International Herald Tribune(2007-04-27)
By Carla A. Hills and Dennis C. Blair Published: April 26, 2007
The relationship between the United States and China will shape the future of the planet in the 21st century. In key areas - economic growth, regional security, counter-terrorism, nonproliferation, human rights, public health and the environment - a close, candid and cooperative relationship with China offers the United States a chance to make significant progress on its global agenda. Indeed, the core international public policy challenges confronting the United States can best be managed with China's constructive participation.
Yet at a time when U.S.-China relations offer great opportunity, the consensus behind 35 years of engagement with China is fraying. Moreover, the undeniable challenges posed by an ascendant China come at a time when the president and Congress are concentrating on a global campaign against terrorism and when the United States is carrying the burdens of major military and political commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sixteen months ago, we convened a task force under the auspices of the Council on Foreign Relations to consider the implications of China's rise. We have concluded that the United States needs to adopt a much broader and more focused strategy - integration - to maximize the areas of collaboration with China and minimize the likelihood of conflict.
Integration has three elements: deepening engagement with China, especially on security issues, rule of law and good governance; weaving China more thoroughly into the international community to better address issues like environmental protection, energy security and public health; and balancing China's growing power by strengthening American's global economic competitiveness, continuing U.S. force modernization and enhancing alliances and security partnerships.
These measures are not to contain China, but to account for the inevitable uncertainties associated with its growth.
The world has seldom smoothly managed the emergence of a great power, and China's rise will call for wise policies by the United States, other countries and China itself. The task force identified several sources of U.S. unease.
China's economic development and the accompanying massive U.S. trade deficit with China have become synonymous with the larger economic challenges of globalization.
China's human rights record remains poor, with progress on political liberty and religious freedom lagging far behind China's economic accomplishments.
China's expanding influence has led some to conclude that China is seeking to displace the United States from its global leadership role and rewrite the rules of the international institutions.
China's economic growth has provided Beijing the wherewithal to modernize its military and develop a robust space program, causing some to predict that China will soon emerge as a military peer of the United States.
The bottom line is that as China has grown more powerful and assertive in the international arena, those areas where China's interests and those of the United States diverge have been brought into sharper focus.
Yet these difficulties must not be allowed to obscure important truths.
Engagement with China has been an enormous success, bringing greater prosperity to both countries and contributing to peaceful development throughout East Asia. Through engagement, China's relationship with the United States has been transformed from one characterized by antagonism to one in which cooperation has become common. And for all of China's success, its leaders face immense difficulties - economic, environmental, demographic, and political. Consequently, Beijing requires and desires a peaceful and stable international environment - especially good relations with Washington.
These truths lead us to conclude that the best way for the United States to address its concerns about China is to approach the relationship with confidence, not trepidation, and an affirmative agenda, forging habits of cooperation and reducing lingering mutual suspicions. Washington also needs to get its own house in order by reining in deficit spending, promoting savings and investing heavily in education and technology to ensure future economic competitiveness.
The United States should not shy away from tough issues like human rights, but should lead by example and work to strengthen the institutions that will enable the Chinese people themselves to push for change.
While taking prudent measures to account for the uncertainty of China's future, the right American policy is to seek to integrate China even further into the global community. This positive approach, rather than attempting containment, is the best policy for America to influence China's interests and actions in accordance international norms.
Carla A. Hills is a former U.S. trade representative. Admiral Dennis C. Blair, retired, is a former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Command.
2007年4月28日星期六
2007年4月25日星期三
You Are What You do
If the past has taught us anything, it is that every cause brings effect——every action has a consequence. This thought, in my opinion, is the moral foundation of the universe; it applies in this world and the next. We Chinese have a saying: “if a man plants melons, he will reap melons; if he sows beans, he will reap beans.” This is true of every man’s life: good begets good, and evil leads to evil.
True enough, the sun shines on the saint and sinner alike, and too often it seems that the wicked wax and prosper. But we can say with certitude that, with the individual as with the nation, that the flourishing of the wicked is an illusion, for, unceasingly, life keeps books on us.
In the end, we are all sum total of our actions. Character can not be counterfeited, nor can it be put on and cast off as if it was a garment to meet the whim of the moment. Like the markings on wood which are ingrained in the vary heart of the tree, character requires time and nurture for growth and development.
Such day by day, we write our destiny. For inexorably we become what we do. This, I believe, is the supreme logic and law of life.
2007年4月24日星期二
Google tops new list of world's most valuable brands
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Google Inc. has knocked Microsoft Corp. from its perch as the world's top-ranked brand, according to findings released on Monday.
The rankings, compiled by market research firm Millward Brown, also put Google ahead of well-established brands like General Electric Co., No. 2; Coca-Cola Co., No. 4; Wal-Mart Stores, No. 7; and IBM, No. 9.
Some key factors seen this year in building brand recognition ranged from corporate responsibility to serving customers in emerging markets like Brazil and India, according to the study.
The top-ranked brand from a non-U.S.-based company was China Mobile, which dropped a spot but still came in at No. 5.
The rankings were based on publicly available financial data along with primary research, including interviews with a million consumers worldwide, Millward Brown said.
For Google, which ranked No. 7 a year ago, the jump to the top underscores how quickly the Web search leader has become an everyday name. The company uses relatively little advertising, instead relying on word-of-mouth promotion.
By contrast, Microsoft's slide down to third place from first comes even as the software company has been rolling out its new Windows Vista operating system with a massive global marketing blitz.
Eileen Campbell, global chief executive of Millward Brown, said the rankings showed "a blend of good business leadership, responsible financial management and powerful marketing ... can be leveraged to create and grow corporate wealth."
Some of the other big movers on the list included Apple Inc.. which rose 13 spots to No. 16 and Starbucks Corp., which rose 13 spots to No. 35. Those losing ground in the brand rankings included Intel Corp., Home Depot Inc. and Dell Inc.
Millward Brown is a unit of WPP Group and the findings were published in cooperation with the Financial Times.
The rankings, compiled by market research firm Millward Brown, also put Google ahead of well-established brands like General Electric Co., No. 2; Coca-Cola Co., No. 4; Wal-Mart Stores, No. 7; and IBM, No. 9.
Some key factors seen this year in building brand recognition ranged from corporate responsibility to serving customers in emerging markets like Brazil and India, according to the study.
The top-ranked brand from a non-U.S.-based company was China Mobile, which dropped a spot but still came in at No. 5.
The rankings were based on publicly available financial data along with primary research, including interviews with a million consumers worldwide, Millward Brown said.
For Google, which ranked No. 7 a year ago, the jump to the top underscores how quickly the Web search leader has become an everyday name. The company uses relatively little advertising, instead relying on word-of-mouth promotion.
By contrast, Microsoft's slide down to third place from first comes even as the software company has been rolling out its new Windows Vista operating system with a massive global marketing blitz.
Eileen Campbell, global chief executive of Millward Brown, said the rankings showed "a blend of good business leadership, responsible financial management and powerful marketing ... can be leveraged to create and grow corporate wealth."
Some of the other big movers on the list included Apple Inc.. which rose 13 spots to No. 16 and Starbucks Corp., which rose 13 spots to No. 35. Those losing ground in the brand rankings included Intel Corp., Home Depot Inc. and Dell Inc.
Millward Brown is a unit of WPP Group and the findings were published in cooperation with the Financial Times.
U.S. gender pay gap emerges early, study finds
By Ellen Wulfhorst
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A dramatic pay gap emerges between women and men in America the year after they graduate from college and widens over the ensuing decade, according to research released on Monday.
One year out of college, women working full time earn 80 percent of what men earn, according to the study by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, based in Washington D.C.
Ten years later, women earn 69 percent as much as men earn, it said.
Even as the study accounted for such factors as the number of hours worked, occupations or parenthood, the gap persisted, researchers said.
"If a woman and a man make the same choices, will they receive the same pay?" the study asked. "The answer is no.
"These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force," it said.
Specifically, about one-quarter of the pay gap is attributable to gender -- 5 percent one year after graduation and 12 percent 10 years after graduation, it said.
One year out of college, men and women should arguably be the least likely to show a gender pay gap, the study said, since neither tend to be parents yet and they enter the work force without significant experience.
"It surprised me that it was already apparent one year out of college, and that it widens over the first 10 years," Catherine Hill, AAUW director of research, told Reuters.
Among factors found to make a difference in pay, the choice of fields of concentration in college were significant, the study found. Female students tended to study areas with lower pay, such as education, health and psychology, while male students dominated higher-paying fields such as engineering, mathematics and physical sciences, it said.
Even so, one year after graduation, a pay gap turned up between women and men who studied the same fields.
In education, women earn 95 percent as much as their male colleagues earn, while in math, women earn 76 percent as much as men earn, the study showed.
While in college, the study showed, women outperformed men academically, and their grade point averages were higher in every college major.
Parenthood affected men and women in vividly different ways. The study showed mothers more likely than fathers, or other women, to work part time or take leaves.
Among women who graduated from college in 1992-93, more than one-fifth of mothers were out of the work force a decade later, and another 17 percent were working part time, it said.
In the same class, less than 2 percent of fathers were out of the work force in 2003, and less than 2 percent were working part time, it said.
