour lost. By the next election, Tony Blair was the party’s leader and determined to win over， or at least neutralize, The Sun and its owner. He succeeded， moving the Labor Party towards the center ground, and gaining The Sun’s endorsement at the last three elections. Once in Government， Labour played hardball with the media, relishing its power， and aware that if it did not take charge of the agenda, the media would. Its key figure was the former political editor of the Daily Mirror， Alasdair Campbell, who took charge not just of the Prime Minister’s press office but all government press officers， trying to ensure the Government spoke with one voice. Journalists who reported favorably were given privileged access; those who didn’t were frozen out. Mr. Blair maintained his close links with R Murdoch and his newspapers； doing everything he could to maintain their support. Lance Price claims in his diaries that the Government assured the tycoon and his editors that it wouldn’t change its policy on Europe without asking them.

Folklore and Festivals in Sweden Sweden is a land of contrasts； in the north, where forests fade into frozen ground， the influence of tradition and folklore is strong. In the milder, more fertile south， the customs are basically those of continental Europe. In Sweden, legends exist in people’s everyday life. Hunting legends， for example, tell how men have been turned into beasts by magic. It is thought unlucky to see a hare in the morning but to meet a wolf or a bear is an omen that hunting will be good. And there are some ancient customs about birth. When a child is born， the women of the family must carry it three times around its parents’ hearth and then examine it for birth marks. If a child is covered in the membrane, that means it will always be accompanied by a guardian spirit. It is feared that children who lack the protection of a guardian spirit may be stolen by witches and turned into disembodied spirits. A country wedding in Sweden is also very interesting. It is celebrated with traditional festivities~ The bridegroom must formally ask for the bride’s hand in the barn， because this is where the dowry is stored. On the wedding day the women of the family help the bride to dress in national costume, which includes silver jewelry and a bridal crown. Meanwhile friends and male relations wait in the kitchen， drinking beer. When the bride is ready, all the relatives and guests form a procession， which is led by young men on horseback. They meet the groom’s procession at the church and greetings, symbolizing the kinship which now unites the two families， are exchanged. When the wedding service ends, the guests go to the bride’s house for the marriage feast. The Swedes have many traditional festivals. The first of the great Swedish festivals is celebrated from April 30 to May 2. The night of April 30 is named Walpurgis Night and during it the forces of Life and Spring are said to triumph over Death and Winter While the festival lasts， bonfires are lit each evening—-first on the hilltops and then, in answer， in the valleys. These fires are a signal for the festivals to begin. They continue until dawn. In southern Sweden, poetry and singing competitions take place around the bonfires， and the winners receive prizes and kisses from the prettiest girls. Besides the Walpurgis Night, there are other festivals： for example, the Feast of the Sun is the great summer festival in June. The Blessing of the Lobsters is a festival in August in which people enjoy lobsters. While the Festival of the Goose is in the bleak November. On that day it is customary to serve a soup with goose blood. Even Christmas in Sweden is rich in tradition and folklore. It has absorbed the customs of the ancient festival of the winter solstice and new year. The Swedes do not have Santa Clause. What they have is Christmas Gnome. Children welcome his arrival by putting out generous helpings of Christmas cake for him to eat. And in the country districts， people throw gifts through the open windows of houses, together with straw figures of men and animals， for good luck.

The Kingdom of Denmark The smallest and most southern of the Scandinavian countries， Denmark offers an interesting mix of lively cities and rural countryside, Ancient castles， ring forts, jazz festivals， the sleekest modem design you’ll ever see and the people who invented Lego-who could ask for more? Danish Vikings once took to the seas and ravaged half of Europe， but these days they’ve forged a society that stands as a benchmark of civilization, with progressive policies， widespread tolerance and a liberal social-welfare system. Copenhagen has been Denmark’s capital for 600 years and is the largest city in Scandinavia. It’s an appealing and largely low-rise city comprised of block after block of period six-storey buildings. Church steeples punctuate the skyline, with only a couple of modem hotels marring the view. No matter what your interests， Copenhagen has a whole lot of sightseeing and entertained on offer. Historic or modem, sleek shops or cozy cafes-it’s all-nestled fight in the heart of a compact city and presented with typical Scandinavian assurance and flair. Hans Christian Andersen wrote a fairly tale about her； Disney produced the movie; and Copenhagen maintains a statue in her honor， which continues to be the largest tourist attraction in Denmark and the most photographed statue in the world. New York has the Statue of Liberty, Pads has its Eiffel Tower and Copenhagen has this pretty， charming maiden who stars dreamily out across the water, just as her Danish countrymen have done for thousands of years. The Little Mermaid is just small enough and close enough to the water to be an excellent symbol of Copenhagen and Denmark. The sculpture stands 165 centimeters tall and weighs 175 kilograms. The original one， cast in bronze, was presented to the City of Copenhagen on August 23， 1913 by Carl Jacobsen. The Nationalmuseet (National Museum) is a mustsee for anyone who wants a comprehensive grounding in Danish history and culture. Tree to its name, it has the biggest collection of Danish historical artifacts in the country. On Sundays during summer the ambience is enhanced by free chamber music concerts. The Nationalmuseet has dibs on virtually every antiquity found on Danish soils， whether it was unearthed by a farmer ploughing his fields or a government-sponsored archaeological dig.

Post Hurricane Katrina The southern United States is again being battered by a tropical storm Rita， three weeks after Hurricane Katrina. This time the warnings to leave seem to have been heeded and roads leading away from the threatened areas have been choked with traffic as more than two million people head inland. Following the devastation in New Orleans, the authorities were criticized for not doing enough for those least able to help themselves： the poor, the sick and those without transport. Though this time more provision was made to evacuate people ahead of the hurricane， but in the long term, whether there will be any real change in the US social system？ As the event of massive force, Katrina swept away an awful lot， but the ghastly failure of the authorities to prepare and to rescue those at risk seems to have done more than the physical damage. Bill Clinton is among many eminent Americans who wonder whether Katrina’s biggest impact might be psychological, political. The real question， putting is baldly, is whether there is going to be a revolution. Will the American social and economic system， which creates the wealth which pays for billionaires’ private jets and the poverty which doesn’t allow for a bus fare out of New Orleans, be addressed？ It’s been tinkered with before of course, sometimes as a result of natural disasters. There were for instance plenty of buses on hand for this week’s Rita evacuation. But the system’s fundamentals， no limit on how high you can fly and little limit on how low you can fall, remain as intact as they were in the San Francisco gold rush. As Charles Wheeler wrote， one of the tragedies of the Vietnam War had been "the dismemberment of America’s infant welfare state". "The war, " he said， "stopped social reform in its tracks and today, with the budget deficit huge and growing， there is no prospect that a windfall of money released by the war can suddenly be applied to the needs of the poor in the cities." Charles was writing in 1973. America did recover. The economy was rescued. Money was made in very large amounts. But the poor still did not receive that windfall; they were never going to. Americans are cross with the government and disappointed with the response from Washington， but they have not sat on their hands and waited for the government to sort itself out. Much the opposite, Americans have given with unbridled enthusiasm and generosity. They give money to victims of Katrina； drop off teddy bears they no longer want; dispatch cloth for which they have grown too fat etc. Hurricane Katrina has encouraged an outpouring of charity on a scale never seen before. "Isn’t that something governments do？" Americans don’t think so and never will. This is unquestionably a source of strength and spine in troubled times, but it is just charity that puts a dampener on revolution. Charity ameliorates， it softens blows, it pours oil on troubled waters. It does not lead to social change. Inequality is a part of American life and so is self-reliance， nothing alters that. After the weekend’s devastation, America is little changed.

George Soros the Financial Crocodile “The US governs the international system to protect its own economy. It is not in charge of protecting other economies.” Soros says. “So when America goes into recession， you have anti- recessionary (反衰退的) policies. When other countries are in recession, they don’t have the ability to engage in anti-recessionary policies because they can’t have a permissive monetary policy. because money would flee.” In person， he has the air of a philosophy professor rather than a gimlet-eyed (目光敏锐的) financier. In a soft voice which bears the faces of his native Hungary. he argues that it is time to rewrite the so-called Washington consensus—the cocktail of liberalization, privatization and fiscal rectitude which the IMF has been preaching for 15 years. Developing countries no longer have the freedom to run their own economies， he argues, even when they follow perfectly sound policies. He cites Brazil， which although it has a floating currency and manageable public debt was paying ten times over the odds to borrow from capital markets. Soros credits the anti-globalization movement for having made companies more sensitive to their wider responsibilities. “I think ［the protesters］ have made an important contribution by making people aware of the flaws of the system, ” he says. “People on the street had an impact on public opinion and corporations which sell to the public responded to that.” Because the IMF has abandoned billion dollar bailouts(紧急融资)for troubled economies， he thinks a repeat of the Asian crisis is unlikely. The fund’s new “tough love” policy—for which Argentina is the guinea pig—has other consequences. The bailouts were a welfare system for Wall Street, with western taxpayers rescuing the banks from the consequences of unwise lending to emerging economies. Now the IMF has drawn a line in the sand， credit to poor countries is drying up. “It has created a new problem-the inadequacy of the flow of capital from center to the periphery(外围), ” he says. The one economy Soros is not losing any sleep about is the US. “I am much more positive about the underlying economy than I am about the market， because we are waging war not only on terrorism but also on recession.” he says. “I have not yet seen an economy in recession when you are gearing up for war.” He worries that the world’s largest economic power is not living up to its responsibilities. “I would like the United States to live up to the responsibilities of its hegemonic(霸权的) power because it is not going to give up its hegemonic power, ” he says. “The only thing that is realistic is for the United States to become aware that it is in its enlightened self- interest to ensure that the rest of the world benefits from their role.”