The study, entitled "Behind the Pay Gap," used data from the U.S. Department of Education. It analyzed some 9,000 college graduates from 1992-93 and more than 10,000 from 1999-2000.
(Editing by Cynthia Osterman; Reuters Messaging: ellen.wulfhorst.reuters.com@reuters.net)
Boris Yeltsin dies
Boris N. Yeltsin, the burly provincial politician who became the first freely elected leader of Russia and a towering figure of his time when he presided over the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the demise of the Communist Party, has died at the age of 76, the Russian government said today.
鲍里斯 恩. 叶利钦，这位来自地方的魁梧的政客去世了，想念76岁。因为主持了苏联解体并且解散苏联共产党，他成为了俄罗斯的首位民选总统和他那个时代的巨人。俄罗斯政府于今天宣布了叶利钦的死讯。
According to the Associated Press, Kremlin spokesman Alexander Smirnov confirmed Mr. Yeltsin’s death but he gave no information on the cause of the death. The Interfax news agency quoted an unidentified medical source as saying the former president had died of heart failure.
来自美联社的消息 克里姆林宫发言人亚历山大.斯米尔诺夫证实也叶利钦先生的死讯，但是 他 没有提供死亡的原因。国际文传电讯社援引未经正式的医生的消息，据说这位前总统死于心脏病。
In office for less than nine years and plagued by severe health problems, Mr. Yeltsin added a final chapter to his historical record when, in a stunning coup at the close of the 20th century, he announced his resignation and became the first Russian leader to relinquish power on his own in accordance with constitutional processes.
在位将近九年，叶利钦先生被严重的心脏疾病所困扰，他给自己的历史写下总后的篇章是20世纪行将结束之时的极棒的出人意料的举动，他宣布辞职，作为俄罗斯联邦的首位总统 ，根据宪法程序，他放弃了权力。
He then turned over the reins of office to his handpicked successor, Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Yeltsin left a giant, if flawed, legacy. He started to establish a democratic state and then pulled back, lurching from one prime minister to another in an effort to control the levers of power. But where his predecessor, Mikhail S. Gorbachev sought to perpetuate the Communist Party, Mr. Yeltsin helped break the party’s hold over the Russian people.
接着，他将政府的统治权交给了他亲手选择的继承人，弗拉吉米尔.普京。叶利钦留下了巨大的遗产，或许有瑕疵。他开始建立一个民主的国家，然后把它又拉了回来，在一个总理与另一个总理之间来回摇摆，努力控制权力水平。但是，在他的前任戈尔巴乔夫试图寻求苏联共产党的永存的国度里，叶利钦帮助打破了该党对人民的控制。
Although his commitment to reform wavered, he eliminated government censorship of the press, tolerated public criticism and he steered Russia toward a free market.
尽管他对于改革的承诺由所动摇，他却解除了政府对新闻出版的检查制度，容忍公众的批评并且带领俄罗斯走向自由市场经济。
The rapid privatization of industry led to a form of buccaneer capitalism and a new class of oligarchs usurped political power as they plundered the country’s resources, but Mr. Yeltsin’s actions assured that there would be no turning back to the centralized Soviet command economy that had strangled growth and reduced a country populated by talented and cultured people and rich in natural resources to a beggar among nations.
Not least, Mr. Yeltsin was instrumental in dismembering the Soviet Union and allowing its former republics to make their way as independent states.
His leadership was erratic and often crude, and the democrat often ruled in the manner of a czar. He showed no reluctance to use the power of the presidency to face down his opponents, as he did in a showdown in 1993, when he ordered tanks to fire on the parliament dominated by openly seditious Communists, and in 1994, when he embarked upon a harsh military operation to subdue the breakaway republic of Chechnya. That costly and ruinous war almost became his undoing; it flared up again ferociously in 1999 and raged for years after he left office.
The Yeltsin era effectively began in August, 1991, when Mr. Yeltsin clambered atop a tank to rally Muscovites to put down a right-wing coup against Mr. Gorbachev, a heroic moment etched in the minds of the Russian people and television viewers all over the world. It ended with his electrifying resignation speech on New Years Eve, 1999.
These were Mr. Yeltsin’s finest hours, in an era marked by extraordinary political change as well as painful economic dislocation for many of his countrymen and stupendous wealth for a privileged few.
To turn around the battleship that was the Soviet Union, with its bloated military-industrial establishment, its ravaged economy, its devastated environment and its antiquated and inefficient health and social services system would have been a Herculean task for any leader in the prime of life and the best of health.
But in Russia, the job of building a new state from the ashes of the old was taken on by Mr. Yeltsin, the dedicated but imperfect reformer, a man in precarious health whose frequent mysterious disappearances from public life were attributed to heart and respiratory problems, excessive drinking and bouts of depression. These personal weaknesses left a sense of lost opportunity.
But a former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack F. Matlock, cited the difficulty of managing a transition where there is no prototype and no road map. “The change is so profound that probably no one leader could have sorted it out,” he said in an interview. “I suspect it will take more than one generation of politicians to do it.” But he said that Mr. Yeltsin, along with his predecessor, Mr. Gorbachev, deserve full credit for what he called a “tremendous achievement.”
Together, he said, “they destroyed the most monstrous political system in the history of the world, a regime with extensive resources to keep itself in power.”
Mr. Yeltsin was the most populist of politicians who rejected the notion of forming a political party, insisting he was elected by “all” of the people. This rendered him weak at the task of building coalitions to support efforts to initiate necessary reforms.
He sometimes played with the truth, surrounded himself with cronies, and appointed and dismissed one Prime Minister after another. Then, in failing health and under suspicion of enriching himself and his inner circle at the expense of the state, he resigned.
In an electrifying speech that surprised the world, he asked forgiveness for his mistakes and turned over the government to Mr. Putin, a loyal aide and former officer of the K.G.B.
In return, Mr. Yeltsin, and it was rumored, his family, received a grant of immunity from criminal prosecution and credit for leaving the Kremlin voluntarily.
Mr. Yeltsin left with his fondest wish for the Russian people only partly fulfilled. “I want their lives to improve before my own eyes,” he once said, remembering the hardship of growing up in a single room in a cold communal hut, “that is the most important thing.”
In fact, in the dislocation and chaos that accompanied the transition from the centralized economy he had inherited from the old Soviet Union, most people saw their circumstances deteriorate. Inflation became rampant, the poor became poorer, profiteers grew rich, the military and many state employees went unpaid and flagrant criminality flourished. Much of Russia’s inheritance from the Soviet Union stubbornly endures.
Mr. Gorbachev had sought to preserve the Soviet Union and, with his programs of glasnost and perestroika, to give Communism a more human dimension.
Mr. Yeltsin, on the other hand, believed that democracy, the rule of law and the market were the answers to Russia’s problems.
A big man with a ruddy face and white hair, he was full of peasant bluster — what the Russians call a real muzhik — and came to Moscow with a genuine warmth and concern for his countrymen.
During a visit to the United States in 1989, he became more convinced than ever that Russia had been ruinously damaged by the centralized, state-run economic system where people stood in long lines to buy the most basic needs of life and more often than not found the shelves bare.
He was overwhelmed by what he saw at a Houston supermarket, by the kaleidoscopic variety of meats and vegetables available to ordinary Americans.
Leon Aron quoting a Yeltsin associate, wrote in his biography, “Yeltsin, A Revolutionary Life” (St. Martin’s Press, 2000): “For a long time, on the plane to Miami, he sat motionless, his head in his hands. ‘What have they done to our poor people?’ he said after a long silence.”
He added, “On his return to Moscow, Yeltsin would confess the pain he had felt after the Houston excursion: the ‘pain for all of us, for our country so rich, so talented and so exhausted by incessant experiments.’ ”
He wrote that Mr. Yeltsin added, “’I think we have committed a crime against our people by making their standard of living so incomparably lower than that of the Americans.”’ An aide, Lev Sukhanov was reported to have said that it was at that moment that “the last vestige of Bolshevism collapsed” inside his boss.
Mr. Yeltsin became etched in the minds of the Russian people and, indeed, a world figure, in an act of extraordinary bravery that day when he clambered atop a Soviet Army tank in August 1991 and faced down right-wing forces who were threatening to overthrow Mr. Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader.
Long a thorn in Gorbachev’s side and soon to become his most powerful rival, Mr. Yeltsin on that day was Mr. Gorbachev’s most powerful and effective ally.
“Citizens of Russia,” he declared. “We are dealing with a right-wing, reactionary, anti-constitutional coup d’etat. We appeal to citizens of Russia to give an appropriate rebuff to the putschists.”
Thousands of Muscovites came out in the street to support him. He defeated the coup and saved Mr. Gorbachev. But not long after, he became the instrument of Mr. Gorbachev’s political downfall, and with it the dissolution of the Soviet state.
鲍里斯 恩. 叶利钦，这位来自地方的魁梧的政客去世了，想念76岁。因为主持了苏联解体并且解散苏联共产党，他成为了俄罗斯的首位民选总统和他那个时代的巨人。俄罗斯政府于今天宣布了叶利钦的死讯。
According to the Associated Press, Kremlin spokesman Alexander Smirnov confirmed Mr. Yeltsin’s death but he gave no information on the cause of the death. The Interfax news agency quoted an unidentified medical source as saying the former president had died of heart failure.