Is More Growth Really Better？ A number of writers have raised questions about the desirability of faster economic growth as an end in itself, at least in the wealthier industrialized countries. Yet faster growth does mean more wealth， and to most people the desirability of wealth is beyond question. “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor—and I can tell you, rich is better，” a noted stage personality is said to have told an interviewer, and most people seem to have the same attitude about the economy as a whole. To those who hold this belief， a healthy economy is one that is capable of turning out vast quantities of shoes, food， cars, and TV sets. An economy whose capacity to provide all these things is not expanding is said to have succumbed to the disease of stagnation. Economists from Adam Smith to Karl Marx saw great virtue in economic growth. Marx argued that capitalism， at least in its earlier historical stages, was a vital form of economic organization by which society got out of the rut in which the medieval stage of history had trapped it. Marx believed that “the development of the productive powers of society... alone can form the real basis of a higher form of productive powers of society”. Marx went on to tell us that only where such great productive powers have been unleashed can one have “a society in which the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle.” In other words， only a wealthy economy can afford to give all individuals the opportunity for full personal satisfaction through the use of their special abilities in their jobs and through increased leisure activities. Yet the desirability of further economic growth for a society that is already wealthy has been questioned on grounds that undoubtedly have a good deal of validity. It is pointed out that the sheer increase in quantity of products has imposed an enormous cost on society in the form of pollution, crowding， proliferation of wastes that need disposal, and debilitating psychological and social effects. It is said that industry has transformed the satisfying and creative tasks of the artisan into the mechanical and dehumanizing routine of the assembly line. It has dotted our roadsides with junkyards， filled our air with smoke, and poisoned our food with dangerous chemicals. The question is whether the outpouring of frozen foods， talking dolls, radios， and headache remedies is worth its high cost to society. As one well-known economist put it: The continued pursuit of economic growth by Western Societies is more likely on balance to reduce rather than increase social welfare... Technological innovations may offer to add to men’s material opportunities. But by increasing the risks of their obsolescence it adds also to their anxiety. Swifter means of communications have the paradoxical effect of isolating people； increased mobility has led to more hours commuting; increased automobilization to increased separation； more television to less communication. In consequence, people know less of their neighbors than ever before. Virtually every economist agrees that these concerns are valid， though many question whether economic growth is their major cause. Nevertheless, they all emphasize that pollution of air and water， noise and congestion, and the mechanization of the work process are very real and very serious problems. There is every reason for society to undertake programs that grapple with these problems.