来自美联社的消息 克里姆林宫发言人亚历山大.斯米尔诺夫证实也叶利钦先生的死讯，但是 他 没有提供死亡的原因。国际文传电讯社援引未经正式的医生的消息，据说这位前总统死于心脏病。
In office for less than nine years and plagued by severe health problems, Mr. Yeltsin added a final chapter to his historical record when, in a stunning coup at the close of the 20th century, he announced his resignation and became the first Russian leader to relinquish power on his own in accordance with constitutional processes.
在位将近九年，叶利钦先生被严重的心脏疾病所困扰，他给自己的历史写下总后的篇章是20世纪行将结束之时的极棒的出人意料的举动，他宣布辞职，作为俄罗斯联邦的首位总统 ，根据宪法程序，他放弃了权力。
He then turned over the reins of office to his handpicked successor, Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Yeltsin left a giant, if flawed, legacy. He started to establish a democratic state and then pulled back, lurching from one prime minister to another in an effort to control the levers of power. But where his predecessor, Mikhail S. Gorbachev sought to perpetuate the Communist Party, Mr. Yeltsin helped break the party’s hold over the Russian people.
接着，他将政府的统治权交给了他亲手选择的继承人，弗拉吉米尔.普京。叶利钦留下了巨大的遗产，或许有瑕疵。他开始建立一个民主的国家，然后把它又拉了回来，在一个总理与另一个总理之间来回摇摆，努力控制权力水平。但是，在他的前任戈尔巴乔夫试图寻求苏联共产党的永存的国度里，叶利钦帮助打破了该党对人民的控制。
Although his commitment to reform wavered, he eliminated government censorship of the press, tolerated public criticism and he steered Russia toward a free market.
尽管他对于改革的承诺由所动摇，他却解除了政府对新闻出版的检查制度，容忍公众的批评并且带领俄罗斯走向自由市场经济。
The rapid privatization of industry led to a form of buccaneer capitalism and a new class of oligarchs usurped political power as they plundered the country’s resources, but Mr. Yeltsin’s actions assured that there would be no turning back to the centralized Soviet command economy that had strangled growth and reduced a country populated by talented and cultured people and rich in natural resources to a beggar among nations.
Not least, Mr. Yeltsin was instrumental in dismembering the Soviet Union and allowing its former republics to make their way as independent states.
His leadership was erratic and often crude, and the democrat often ruled in the manner of a czar. He showed no reluctance to use the power of the presidency to face down his opponents, as he did in a showdown in 1993, when he ordered tanks to fire on the parliament dominated by openly seditious Communists, and in 1994, when he embarked upon a harsh military operation to subdue the breakaway republic of Chechnya. That costly and ruinous war almost became his undoing; it flared up again ferociously in 1999 and raged for years after he left office.
The Yeltsin era effectively began in August, 1991, when Mr. Yeltsin clambered atop a tank to rally Muscovites to put down a right-wing coup against Mr. Gorbachev, a heroic moment etched in the minds of the Russian people and television viewers all over the world. It ended with his electrifying resignation speech on New Years Eve, 1999.
These were Mr. Yeltsin’s finest hours, in an era marked by extraordinary political change as well as painful economic dislocation for many of his countrymen and stupendous wealth for a privileged few.
To turn around the battleship that was the Soviet Union, with its bloated military-industrial establishment, its ravaged economy, its devastated environment and its antiquated and inefficient health and social services system would have been a Herculean task for any leader in the prime of life and the best of health.
But in Russia, the job of building a new state from the ashes of the old was taken on by Mr. Yeltsin, the dedicated but imperfect reformer, a man in precarious health whose frequent mysterious disappearances from public life were attributed to heart and respiratory problems, excessive drinking and bouts of depression. These personal weaknesses left a sense of lost opportunity.
But a former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack F. Matlock, cited the difficulty of managing a transition where there is no prototype and no road map. “The change is so profound that probably no one leader could have sorted it out,” he said in an interview. “I suspect it will take more than one generation of politicians to do it.” But he said that Mr. Yeltsin, along with his predecessor, Mr. Gorbachev, deserve full credit for what he called a “tremendous achievement.”
Together, he said, “they destroyed the most monstrous political system in the history of the world, a regime with extensive resources to keep itself in power.”
Mr. Yeltsin was the most populist of politicians who rejected the notion of forming a political party, insisting he was elected by “all” of the people. This rendered him weak at the task of building coalitions to support efforts to initiate necessary reforms.
He sometimes played with the truth, surrounded himself with cronies, and appointed and dismissed one Prime Minister after another. Then, in failing health and under suspicion of enriching himself and his inner circle at the expense of the state, he resigned.
In an electrifying speech that surprised the world, he asked forgiveness for his mistakes and turned over the government to Mr. Putin, a loyal aide and former officer of the K.G.B.
In return, Mr. Yeltsin, and it was rumored, his family, received a grant of immunity from criminal prosecution and credit for leaving the Kremlin voluntarily.
Mr. Yeltsin left with his fondest wish for the Russian people only partly fulfilled. “I want their lives to improve before my own eyes,” he once said, remembering the hardship of growing up in a single room in a cold communal hut, “that is the most important thing.”
In fact, in the dislocation and chaos that accompanied the transition from the centralized economy he had inherited from the old Soviet Union, most people saw their circumstances deteriorate. Inflation became rampant, the poor became poorer, profiteers grew rich, the military and many state employees went unpaid and flagrant criminality flourished. Much of Russia’s inheritance from the Soviet Union stubbornly endures.
Mr. Gorbachev had sought to preserve the Soviet Union and, with his programs of glasnost and perestroika, to give Communism a more human dimension.
Mr. Yeltsin, on the other hand, believed that democracy, the rule of law and the market were the answers to Russia’s problems.
A big man with a ruddy face and white hair, he was full of peasant bluster — what the Russians call a real muzhik — and came to Moscow with a genuine warmth and concern for his countrymen.
During a visit to the United States in 1989, he became more convinced than ever that Russia had been ruinously damaged by the centralized, state-run economic system where people stood in long lines to buy the most basic needs of life and more often than not found the shelves bare.
He was overwhelmed by what he saw at a Houston supermarket, by the kaleidoscopic variety of meats and vegetables available to ordinary Americans.
Leon Aron quoting a Yeltsin associate, wrote in his biography, “Yeltsin, A Revolutionary Life” (St. Martin’s Press, 2000): “For a long time, on the plane to Miami, he sat motionless, his head in his hands. ‘What have they done to our poor people?’ he said after a long silence.”
He added, “On his return to Moscow, Yeltsin would confess the pain he had felt after the Houston excursion: the ‘pain for all of us, for our country so rich, so talented and so exhausted by incessant experiments.’ ”
He wrote that Mr. Yeltsin added, “’I think we have committed a crime against our people by making their standard of living so incomparably lower than that of the Americans.”’ An aide, Lev Sukhanov was reported to have said that it was at that moment that “the last vestige of Bolshevism collapsed” inside his boss.
Mr. Yeltsin became etched in the minds of the Russian people and, indeed, a world figure, in an act of extraordinary bravery that day when he clambered atop a Soviet Army tank in August 1991 and faced down right-wing forces who were threatening to overthrow Mr. Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader.
Long a thorn in Gorbachev’s side and soon to become his most powerful rival, Mr. Yeltsin on that day was Mr. Gorbachev’s most powerful and effective ally.
“Citizens of Russia,” he declared. “We are dealing with a right-wing, reactionary, anti-constitutional coup d’etat. We appeal to citizens of Russia to give an appropriate rebuff to the putschists.”
Thousands of Muscovites came out in the street to support him. He defeated the coup and saved Mr. Gorbachev. But not long after, he became the instrument of Mr. Gorbachev’s political downfall, and with it the dissolution of the Soviet state.
2007年4月23日星期一
Want to Reduce Air Pollution? Don't Rely on Ethanol Necessarily
Fueling the automobile fleet primarily with ethanol rather than gasoline might increase air pollution, a new study finds
Ethanol as a fuel offers a host of potential benefits, according to its supporters. It can be grown and refined primarily in the U.S., whether made from corn, switchgrass or cellulose. It is already being used as a fuel additive—to help gasoline burn more completely and, thus, cut down on air pollution. And, because it is made from plants that pull carbon dioxide from the air, it does not add additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, which are driving climate change. But a new study shows that it will not help clear the nation's skies of smog; on the contrary, it could increase the levels of that dangerous pollution.
Environmental engineer Mark Jacobson of Stanford University used a computer model to assess how the air pollution in the U.S. would react if vehicles remained primarily fueled by gasoline in 2020 or if the fleet transferred to a fuel that was a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, so-called E85. Under the latter scenario, levels of the cancer-causing agents benzene and butadiene dropped, whereas those of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde rose: In other words, it was a wash.
Because burning ethanol can potentially add more smog-forming pollution to the atmosphere, however, it can also exacerbate the ill effects of such air pollution. According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than does burning gasoline and this would lead to a nearly two parts per billion increase in tropospheric ozone. This surface ozone, which has been linked to inflamed lungs, impaired immune systems and heart disease by prior research, would in turn lead to a 4 percent increase in the number of ground level ozone-related deaths, or roughly 200 extra deaths a year. "Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline," Jacobson writes in the study published in Environmental Science & Technology. "It can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles."
But estimates of the nitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons released by ethanol combustion vary, according to Tim Gerlach, vice president of clean fuels and vehicle technologies at the American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest in St. Paul, Minn. "We ran a couple of vehicles in multiple dynometer runs and measured tailpipe emissions," he says. "[E85] compared very favorably to a low-sulfur, low-benzene, oxygenated gasoline." Specifically, burning E85 resulted in fewer ozone-forming compounds than gasoline. And E85's benefits as far as combating global warming outweigh any impact in ozone pollution. "We need to have an orderly, sustained implementation of low-carbon fuels and a smooth transition to a low-carbon world," says Roland Hwang, vehicles policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. "E85 is a part of the solution to global warming."
As a result of his ethanol finding, Stanford's Jacobson suggests that electric vehicles, such as hybrids that plug into the existing electrical grid or hydrogen fuel cell cars might prove a better solution to future vehicle energy needs from an environmental perspective. "We haven't reviewed the study here," says Julie Ruggiero, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Energy, which is currently pursuing ethanol research as part of President Bush's plans to increase its use as an alternative fuel. "Ethanol is just one part of a broader renewable portfolio."
Ethanol advocates agree. "Ethanol is not the silver bullet," says Matt Hartwig, a spokesperson for the Renewable Fuels Association, an industry group. "It's a very important tool in the toolbox to address energy security and to address the issues around global warming and the environment. But it's not the only answer." And Jacobson's study may have revealed one of the downsides to this alternative fuel.
Ethanol as a fuel offers a host of potential benefits, according to its supporters. It can be grown and refined primarily in the U.S., whether made from corn, switchgrass or cellulose. It is already being used as a fuel additive—to help gasoline burn more completely and, thus, cut down on air pollution. And, because it is made from plants that pull carbon dioxide from the air, it does not add additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, which are driving climate change. But a new study shows that it will not help clear the nation's skies of smog; on the contrary, it could increase the levels of that dangerous pollution.Environmental engineer Mark Jacobson of Stanford University used a computer model to assess how the air pollution in the U.S. would react if vehicles remained primarily fueled by gasoline in 2020 or if the fleet transferred to a fuel that was a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, so-called E85. Under the latter scenario, levels of the cancer-causing agents benzene and butadiene dropped, whereas those of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde rose: In other words, it was a wash.
Because burning ethanol can potentially add more smog-forming pollution to the atmosphere, however, it can also exacerbate the ill effects of such air pollution. According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than does burning gasoline and this would lead to a nearly two parts per billion increase in tropospheric ozone. This surface ozone, which has been linked to inflamed lungs, impaired immune systems and heart disease by prior research, would in turn lead to a 4 percent increase in the number of ground level ozone-related deaths, or roughly 200 extra deaths a year. "Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline," Jacobson writes in the study published in Environmental Science & Technology. "It can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles."
But estimates of the nitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons released by ethanol combustion vary, according to Tim Gerlach, vice president of clean fuels and vehicle technologies at the American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest in St. Paul, Minn. "We ran a couple of vehicles in multiple dynometer runs and measured tailpipe emissions," he says. "[E85] compared very favorably to a low-sulfur, low-benzene, oxygenated gasoline." Specifically, burning E85 resulted in fewer ozone-forming compounds than gasoline. And E85's benefits as far as combating global warming outweigh any impact in ozone pollution. "We need to have an orderly, sustained implementation of low-carbon fuels and a smooth transition to a low-carbon world," says Roland Hwang, vehicles policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. "E85 is a part of the solution to global warming."
As a result of his ethanol finding, Stanford's Jacobson suggests that electric vehicles, such as hybrids that plug into the existing electrical grid or hydrogen fuel cell cars might prove a better solution to future vehicle energy needs from an environmental perspective. "We haven't reviewed the study here," says Julie Ruggiero, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Energy, which is currently pursuing ethanol research as part of President Bush's plans to increase its use as an alternative fuel. "Ethanol is just one part of a broader renewable portfolio."
Ethanol advocates agree. "Ethanol is not the silver bullet," says Matt Hartwig, a spokesperson for the Renewable Fuels Association, an industry group. "It's a very important tool in the toolbox to address energy security and to address the issues around global warming and the environment. But it's not the only answer." And Jacobson's study may have revealed one of the downsides to this alternative fuel.
常见习语的英语翻译，帮你归纳！！
不管张三李四。
Every Tom, Dick and Harry. *举出常用的男孩名，表示“不论谁都……”、“不管张三还是李四”。虽然没有女孩名，但男女都可用。My daughter had a homestay in America. (我女儿为体验当地生活，去美国了。)So did every Tom, Dick and Harry. (不管谁都能去啊。)I like sexy girls. (我喜欢性感的女人。)So does every Tom, Dick and Harry. (无论谁都是这样的。)
一波未平一波又起。
Out of the frying pan into the fire. *frying pan “平底炒菜锅”，直译是菜从锅里炒出来又掉进了火里。 舍名求实。I live to eat.Pudding rather than praise. *不太常用的说法。
瞎猫碰上了死耗子。Every dog has his day.Bob won the lottery. (鲍勃中了头彩。)Every dog has his day. (瞎猫碰上了死耗子。)Everyone has good days.Everyone gets lucky sometimes. (谁都会有走运的时候。)A flying crow always gets something. *不太常用的说法。
说曹操，曹操到。
Speak of the devil. *“说到恶魔，恶魔就来”。源自谚语Speak of the devil and he will appear。Speak of the devil.常用于口语中。Here comes John! (约翰来了。)Speak of the devil. (真是说到曹操，曹操到。)
情人眼里出西施。Love is blind. *直译是“爱情是盲目的”。表示人们一旦谈恋爱，就会失去正确的判断能力，无法冷静地看待事物。
一举两得。
Kill two birds with one stone. *直译是“一石可以打中两只鸟”，即“一举两得”。
不闻凶讯便是吉。No news is good news.I haven't heard from John lately. (好久没有约翰的消息了。)Well, no news is good news. (是啊，不闻凶讯便是吉。)
光阴似箭。
Time flies. *表示时间像飞一样地过去了。Tim flies是Time flies when you are having fun.的省略说法。即“越高兴时间过得越快”。时间就是金钱。Time is money. 百艺不如一艺精。Jack of all trades, master of none. *Jack是男子名，一般表示“某人或男人”。此句的意思是什么事都去做的人没有一件事是能精通的。
三思而后行。
Look before you leap. *直译“飞之前先看看”，表示“付诸于行动前要慎重地考虑，做好准备”。
百闻不如一见。
Seeing is believing. *“眼见为实”，即只有自己亲眼所见，才能信服。
无风不起浪。
There is no smoke without fire. *传闻总是有出处的，“无火的地方不冒烟”。
诚实总是上策。
Honesty is the best policy. *常以为不正当行为能获得好处，但从长远来看，结果是采取正当行为才是上策。
晚做总比不做强。Better late than never.
男孩子就是男孩子嘛!
Boys will be boys.John got into a fight again. (约翰又打架了。)Boys will be boys. (男孩子就是男孩子嘛!)
知识就是力量。
Knowledge is power. Knowledge is power. (知识就是力量。)That's why he's so successful. (所以他才成功。)
冰冻三尺非一日之寒。/罗马不是一天就建成的。
Rome was not built in a day. *要做大事不是一朝一夕就可以成功的。
条条大路通罗马。 All roads lead to Rome. *为达到同一目的，可以采取多种手段。There are many roads to success. (有许多办法可以取得成功。) *常用语。
入乡随俗。
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. *“在罗马就要照罗马人做的去做”。即“到另一个地方就要遵从那里的风俗习惯”。口语中常省略成Do as the Romans do.
熟能生巧。Practice makes perfect. *任何事情都反复练习是成功的秘诀。
历史总在重演。
History repeats itself.Another war started. (又一场战争开始了。)History repeats itself. (历史总在重演。)
祸不单行，福无双至。When it rains, it (always) pours.功夫不负有心人。 Where there's a will, there's a way. *有坚强的意志和决心的话，无论有多大的困难都能克服。 行动比语言更响亮。Actions speak louder than words.(钱财等)来得容易去得快。Easy come, easy go. *轻易得来的钱财，是不被珍惜的。来得容易，去得也容易。血浓于水。 Blood is thicker than water.
有其父必有其子。
Like father, like son. *父子相似的意思。Like mother, like daughter. (有其母必有其女。)
恋爱和战争都是不择手段的。All's fair in love and war. *在恋爱和战争中任何策略都是正当的。
美貌不过一张皮。
Beauty is only skin deep. *“再漂亮的美女削去一层皮后就和丑女无二样”，即“看人不能只看外表而要重视内涵”。Beauty is but skin deep.