Effect of the Great Depression It is difficult to measure the human cost of the Great Depression. The material hardships were bad enough. Men and women lived in lean-tos made of scrap wood and metal， and families went without meat and fresh vegetables for months, existing on a diet of soup and beans. The psychological burden was even greater： Americans suffered through year after year of grinding poverty with no letup in sight. The unemployed stood in line for hours waiting for relief checks, veterans sold apples or pencils on street comers， their manhood—once prized so highly by the nation—now in question. People left the city for the countryside but found no salvation on the farm. Crops rotted in the fields because prices were too low to make harvesting worthwhile; sheriffs fended off angry crowds as banks foreclosed long overdue mortgages on once prosperous farms. Few escaped the suffering. African Americans who had left the poverty of the rural South for factory jobs in the North were among the first to be laid off. Mexican Americans， who had flowed in to replace European immigrants, met with competition from angry citizens， now willing to do stoop labor in the fields and work as track layers on the railroads. Immigration officials used technicalities to halt the flow across the Rio Grande and even to reverse it; nearly a half million Mexicans were deported in the 1930s， including families with children born in the United States. The poor—black, brown， and white—survived because they knew better than most Americans how to exist in poverty. They stayed in bed in cold weather, both to keep warm and to avoid unnecessary burning up of calories； they patched their shoes with pieces of rubber from discarded tires, heated only the kitchens of their homes， and ate scraps of food that others would reject. The middle class, which had always lived with high expectations， was hit hard. Professionals and white-collar workers refused to ask for charity even while their families went without food; one New York dentist and his wife turned on the gas and left a note saying， “We want to get out of the way before we are forced to accept relief money.” People who fell behind in their mortgage payments lost their homes and then faced eviction when they could not pay the rent. Health care declined. Middle-class people stopped going to doctors and dentists regularly, unable to make the required cash payment in advance for services rendered. Even the well-to-do were affected， giving up many of their former luxuries and weighed down with guilt as they watched former friends and business associates join the ranks of the impoverished. “My father lost everything in the Depression" became an all-too-familiar refrain among young people who dropped out of college. Many Americans sought escape in movement. Men, boys， and some women, rode the rails in search of jobs， hopping freights to move south in the winter or west in the summer. On the Missouri Pacific alone, the number of vagrants increased from just over 13，000 in 1929 to nearly 200, 000 in 1931. One town in the Southwest hired special policemen to keep vagrants from leaving the boxcars. Those who became tramps had to keep on the move， but they did find a sense of community in the hobo jungles that sprang up along the major railroad routes. Here a man could find a place to eat and sleep, and people with whom to share his misery. Louis Banks， a black veteran, told interviewer Studs Terkel what these informal camps were like： Black and white, it didn’t make any difference who you were， cause everybody was poor. All friendly, sleep in a jungle. We used to take a big pot and cook food， cabbage, meat and beans all together. We all set together， we made a tent. Twenty-five or thirty would be out on the side of the rail, white and colored： They didn’t have no mothers or sisters, they didn’t have no home， they were dirty, they had overalls on， they didn’t have no food, they didn’t have anything.

Converting the Masses： Starbucks in China It sounds like Mission Impossible: Sell coffee to China’s tea drinkers. Starbucks’ solution is to select high-profile locations on the busiest streets， where stores are sure to seduce the see-and-be-seen set. As Starbucks launches an aggressive expansion in China, a coffee frontier steeped in nearly， 000 years of tea. The goal: to build hip hang-outs mat tap into a new taste for China’s emerging middle class. Starbucks China doesn’t plan any advertising， promotions, or other marketing strategies， aside from sponsoring an online coffee club and the occasional office-tower coffee tasting. Instead, the company is counting on selecting such high-visibility， high-traffic cafe locations that they market themselves. Its main advertising medium is the store itself. But in fast-changing Chinese cities, finding locations that will embody the fight lifestyle is more akin to gambling than science. The computerized mapping databases that the company uses to test a potential street comer in the United States would be little help in Chinese cities. Starbucks also faces an uphill battle. Local media reported that 70%of people they surveyed would rather not see the chain in Beijing’s Forbidden City. And even for middle-class Chinese， Starbucks is a barely affordable luxury. While retailers say a top marketing weapon in urban China is to charge more for public consumption. That’s because Chinese customers have different priorities than their American yuppie counterparts. Guys 40 years old are not coffee drinkers, but if the environment is good and the coffee is not bad， they’ll come back. The store layout, artwork and food options make Starbucks more friendly to Chinese eyes， but coffee remains the core offering and people don’t go there for the coffee. They go there to present themselves as modem Chinese in a public setting.