东西总是人家的好。The grass is always greener on the other side (of the fence). *直译是“(篱笆)那边的草总是绿的”。
不劳则不获。 You cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs. *直译是“不打碎鸡蛋就做不成蛋包饭”。意思是做任何事如果不努力，不付出牺牲，不投资的话，是得不到结果的。
流水不腐，户枢不蠹。A rolling stone gathers no moss. *不断活动的石头是不会长上像青苔这类东西的。即“能不断保持新鲜”。也可以把它看做相反的意思，“不断变换工作和搬家的人，没有熟练的事情，也存不下钱”。
患难见真情。A friend in need is a friend indeed. *in need “遇到难处，贫穷”，indeed 是“真正的”，这两个词押韵，给人以节奏感。
只会工作不会玩的人是没意思的人。All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. *这句可以译成“只让学习不让玩的孩子会变成愚蠢的孩子”。
事实胜于雄辩。The proof of the pudding is in the eating. *直译是“不吃布丁不知道布丁的味道”。即“不实际去试试，是不会知道它的真正的价值”。
岁月不待人。Time and tide wait for no man. *tide 是“潮水”，此处与time同义，表示时间。
越快越好。The sooner, the better.When should I come over? (什么时候来合适?)The sooner, the better. (越快越好。) 正好。On the nose.How many people came to the party? (有多少人来参加晚会?)A hundred people, on the nose. (正好100人。)Exactly.
Every Tom, Dick and Harry. *举出常用的男孩名，表示“不论谁都……”、“不管张三还是李四”。虽然没有女孩名，但男女都可用。My daughter had a homestay in America. (我女儿为体验当地生活，去美国了。)So did every Tom, Dick and Harry. (不管谁都能去啊。)I like sexy girls. (我喜欢性感的女人。)So does every Tom, Dick and Harry. (无论谁都是这样的。)
一波未平一波又起。
Out of the frying pan into the fire. *frying pan “平底炒菜锅”，直译是菜从锅里炒出来又掉进了火里。 舍名求实。I live to eat.Pudding rather than praise. *不太常用的说法。
瞎猫碰上了死耗子。Every dog has his day.Bob won the lottery. (鲍勃中了头彩。)Every dog has his day. (瞎猫碰上了死耗子。)Everyone has good days.Everyone gets lucky sometimes. (谁都会有走运的时候。)A flying crow always gets something. *不太常用的说法。
说曹操，曹操到。
Speak of the devil. *“说到恶魔，恶魔就来”。源自谚语Speak of the devil and he will appear。Speak of the devil.常用于口语中。Here comes John! (约翰来了。)Speak of the devil. (真是说到曹操，曹操到。)
情人眼里出西施。Love is blind. *直译是“爱情是盲目的”。表示人们一旦谈恋爱，就会失去正确的判断能力，无法冷静地看待事物。
一举两得。
Kill two birds with one stone. *直译是“一石可以打中两只鸟”，即“一举两得”。
不闻凶讯便是吉。No news is good news.I haven't heard from John lately. (好久没有约翰的消息了。)Well, no news is good news. (是啊，不闻凶讯便是吉。)
光阴似箭。
Time flies. *表示时间像飞一样地过去了。Tim flies是Time flies when you are having fun.的省略说法。即“越高兴时间过得越快”。时间就是金钱。Time is money. 百艺不如一艺精。Jack of all trades, master of none. *Jack是男子名，一般表示“某人或男人”。此句的意思是什么事都去做的人没有一件事是能精通的。
三思而后行。
Look before you leap. *直译“飞之前先看看”，表示“付诸于行动前要慎重地考虑，做好准备”。
百闻不如一见。
Seeing is believing. *“眼见为实”，即只有自己亲眼所见，才能信服。
无风不起浪。
There is no smoke without fire. *传闻总是有出处的，“无火的地方不冒烟”。
诚实总是上策。
Honesty is the best policy. *常以为不正当行为能获得好处，但从长远来看，结果是采取正当行为才是上策。
晚做总比不做强。Better late than never.
男孩子就是男孩子嘛!
Boys will be boys.John got into a fight again. (约翰又打架了。)Boys will be boys. (男孩子就是男孩子嘛!)
知识就是力量。
Knowledge is power. Knowledge is power. (知识就是力量。)That's why he's so successful. (所以他才成功。)
冰冻三尺非一日之寒。/罗马不是一天就建成的。
Rome was not built in a day. *要做大事不是一朝一夕就可以成功的。
条条大路通罗马。 All roads lead to Rome. *为达到同一目的，可以采取多种手段。There are many roads to success. (有许多办法可以取得成功。) *常用语。
入乡随俗。
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. *“在罗马就要照罗马人做的去做”。即“到另一个地方就要遵从那里的风俗习惯”。口语中常省略成Do as the Romans do.
熟能生巧。Practice makes perfect. *任何事情都反复练习是成功的秘诀。
历史总在重演。
History repeats itself.Another war started. (又一场战争开始了。)History repeats itself. (历史总在重演。)
祸不单行，福无双至。When it rains, it (always) pours.功夫不负有心人。 Where there's a will, there's a way. *有坚强的意志和决心的话，无论有多大的困难都能克服。 行动比语言更响亮。Actions speak louder than words.(钱财等)来得容易去得快。Easy come, easy go. *轻易得来的钱财，是不被珍惜的。来得容易，去得也容易。血浓于水。 Blood is thicker than water.
有其父必有其子。
Like father, like son. *父子相似的意思。Like mother, like daughter. (有其母必有其女。)
恋爱和战争都是不择手段的。All's fair in love and war. *在恋爱和战争中任何策略都是正当的。
美貌不过一张皮。
Beauty is only skin deep. *“再漂亮的美女削去一层皮后就和丑女无二样”，即“看人不能只看外表而要重视内涵”。Beauty is but skin deep.
东西总是人家的好。The grass is always greener on the other side (of the fence). *直译是“(篱笆)那边的草总是绿的”。
不劳则不获。 You cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs. *直译是“不打碎鸡蛋就做不成蛋包饭”。意思是做任何事如果不努力，不付出牺牲，不投资的话，是得不到结果的。
流水不腐，户枢不蠹。A rolling stone gathers no moss. *不断活动的石头是不会长上像青苔这类东西的。即“能不断保持新鲜”。也可以把它看做相反的意思，“不断变换工作和搬家的人，没有熟练的事情，也存不下钱”。
患难见真情。A friend in need is a friend indeed. *in need “遇到难处，贫穷”，indeed 是“真正的”，这两个词押韵，给人以节奏感。
只会工作不会玩的人是没意思的人。All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. *这句可以译成“只让学习不让玩的孩子会变成愚蠢的孩子”。
事实胜于雄辩。The proof of the pudding is in the eating. *直译是“不吃布丁不知道布丁的味道”。即“不实际去试试，是不会知道它的真正的价值”。
岁月不待人。Time and tide wait for no man. *tide 是“潮水”，此处与time同义，表示时间。
越快越好。The sooner, the better.When should I come over? (什么时候来合适?)The sooner, the better. (越快越好。) 正好。On the nose.How many people came to the party? (有多少人来参加晚会?)A hundred people, on the nose. (正好100人。)Exactly.
2007年4月16日星期一
Clinton trails Obama in first-quarter collections
USA TODAY (2007-04-16)
By Fredreka Schouten
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton banked more than $24 million to fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, about $6 million more than Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. However, the freshman senator outraised her in the first three months of the year for the primary fight: $24.8 million to Clinton's $19.1 million, according to campaign-finance reports filed Sunday with the Federal Election Commission. The former first lady has more in the bank in part because her total includes $10 million transferred from her Senate campaign.
Obama also raised $1 million for the general election if he becomes the Democratic nominee, and his donations come from 104,000 contributors.
Overall, Clinton raised $26 million from Jan. 1 through March 31 for the primary and general elections from 60,000 donors.
"Hillary's air of inevitability has been breached by the strength of Obama's numbers," said lawyer Kenneth Gross, a campaign-finance expert.
Former North Carolina senator John Edwards raised $13 million for the primaries and has $9.8 million in the bank, according to his FEC report.
The first-quarter reports are the public's first glance at who is giving to candidates, which states provide them with the most donors and how they are spending their money. Next year's presidential contest — the first since 1928 in which no sitting president or vice president is seeking his party's nomination — could set records and top $1 billion in fundraising, according to former FEC chairman Michael Toner.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards combined have not only outraised their top Republican counterparts — Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain — they have also put away more money in the bank. Still, campaign-finance experts say it's too soon to tell whether the monetary support will translate to votes next year.
Clyde Wilcox, a government professor at Georgetown University in Washington, said there's a danger in reading too much into early fundraising numbers. "We don't even vote for a year."
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has the most in the bank for the Republican primary fight: $11.8 million. Giuliani, who leads most national polls for the Republican nomination, has $10.8 million for next year's primaries, according to the report he filed Friday.
By contrast, Arizona Sen. John McCain spent nearly two-thirds of his first-quarter money, leaving him with only $5.2 million so far for next year's primaries and caucuses. He also has $1.8 million in debt.
On Sunday, Clinton touted having more cash available than any other White House contender. "These numbers indicate the tremendous support for Sen. Clinton from every walk of life and every part of America and assure us that we will have the resources needed to compete and win," campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle said.
Obama's camp also claimed wide support. "The final tally is true testament to the desire for a different kind of politics in the country, and a belief at the grass-roots level that Barack Obama can bring out the best in America to solve our problems," finance chairwoman Penny Pritzker said.
Among other Democrats, Bill Richardson raised $6.2 million with $5 million available for the primaries. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., has $2.8 million banked. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., has $7.5 million, including $4.7 million from his Senate campaign.
Among other Republicans, FEC reports show Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback has $807,000 in the bank. Texas representative Ron Paul has nearly $525,000 in cash.
By Fredreka Schouten
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton banked more than $24 million to fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, about $6 million more than Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. However, the freshman senator outraised her in the first three months of the year for the primary fight: $24.8 million to Clinton's $19.1 million, according to campaign-finance reports filed Sunday with the Federal Election Commission. The former first lady has more in the bank in part because her total includes $10 million transferred from her Senate campaign.
Obama also raised $1 million for the general election if he becomes the Democratic nominee, and his donations come from 104,000 contributors.
Overall, Clinton raised $26 million from Jan. 1 through March 31 for the primary and general elections from 60,000 donors.
"Hillary's air of inevitability has been breached by the strength of Obama's numbers," said lawyer Kenneth Gross, a campaign-finance expert.
Former North Carolina senator John Edwards raised $13 million for the primaries and has $9.8 million in the bank, according to his FEC report.
The first-quarter reports are the public's first glance at who is giving to candidates, which states provide them with the most donors and how they are spending their money. Next year's presidential contest — the first since 1928 in which no sitting president or vice president is seeking his party's nomination — could set records and top $1 billion in fundraising, according to former FEC chairman Michael Toner.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards combined have not only outraised their top Republican counterparts — Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain — they have also put away more money in the bank. Still, campaign-finance experts say it's too soon to tell whether the monetary support will translate to votes next year.
Clyde Wilcox, a government professor at Georgetown University in Washington, said there's a danger in reading too much into early fundraising numbers. "We don't even vote for a year."
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has the most in the bank for the Republican primary fight: $11.8 million. Giuliani, who leads most national polls for the Republican nomination, has $10.8 million for next year's primaries, according to the report he filed Friday.
By contrast, Arizona Sen. John McCain spent nearly two-thirds of his first-quarter money, leaving him with only $5.2 million so far for next year's primaries and caucuses. He also has $1.8 million in debt.
On Sunday, Clinton touted having more cash available than any other White House contender. "These numbers indicate the tremendous support for Sen. Clinton from every walk of life and every part of America and assure us that we will have the resources needed to compete and win," campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle said.
Obama's camp also claimed wide support. "The final tally is true testament to the desire for a different kind of politics in the country, and a belief at the grass-roots level that Barack Obama can bring out the best in America to solve our problems," finance chairwoman Penny Pritzker said.
Among other Democrats, Bill Richardson raised $6.2 million with $5 million available for the primaries. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., has $2.8 million banked. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., has $7.5 million, including $4.7 million from his Senate campaign.
Among other Republicans, FEC reports show Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback has $807,000 in the bank. Texas representative Ron Paul has nearly $525,000 in cash.
2007年2月3日星期六
火车站和火车上的见闻
终于回家了，躺在自己的床上，怎么躺怎么觉得舒服，一觉醒来都已经上午10点了。写点儿什么呢，写写我在火车站和火车上的见闻吧！
片段一，英语有用武之地
我的火车是晚上7点半发车，而当我6点半到达西站候车室时，就见到检票口的显示屏上写着一行字：本此列车晚点，请等待。这时的候车室里人头攒动，已经没有座位了。于是我跑到中央大厅里透空气。
这时，我发现了一个长得像“维京海盗”的洋人在通往候车室的大厅里傻站着。他手里拿着车票，看着第六候车室得指示牌，一会儿进去，一会儿又退了出来，像是遇到了些麻烦。他跑去问车站里的值勤民警，比划了半天，两个人四目相对，警察只是傻笑，“维京海盗”无奈地走了，嘴巴里嘟嘟囔囔的。不能让他小看了咱热情好客的中国人民啊！在犹豫了半晌之后，我终于鼓足勇气，怀着国际主义的情怀，走到了他跟前，当时“维京海盗”正在望着自己手中的火车票发呆。
我走上前，一看他的车票就明白了，原来他买的火车票是次日零点由北京西开往汉口方向的，中央候车大厅的大显示屏标明该趟车在第六候车室候车。但是现在还不到7点，第六候车室还在安排其他车次的检票进站，并没有显示这趟0点发车的车次排队的信息，这个“维京海盗”自然会被弄得莫名其妙。
于是我用英文对他说（原文实录）：You are too early to come here, you should advance one hour go to the waitingroom for train.
“维京海盗”说thanks, but......（没听清），然后他指了一下车次，大概意思是说为什么候车室没有显示有关信息。
我说：The beginning time of your trian is zero O'clock P.M. 我一下意识到说错了，那个“维京海盗”马上纠正说是A.M.，好丢人啊，我立即改正。然后说，You can eat something for dinner. At half past twenty-three, you go there for queue.
然后转身我就走了，临走前，我发现有个民工在盯着我们看，都看傻了。我心中窃喜。不过，没高兴多久，当我回忆我说过刚才的过程的时候，我才发现在刚才的对话中，我似乎很没有礼貌，在最开始没有说“can I help you?”就直接和洋人说话， 临别的时候也没说byebye 和you are welcome之类的、这种初中生都能说地很溜地句子道别，而是转身就走了。不知道这个“维京海盗”会怎么看我这个中国人。
片段二：丢孩子。
火车晚点不知道要到猴年马月了，我到候车大厅里的问询处去打探消息。问询处有三个女工作人员，她们已经有了不用看人脸，眼望着别处回答问题的本事，所以很多人都不清楚这些问询员是不是在回答自己得问题。这时有个男的在那里拍桌子，砸板凳，大喊大叫，周围的旅客都吓了一跳，问询处的工作人员也呆住了，原来他的孩子参加冬令营返回北京，他没有进到站台去接孩子，由于北京西站出口太多，人流量也大，所以他在出站口没有等到自己的孩子。他要求问询处给他广播，但是问询处的广播只能在候车室内听到，火车站前广场和出站口是听不到的，这不是白广播吗？
这位父亲七气急败坏，暴跳如雷，骂这些工作人员，说她们不为人民服务，干什么吃的。问询处里出来了一个戴着“副站长”字样的当官的女同志，她说他们也没有办法。后来旁边的旅客就说让这个男的去找警察，这个男的不甘心，在问询处的台子上又猛砸了几下才走。
也不知道这位父亲最后总有没有接到儿子。
片段三：学文不如学理，法律不如经济。
火车上与我邻座是两个搞通信的人员，他们出差去签合同。从他们的聊天中，知道他们是北京航空航天大学毕业的，学的是电子计算机，现在在航天部下属的一家企业工作。也就比我大个四五岁的样子。可是现在月薪都在5000多，还经常出差，全国各地都跑遍了。真让人羡慕啊。其中一个人还炒股，对股票和基金有些研究，一路神侃自己的“赚钱经”，把我都听傻了。最近股票大涨，他赚了好几万。这个人的老婆是注册会计师，在一家很知名的会计师事务所上班，给一些国有大型企业搞审计，比如SINOPEC和中国移动通信公司，可赚钱了，买车买房都没问题。这两个人用的手机都是很高档的，他们的MP3一个是苹果的ipod，另一个是比SONY还高档的有CD音质的MP3，具体牌子我没记住。其中一个人的女朋友在中信银行工作，是柜台业务员，月薪都能拿到7000多。真是让人觉得学理工和经济就是要比学文和学法律要好啊！
片段一，英语有用武之地
我的火车是晚上7点半发车，而当我6点半到达西站候车室时，就见到检票口的显示屏上写着一行字：本此列车晚点，请等待。这时的候车室里人头攒动，已经没有座位了。于是我跑到中央大厅里透空气。
这时，我发现了一个长得像“维京海盗”的洋人在通往候车室的大厅里傻站着。他手里拿着车票，看着第六候车室得指示牌，一会儿进去，一会儿又退了出来，像是遇到了些麻烦。他跑去问车站里的值勤民警，比划了半天，两个人四目相对，警察只是傻笑，“维京海盗”无奈地走了，嘴巴里嘟嘟囔囔的。不能让他小看了咱热情好客的中国人民啊！在犹豫了半晌之后，我终于鼓足勇气，怀着国际主义的情怀，走到了他跟前，当时“维京海盗”正在望着自己手中的火车票发呆。
我走上前，一看他的车票就明白了，原来他买的火车票是次日零点由北京西开往汉口方向的，中央候车大厅的大显示屏标明该趟车在第六候车室候车。但是现在还不到7点，第六候车室还在安排其他车次的检票进站，并没有显示这趟0点发车的车次排队的信息，这个“维京海盗”自然会被弄得莫名其妙。
于是我用英文对他说（原文实录）：You are too early to come here, you should advance one hour go to the waitingroom for train.