Debt Financing The most common source of debt financing for start-ups often isn’t a commercial lending institution， but family and friends. It makes sense. People with whom you have close relationships know you are reliable and competent, so there should be no problem in asking for a loan， right? Keep in mind， however, that asking for financial help isn’t the same as borrowing the car. While borrowing money from family and friends may seem an easy alternative to dealing with bankers， it can actually be a much more delicate situation and it’s important to be as disciplined as you would be in dealing with a professional investor. Here are some basic rules: Treat them as if they were strangers. Forget for the moment that your investor is a friend or family member. Make it an "arm’s length" transaction， and insist on the same sort of legal documentation you would prepare if your investor was a total stranger. Why? Because too many entrepreneurs borrow money from family and friends on an informal basis. The terms of the loan have been verbalized but not written down in a contract. Lending money can be tricky for people who can’t view the transaction at arm’s length； if they don’t feel you are running your business correctly, they might step in and interfere with your operations. In some cases， you can’t prevent this, even with a written contract， because many state laws guarantee voting fights to an individual who has invested money in a business. This can, and has， created a lot of hard feelings. Make sure to check with your attorney before accepting any loans from friends or family. So if it’s a loan, have your lawyer prepare an I.O.U. (called a "promissory note") for the friend or family member， and don’t offer less than a "commercial" interest rate. Debt may actually be better than equity. If someone "lends" you money, you only have to pay it back， with interest. They can’t tell you how to run your company. If someone buys stock in your business, they are legally your business partner. When in doubt， make it a loan, and pay it back as soon as you can. Tie all payments to your cash flow. Try to avoid obligations with fixed repayment schedules. Consider instead "cash flow" obligations， in which your investor will receive a percentage of your operating cash flow (if any) until they either have been repaid in full with interest, or have achieved a specified percentage return on their investment. Consider nonvoting stock. If your friend or family member insists on buying stock in your company， try to make it nonvoting stock, so they don’t have the right to second-guess your every management decision.

Globalization What exactly does globalization mean？ Concepts related to globalization include “internationalization”, “multidomestic marketing”， and “multinational or transnational marketing”, suggesting that the basic criterion is transactions across national boundaries. In the marketing and strategic management literature， globalization is conceptualized as a means to gain competitive advantage by locating different stages of production in different geographic regions according to the particular region’s comparative advantage. This conceptualization focuses only on the economic aspects of globalization; social， cultural and political factors are only considered in the context of achieving economic advantage. Thus, being “culturally sensitive” in global markets is being able to sell one’s product with enough ingenuity to avoid possible pitfalls arising from the seller’s ignorance of local customs. International marketing textbooks discuss such cultural pitfalls in great detail； however, the cultural contest of globalization is always framed by the economy. Broader conceptualization of globalization can be found in other disciplines such as sociology and anthropology. Waters defined globalization as “a social process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding.” This conceptualization with its much broader scope， allows for the examination of a number of consequences of globalization, not jut economic but social， cultural and political ones. While there are a few different conceptualizations of globalization, researchers seem to be in agreement that there are at least three dimensions of globalization： economic, political and cultural. The economic aspects of globalization stem from the spread of the capitalist world economy and the resulting expansion of goods and services. The need for cheap raw materials， cheap labor and new markets saw the expansion of the capitalist world economy from one that was primarily Eurocentric to one that encompassed the entire world. This process was achieved by various means and often involved overcoming political resistances in the new markets. The political aspects of globalization involved establishing control over markets and raw materials through either the use of direct military power or the establishment of international institutions that control such markets. The rise of the nation-state is an example of the political aspect of globalization, although it is argued that advances in telecommunications and information systems and the resulting constructions of institutions that transience territorial boundaries are making the nation-state obsolete. If the economic and political aspects of globalization involve material and power exchanges， the cultural of globalization involves the expression of symbols that represents facts, meanings， beliefs, preferences， tastes and values. In fact, these symbolic exchanges are increasingly displacing economic and political exchanges in the spread of global mass culture. Traditional barriers of language pose no problems to modem means of cultural production such as satellite television and film. However， the new “global culture”, despite its manifestations through consumption of global products and symbols in different part of the globe， is essentially the culture of dominant groups centered in the West.

Power and Cooperation： An American Foreign Policy for the Age of Global Politics The age of geopolitics in American foreign policy is over; the age of global politics has begun. Throughout the twentieth century， traditional geopolitics drove U.S. thinking on foreign affairs: American security depended on preventing any one country from achieving dominion over the Eurasian landmass. That objective was achieved with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now the United States finds itself confronting a new international environment， one without a peer competitor but that nonetheless presents serious threats to American security. The terrorists who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon neither represented a traditional state-based threat nor were tied to a specific geographical location. Nevertheless, nineteen people with just a few hundred thousand dollars succeeded in harming the most powerful nation on earth. For more than three centuries， the dynamics of world politics was determined by the interplay among states, especially the great powers. Today， world politics is shaped by two unprecedented phenomena that are in some tension with each other. One is the sheer predominance of the United States. Today, as never before， what matters most in international politics is how—and whether—Washington acts on any given issue. The other is globalization, which has unleashed economic， political, and social forces that are beyond the capacity of any one country， including the United States, to control. American primacy and globalization bring the United States great rewards as well as great dangers. Primacy gives Washington an unsurpassed ability to get its way in international affairs， while globalization enriches the American economy and spreads American values. But America’s great power and the penetration of its culture, products， and influence deep into other societies breed intense resentment and grievances. Great power and great wealth do not necessarily produce greater respect or greater security. American leaders and the American people are now grappling with the double-edged sword that is the age of global politics.

Aid for Africa The momentum is building ahead of next month’s G8 summit in Scotland where the leaders of the world’s richest nations will debate what they can do to help some of the world’s poorest. Africa is the priority and the politicians will discuss reducing the debt burden， ending trade regulations which put the continent’s economy at a disadvantage, and giving more aid. Mark Doyle， who’s reported from Africa for many years, looks at why aid is necessary， and why much of what’s been donated in the past has not worked. All around the edge of Africa-along the coastline, near the continents’ ports—are monuments to exploitation. On the island of Goree， for example, just off the coast of Senegal， there’s: the Slave House. This was the last place many Africans saw before being shipped off to a lifetime of slavery in American or， just as often, to death on the high seas. There are many more places like this dating from the three hundreds and fifty years or so of the African slave trade. When people wonder why Africa is so poor， they need look no further for the start of an explanation. The end of the slavery was followed by a century of colonialism. Some people argue that colonialism brought limited development—railways and schools and so on—the system was principally designed to turn Africa into a vast plantation and mining site for the profit of outsiders. Of course, some Africans gained from this period. Chiefs who sold their enemies to the European or Arab slavers， for example, and coastal people who creams a little off the colonial trade which flowed through their land. But on the whole， for almost half a millennium, the general rule was systematic exploitation. This must， surely, be the basic reason why Africa is poor. You could add that the climate， is punishing, that tropical diseases are fife， and that today’s independent African rulers are far from perfect, all true. But these factors， powerful in recent decades, seem marginal when set against to the pattern that was set for centuries. The solution， or at least, the project SOLD as the solution to， has been "aid". Emergency aid, development aid， agricultural aid, economic advice. Billions of dollars worth of it. The problem with this solution is that， patently, is hasn’t worked. On the whole， Africa has got poorer. The failure hasn’t really been the idea of real aid but the misuse of that term. Clearly, if， in the famous phrases, you "teach a man to fish" you’re probably helping him. But most aid hasn’t been like that. Most of it has been "top-down" aid， money that’s given to African governments do the political bidding of the aid givers. A good proportion of it has been creamed off by the recipient government’s officials and another large chunk of it paid back to the so-called "donors" in consultancy fees, salaries， cars, houses and servants for aid officials， debt repayments and the purchasing of arms. And yet, to say aid hasn’t worked IN THE PAST is not the same thing as saying aid CAN’T work.

Wild Birds Treated as Bird-flu Carriers Avian influenza， also known as bird-flu, is dominating headlines in some parts of the world. The first cases of the deadly H5N1 swain of the virus have been confirmed in Europe and there have been new outbreaks in Asia. Bird-flu is here to stay， according to the World Health Organization, and countries are revising their procedures on how to prevent， or at the very least delay, a human pandemic. In areas where the virus has already been confirmed， like Romania, most efforts focus on trying to keep domestic birds away from wild local birds like swans， and migrating birds like geese. In the wetlands of the Danube delta thousands of hens, ducks and geese have already been slaughtered. Some ornithologists plead that we’d better not demonize the wild birds. Bird flu began among poultry in south-east Asia， almost certainly because of the way people treat domestic birds, cramped together in small cages. They infected the wild birds， which are now bringing the virus to Europe and Africa. Poultry are catching it, and sooner or later， so will humans. It’s coming full circles. So don’t blame the birds. Blame human cruelty. On a lake in Mined, not far from the delta capital Tulcea， two pigmy cormorants, 10 domestic ducks， egrets, black-headed gulls， and swans, lots of swans. Sleeping. They shouldn’t be sleeping now. It’s the middle of the day! Perhaps they’re sick. Swans have borne the brunt of the bird-flu outbreak here so far. They were weak anyway， because of the floods which have struck Romania this Spring and Summer. Swans thrive in water not much deeper than one metre. They plunge their long necks under water to feed. With water levels unusually high, the swans have take refuge this year in fish farms， where many shallow, man-made pools offer rich pickings. But other birds， domestic and wild, gather there too-and such concentrations of birds， experts say, create a perfect environment for spreading disease. In the second confirmed bird-flu cluster in the delta，137 swans have died, on a fish farm in the village of Maliue. In the third cluster， near the Ukrainian border, 15 swans have died so far. The number may not be huge， but this is undoubtedly the tip of the avian influenza iceberg. Bird-flu is already present in Romania’s neighbors, Ukraine， Moldova, and Bulgaria. White-fronted geese can travel 500 kilometers in a single day! Scientists should concentrate on a vaccine to prevent the virus in birds， and not put all their efforts into the human version. According to experts from the World Health Organization, the virus will remain for a long time in the region. More cases of bird-flu will be discovered， And each time, a major quarantine operation will have to be launched. To kill poultry， to closely observe those who have come into contact with sick birds, and seal off the area. People throughout this wetland region will just have to learn a new way of life. And so will their hens and ducks and geese. Like the tale of the Sultan’s gold coin， no one can say how this story will end.