“维京海盗”说thanks, but......（没听清），然后他指了一下车次，大概意思是说为什么候车室没有显示有关信息。
我说：The beginning time of your trian is zero O'clock P.M. 我一下意识到说错了，那个“维京海盗”马上纠正说是A.M.，好丢人啊，我立即改正。然后说，You can eat something for dinner. At half past twenty-three, you go there for queue.
然后转身我就走了，临走前，我发现有个民工在盯着我们看，都看傻了。我心中窃喜。不过，没高兴多久，当我回忆我说过刚才的过程的时候，我才发现在刚才的对话中，我似乎很没有礼貌，在最开始没有说“can I help you?”就直接和洋人说话， 临别的时候也没说byebye 和you are welcome之类的、这种初中生都能说地很溜地句子道别，而是转身就走了。不知道这个“维京海盗”会怎么看我这个中国人。
片段二：丢孩子。
火车晚点不知道要到猴年马月了，我到候车大厅里的问询处去打探消息。问询处有三个女工作人员，她们已经有了不用看人脸，眼望着别处回答问题的本事，所以很多人都不清楚这些问询员是不是在回答自己得问题。这时有个男的在那里拍桌子，砸板凳，大喊大叫，周围的旅客都吓了一跳，问询处的工作人员也呆住了，原来他的孩子参加冬令营返回北京，他没有进到站台去接孩子，由于北京西站出口太多，人流量也大，所以他在出站口没有等到自己的孩子。他要求问询处给他广播，但是问询处的广播只能在候车室内听到，火车站前广场和出站口是听不到的，这不是白广播吗？
这位父亲七气急败坏，暴跳如雷，骂这些工作人员，说她们不为人民服务，干什么吃的。问询处里出来了一个戴着“副站长”字样的当官的女同志，她说他们也没有办法。后来旁边的旅客就说让这个男的去找警察，这个男的不甘心，在问询处的台子上又猛砸了几下才走。
也不知道这位父亲最后总有没有接到儿子。
片段三：学文不如学理，法律不如经济。
火车上与我邻座是两个搞通信的人员，他们出差去签合同。从他们的聊天中，知道他们是北京航空航天大学毕业的，学的是电子计算机，现在在航天部下属的一家企业工作。也就比我大个四五岁的样子。可是现在月薪都在5000多，还经常出差，全国各地都跑遍了。真让人羡慕啊。其中一个人还炒股，对股票和基金有些研究，一路神侃自己的“赚钱经”，把我都听傻了。最近股票大涨，他赚了好几万。这个人的老婆是注册会计师，在一家很知名的会计师事务所上班，给一些国有大型企业搞审计，比如SINOPEC和中国移动通信公司，可赚钱了，买车买房都没问题。这两个人用的手机都是很高档的，他们的MP3一个是苹果的ipod，另一个是比SONY还高档的有CD音质的MP3，具体牌子我没记住。其中一个人的女朋友在中信银行工作，是柜台业务员，月薪都能拿到7000多。真是让人觉得学理工和经济就是要比学文和学法律要好啊！
2007年1月30日星期二
The Cost of Keeping Up With China
跟上中国的代价
An activist of The Communist Party of India grapples with police while taking part in a protest in New Delhi, January 8th 2007, against the death of villagers who were protesting against the Special Economic Zones (SEZ) in Nandigram in West Bengal.
2007年1月8日，印度共产党（马列）的一名支持者手举政治标语参加一个在新德里的示威活动，抗议一名反对特别经济区的农民的死亡，这个特别经济区建设在西Bengal的Nandigram.
Comparisons between India and China are probably inevitable. The Asian neighbors both boast more than a billion citizens, and both enjoy giddy economic growth rates. Both are also touted as future superpowers, although China is a lot closer to that status than India. But the two nations are also very different: one's an autocratic one-party state; the other a flawed but functioning democracy. Those differences have a huge impact on the way the two countries are growing. In simple terms, if China's rulers want to build a new highway they do. In India, well, it's more complicated.
One such complication is the focus of an internal report of the ruling Congress party leaked to the Indian press last week. The alleged report, whose very existence is denied by Congress officials, contends that the government's policy on Special Economic Zones — India's version of investment enclaves that offer tax incentives, good infrastructure and other benefits — may cost the party votes in future elections.
At first glance the promotion of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) would seem unlikely to attract much controversy. Many developing countries have used such enclaves to encourage foreign investment and manufacturing growth. India was, in fact, the first country in Asia to demarcate a special economic enclave when it introduced an "export processing zone" in Gujarat in the mid 1960s. But in the past few years, the country has been playing catch-up with places such as China, which used SEZs to kick-start its own incredible economic expansion almost three decades ago. India attracts barely 10% of the foreign direct investment figure for China (although the two count investment in different ways), and wants to close the gap as rapidly as possible. Early last year, the Congress-led government passed a new SEZ law designed to speed up India's economy, in particular its manufacturing sector, by offering further incentives to prospective investors. Since then, hundreds of companies have applied to set up SEZs, with the government so far approving more than 200.
The problem is that many of the SEZs are on prime farming land. A few landowners are only too happy to sell up at a huge profit, but many poorer farmers and farm laborers are understandably opposed to having their livelihoods forcibly sold out from underneath them. Opposition to the SEZs is growing, and the consequences of that for the Congress, or any political party in India that hopes to win the rural vote — and given that a majority of Indians still live outside urban areas most parties do — could be particularly painful come polling day.
Although the Chinese authorities are mindful of the danger of a socially disruptive backlash by poor rural citizens, there are no national elections to worry about. "Voting is a much more immediate, more powerful threat," says Indian economic analyst Paranjoy Guha Thakurta. "And even when there's no election looming, Indians can put pressure on their representatives to have the bureaucrats transferred if they don't like them. In China you have a one-party state so that's a bit harder."
An activist of The Communist Party of India grapples with police while taking part in a protest in New Delhi, January 8th 2007, against the death of villagers who were protesting against the Special Economic Zones (SEZ) in Nandigram in West Bengal.
2007年1月8日，印度共产党（马列）的一名支持者手举政治标语参加一个在新德里的示威活动，抗议一名反对特别经济区的农民的死亡，这个特别经济区建设在西Bengal的Nandigram.
Comparisons between India and China are probably inevitable. The Asian neighbors both boast more than a billion citizens, and both enjoy giddy economic growth rates. Both are also touted as future superpowers, although China is a lot closer to that status than India. But the two nations are also very different: one's an autocratic one-party state; the other a flawed but functioning democracy. Those differences have a huge impact on the way the two countries are growing. In simple terms, if China's rulers want to build a new highway they do. In India, well, it's more complicated.
One such complication is the focus of an internal report of the ruling Congress party leaked to the Indian press last week. The alleged report, whose very existence is denied by Congress officials, contends that the government's policy on Special Economic Zones — India's version of investment enclaves that offer tax incentives, good infrastructure and other benefits — may cost the party votes in future elections.
At first glance the promotion of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) would seem unlikely to attract much controversy. Many developing countries have used such enclaves to encourage foreign investment and manufacturing growth. India was, in fact, the first country in Asia to demarcate a special economic enclave when it introduced an "export processing zone" in Gujarat in the mid 1960s. But in the past few years, the country has been playing catch-up with places such as China, which used SEZs to kick-start its own incredible economic expansion almost three decades ago. India attracts barely 10% of the foreign direct investment figure for China (although the two count investment in different ways), and wants to close the gap as rapidly as possible. Early last year, the Congress-led government passed a new SEZ law designed to speed up India's economy, in particular its manufacturing sector, by offering further incentives to prospective investors. Since then, hundreds of companies have applied to set up SEZs, with the government so far approving more than 200.
The problem is that many of the SEZs are on prime farming land. A few landowners are only too happy to sell up at a huge profit, but many poorer farmers and farm laborers are understandably opposed to having their livelihoods forcibly sold out from underneath them. Opposition to the SEZs is growing, and the consequences of that for the Congress, or any political party in India that hopes to win the rural vote — and given that a majority of Indians still live outside urban areas most parties do — could be particularly painful come polling day.
Although the Chinese authorities are mindful of the danger of a socially disruptive backlash by poor rural citizens, there are no national elections to worry about. "Voting is a much more immediate, more powerful threat," says Indian economic analyst Paranjoy Guha Thakurta. "And even when there's no election looming, Indians can put pressure on their representatives to have the bureaucrats transferred if they don't like them. In China you have a one-party state so that's a bit harder."
And it's not only farmers that India's politicians have to worry about. Opposition to the SEZs is coming even from free-market reformists. Most of India's newest investment zones are much smaller than China's and may not be economically viable in the long term. The tax breaks, which include a five-year holiday on profits tax and exemption from import and excise duty, are also much more generous than those in other countries. Critics of India's approach worry that its SEZs will not attract new investment but merely suck in investment already headed to India while hurting tax revenues. Also, India's Special Economic Zones have so far attracted mostly info-tech companies and not the employee-hungry manufacturers the country's unemployed had hoped for.
Perhaps stung by the mounting criticism, the Congress-led government this week decided to stop approving new SEZ applications until it can sort out some of the more contentious issues. There is talk that New Delhi will force any company operating in an SEZ to export at least half of its production. Whatever India's leaders do, you can be sure they will have one eye on public opinion, a handicap their Chinese counterparts rarely have to deal with.