Dental Health Decay is not the only disease that can cause tooth loss. Another serious disease affects the gums， the tissue that surrounds the teeth. It is also caused by bacteria. If the bacteria are not removed every day, they form a substance that stays on the teeth. The substance is known as plaque. At first， the gums appear to be swollen, and may bleed when the teeth are brushed. This can lead to serious infection of the tissue around the teeth. The infection may damage the bone that supports the teeth and cause tooth loss and other health problems. Studies have found that people with severe gum disease have an increased risk of developing heart disease， diabetes and stroke. Gum disease can be treated by a special dentist called a periodontist. Periodontists are trained to repair the gum areas that have been damaged. This can be painful and costly. Dental health experts say the best thing to do is to stop gum disease before it starts. The way to do this is to clean the teeth every day. People also should use dental floss to remove plaque from between the teeth. Most experts also agree that another way to prevent tooth and gum problems is to eat foods high in calcium and vitamins and low in sugar. Scientists continue to develop better dental treatments and equipment. Improved technology may change the way people receive dental treatment in the future. For example, dentists are now suing laser light to treat diseased gums and teeth. Dentists use computer technology to help them repair damaged teeth. Researchers have developed improved methods to repair bone that supports the teeth. And genetic research is expected to develop tests that will show the presence of disease causing bacteria in the mouth. Such increased knowledge about dental diseases and ways to prevent them has improved the health of many people. Yet problems remain in some areas. In industrial countries， minorities and other groups have a high level of untreated dental disease. In developing countries, many areas do not have even emergency care services. The World Health Organization says people in countries in Africa have the most tooth and gum problems. World Health Organization experts say the dental health situation is different for almost every country in the world. As a result， it has developed oral health programs separately for each area. The WHO oral health program is mainly for people living in poor areas. It provides them with information about mouth diseases and health care. It also studies preventive programs using fluoride in water, salt， mild and toothpaste. And it explores ways to include dental health in national health care systems. Many governments and other organizations provide help, so people can get needed dental health services. But dental health professionals say people should take good care of their teeth and gums. They say people should keep their teeth as clean as possible. They should eat foods high in calcium and fiber. These include milk products， whole grain breads and cereals, vegetables， fruits, beans and nuts. Recent studies have shown that eating nuts can help slow the production of plaque on the teeth. Experts say these activities will help everyone improve their dental health throughout their lives.

Working Together Against the Infectious Diseases There is another area that really may sound like it’s outside the range of politics and Iraqi people where we’re cooperating together， but it’s an area that is vital to the well-being of the Chinese people, the American people， the people in the world, and it’s now we’re working together to deal with the dangers inherent in infectious diseases. China’s sobering experience with SARS stands as a lesson to all countries on the challenge of infectious diseases. I have called HIV/AIDS the world’s greatest weapon of mass destruction today. It threatens to kill tens of millions of men， women and children—in the Caribbean, in Latin America， in the subcontinent, especially in Africa—and yes， it is a danger to China as well. And China’s government is facing up to this crisis, working with us. The United States has told China we are ready to help. Last month， our Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson spoke in China of President Bush’s interest in furthering our practical cooperation on HIV/AIDS and other health issues. Specialists from our Centers for Disease Control are working on the ground with their Chinese counterparts. Our National Institute of Health has granted $14.8 million to help China upgrade its health care infrastructure. My friends, it is upon such concrete forms of cooperation on issues of regional and global importance that a 21st century US-China relationship will be built， issue by issue, experience by experience， challenge by challenge, initiative by initiative， program by program. As China participates more actively in world affairs, we will extend our welcome. Building and sustaining a healthy overall relationship is good for America， it is good for China, it is good for the region， and good for the international community.

The On-going Debate over Healthcare Reform It seems that the government’s so-called Blue Ribbon Commission has already decided what plan it will propose without undertaking any public consultation and is now merely engaged in a PR campaign to convince us they have the answer. This seems a little head over heels to us. Since it is our money and our health that is in question， shouldn’t we have been consulted at the break about which way we want to go? There are several models to achieve healthcare reform， and not all of them require us to hand more money over to keep government bureaucrats in big offices. Purely private healthcare may have big problems—but so does the socialised medicine the commission is recommending. For example, Canada’s universal system of socialised medicine is now busily engaged in transferring costs from the public to the private sector… by reducing covered expenses， by de-insuring some expenses and so on. Medical authorities are on record as saying that in an effort to manage costs, hospital stays are being shortened (or even dispensed with altogether). So while we in the Bahamas are citing universal ‘free’ health care as the answer to our problems， in Canada there is an uncoordinated scramble by the public system to reduce and offload the effects of rising health care costs. And we won’t even mention the litany of complaints from users who have to wait for poor service. But what mostly concerns us about the Blue Ribbon Commission is that they have plumped for social health insurance without determining the cost of their recommended programmer, or of the alternatives. And they do not seem to have taken into account the impact this plan will have on the fiscal deficit or on our individual pockets. Apparently， the position is that whatever the cost, this is the plan that will be presented to parliament. An initiative so far-reaching and so potentially damaging to our economy， should require more careful assessment of the alternatives in public. There is always more than one way to skin a cat. And we do not believe that a small group of consultants constitutes ‘the public’.

Healthcare Reform During the past two decades， all of the industrialized nations have enacted some form of healthcare reform. America is no exception. Just a few years ago, the U. S. was consumed by a vigorous public debate about healthcare. In the end， the debate reaffirmed that the U. S. would retain its essentially market-based system. Instead of reform imposed from the top down, the American healthcare system underwent some rather profound self-reform， driven by powerful market forces. The market—not the government—managed to wring inflation out of the private healthcare market. Today, it appears that U.S. healthcare costs are again on the rise. At the same time， American patients—like patients elsewhere—are becoming more vocal about the restrictions many face in their healthcare plans. Talk of government-led reform is once again in the air. We must think twice, though， before embarking on “reform” if that means imposing further restrictions on our healthcare markets. The more sensible course is to introduce policies that make the market work better—that is, to the advantage of consumers. I base this argument on our company’s decades of experience in healthcare systems around the world， which has given us a unique global perspective on the right and wrong way to reform healthcare. The wrong way is to impose layer after layer of regulation and restrictions. We have seen this approach tried in many countries, and we have always see it fail—fail to hold down costs， and fail to provide the best quality care. Medicine is changing at so rapid a pace that no government agency or expert commission can keep up with it. Only an open, informed and competitive market can do that. This lesson holds true for the U. S.， and for all countries contemplating healthcare reform. Free markets do what governments mean to do—but can’t. The right approach is to foster a flexible, market-based system in which consumers have rights， responsibilities, and choices. Healthcare systems do not work if patients are treated as passive recipients of services： they do work if consumers are well-informed about quality, costs， and new treatments, and are free to act responsibly on that knowledge. Of course， reform should never be driven purely by cost considerations. Instead, we ought to devise new ways of funding healthcare that will make it possible for all patients to afford the best care. Ideally， these new approaches would not only reward individuals and families but also encourage innovation, which can make healthcare systems more efficient， more productive, and ultimately of greater value for patients. The path we choose will have enormous implications for all of us. We are in a golden age of science， and no field of scientific inquiry holds more promise than that of biomedicine. Not only can we look forward to the discovery of cures for chronic and acute disease, but also to the development of enabling therapies that can help people enjoy more rewarding and productive lives. New drugs are already helping people who would once have been disabled by arthritis or cardiovascular disease stay active and mobile. More effective anti-depressants and anti-psychotics are beginning to relieve the crippling illness of the mind， allowing sufferers to function normally and happily in society. The promise is quite simply—one of longer, healthier lives. What is at issue are the pace and breadth of discovery， and how quickly we can make the benefits of our knowledge available to the patients who need them. Therefore, the policy environment the biomedical industry will face in the next century may make or break the next wave of biomedical breakthroughs. Will that environment include protection for intellectual property， freedom for the market to determine price, and support for a robust science base？ Will healthcare systems nurture innovation, or remove incentives for discovery？ Will they give consumers information and options, or impose stringent rules and regulations that limit access and choice？ For the U. S., as for the rest of the world， the healthcare debate is by no means over. And for all of us, the stakes are higher than ever.