Did Honest Abe Have Nerves of Glass?
Mutant gene that leads to the shattering of nerve cells in worms could shed light on a rare neurodegenerative disorder known to run in President Lincoln's family.
Some contemporaries of Abraham Lincoln described the
16th U.S. president as exhibiting awkward mannerisms and a clumsy gait. About a year ago, researchers at the University of Minnesota announced the discovery of a gene for a rare neurodegenerative disorder called spinocerebellar ataxia type 5 (SCA5)—which can strike between early childhood and old age, affecting speech, writing and/or movement—in a family descended from Lincoln. Scientists say the president himself had a one-in-four chance of suffering from the disease, which affects about 0.005 percent of people and stems from a gene mutation that produces a protein called beta spectrin.
Now, University of Utah researchers studying mutant nematode worms, whose nerves literally break due to their inability to express beta spectrin, may explain the coordination deficits observed in Lincoln's progeny. The group reports its findings in the January 29 issue of The Journal of Cell Biology.
Researchers studied mutant nematodes as embryos, newborns and one-day-olds to see the effect of a beta spectrin deficiency on nerve cells. Using a jellyfish gene to illuminate the worms' neurons, the team found that there was little to no breakage in the nerve cells in embryonic nematodes. Nematodes that had just hatched, however, showed 26 percent breakage and day-olds had damage to 60 percent of their nerve cells.
Each of these breakages occurred at the neuron's axon, a thin fiber that the cell uses to send electrical impulses to neighboring cells. As a cell grows, the cell body sends out a long, wirelike extension called a growth cone, which drags the axon (and thus the cell body) behind it as it searches for a target junction, or synapse, where it can communicate with other cells. "It's kind of like one of those trucks that lays down cable that's connected back to the cell body," study co-author and biology postdoctoral student Marc Hammarlund says. The researchers observed branching of axons as well as errant new growth cones—indicating that the nerve cells had attempted to repair themselves. This suggested beta spectrin is not part of the development of healthy nerve cells, but plays a role in maintaining them.
In another strain of nematode, the authors deleted the beta spectrin gene—known as unc-70—as well as two genes that controlled muscle contraction. The latter deletions caused this family of worms to be paralyzed. Interestingly, the sedentary animals showed no damage to their axons, despite the fact that beta spectrin was nowhere to be found. Clearly, the authors concluded, the protein's role must be in preventing breakage of the axons during movement.
"These animals are constantly in motion—swimming around, eating," Hammarlund says. "Just like when you move or I move—every time you move your arm or your leg, your neurons have to stretch to keep up. And when these animals move, their neurons can't stretch, and they snap instead."
The researchers raise the point that a similar snapping of the nerves could be the cause behind SCA5—meaning this brittleness may have plagued Lincoln.
Laura Runum, a human geneticist at the University of Minnesota and the senior investigator on the study that found the SCA5 gene, says there is no evidence that the current finding relates to the neurodegenerative disorder. "In the worm model, they are missing beta spectrin, and in the human there are multiple types of beta spectrin—we're not missing any of the spectrin, but the sequence of the protein has changed," Runum says. "Any kind of link to Lincoln's frazzled nerves is really missing a whole bunch of steps from worms to humans, first of all, and then back on to the president."
Hammarlund agrees that the link between the mutation of spectrin in worms and SCA5 in humans is a possibility at best, but says it seems plausible given that SCA5 is characterized by a nervous system disorder in the arms and legs "That's just an idea," he insists. "That would have to be confirmed by future experiments."
Some contemporaries of Abraham Lincoln described the
16th U.S. president as exhibiting awkward mannerisms and a clumsy gait. About a year ago, researchers at the University of Minnesota announced the discovery of a gene for a rare neurodegenerative disorder called spinocerebellar ataxia type 5 (SCA5)—which can strike between early childhood and old age, affecting speech, writing and/or movement—in a family descended from Lincoln. Scientists say the president himself had a one-in-four chance of suffering from the disease, which affects about 0.005 percent of people and stems from a gene mutation that produces a protein called beta spectrin. Now, University of Utah researchers studying mutant nematode worms, whose nerves literally break due to their inability to express beta spectrin, may explain the coordination deficits observed in Lincoln's progeny. The group reports its findings in the January 29 issue of The Journal of Cell Biology.
Researchers studied mutant nematodes as embryos, newborns and one-day-olds to see the effect of a beta spectrin deficiency on nerve cells. Using a jellyfish gene to illuminate the worms' neurons, the team found that there was little to no breakage in the nerve cells in embryonic nematodes. Nematodes that had just hatched, however, showed 26 percent breakage and day-olds had damage to 60 percent of their nerve cells.
Each of these breakages occurred at the neuron's axon, a thin fiber that the cell uses to send electrical impulses to neighboring cells. As a cell grows, the cell body sends out a long, wirelike extension called a growth cone, which drags the axon (and thus the cell body) behind it as it searches for a target junction, or synapse, where it can communicate with other cells. "It's kind of like one of those trucks that lays down cable that's connected back to the cell body," study co-author and biology postdoctoral student Marc Hammarlund says. The researchers observed branching of axons as well as errant new growth cones—indicating that the nerve cells had attempted to repair themselves. This suggested beta spectrin is not part of the development of healthy nerve cells, but plays a role in maintaining them.
In another strain of nematode, the authors deleted the beta spectrin gene—known as unc-70—as well as two genes that controlled muscle contraction. The latter deletions caused this family of worms to be paralyzed. Interestingly, the sedentary animals showed no damage to their axons, despite the fact that beta spectrin was nowhere to be found. Clearly, the authors concluded, the protein's role must be in preventing breakage of the axons during movement.
"These animals are constantly in motion—swimming around, eating," Hammarlund says. "Just like when you move or I move—every time you move your arm or your leg, your neurons have to stretch to keep up. And when these animals move, their neurons can't stretch, and they snap instead."
The researchers raise the point that a similar snapping of the nerves could be the cause behind SCA5—meaning this brittleness may have plagued Lincoln.
Laura Runum, a human geneticist at the University of Minnesota and the senior investigator on the study that found the SCA5 gene, says there is no evidence that the current finding relates to the neurodegenerative disorder. "In the worm model, they are missing beta spectrin, and in the human there are multiple types of beta spectrin—we're not missing any of the spectrin, but the sequence of the protein has changed," Runum says. "Any kind of link to Lincoln's frazzled nerves is really missing a whole bunch of steps from worms to humans, first of all, and then back on to the president."
Hammarlund agrees that the link between the mutation of spectrin in worms and SCA5 in humans is a possibility at best, but says it seems plausible given that SCA5 is characterized by a nervous system disorder in the arms and legs "That's just an idea," he insists. "That would have to be confirmed by future experiments."
Snake Bites the Toxic Toad That Feeds It--and Spreads Its Poison
It sounds like something straight out of a video game: A snake collects toxin by biting a poisonous toad and uses that venom as a defense against hawks and other predators. But that is exactly what researchers say the Asian snake Rhabdophis tigrinus does, based on studies of glandular fluid from hatchlings and adult snakes on two Japanese islands.
Some R. tigrinus snakes carry toxins called bufadienolides in their nuchal glands, sacks located under a ridge of skin along their upper necks. When threatened, they arch their necks, exposing the poisonous ridge to an antagonist. The clawing and biting of hawks and other predators most likely rips the skin and lets the poison ooze out, potentially blinding the snake's attackers, says herpetologist Deborah Hutchinson of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va. "It might not kill the predator but it would be noxious enough to deter predation," she says.
A few years ago, based on the snakes' defensive habits on different islands, Japanese researchers proposed that R. tigrinus may acquire its toxin from toads. Acquiring poison secondhand is not unheard of. The monarch butterfly is famous for harvesting its defensive poison from milkweed insects, and certain brightly colored poisonous frogs collect their toxin from mites, but Hutchinson says such cases in vertebrates are rare.
To find out if toads are indeed the source of the snake venom, Hutchinson and her colleagues raised R. tigrinus hatchlings on a diet of toads or fish. Most of the young snakes contained little or no poison in their nuchal glands at birth. They quickly accumulated toxin, however, after just days of feeding on poisonous Bufo quercicus toads, the researchers report in a paper published online January 29 by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.
The finding fits with the group's other principal observation: snakes living on the toad-free island of Kinkazan contain no bufadienolides in their nuchal glands, while those on the toad haven of Ishima are rich in poison.
Hutchinson says the snakes may have a hard time evolving a more sophisticated way of secreting their toxin. The nuchal glands come from a different embryonic layer than other vertebrate skin glands, which typically synthesize their own fluids and have ducts for emitting it, she says. The snakes, though, don't seem to be complaining about their peculiar glands. "They work pretty well for the snakes as they are," she says.
Some R. tigrinus snakes carry toxins called bufadienolides in their nuchal glands, sacks located under a ridge of skin along their upper necks. When threatened, they arch their necks, exposing the poisonous ridge to an antagonist. The clawing and biting of hawks and other predators most likely rips the skin and lets the poison ooze out, potentially blinding the snake's attackers, says herpetologist Deborah Hutchinson of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va. "It might not kill the predator but it would be noxious enough to deter predation," she says. A few years ago, based on the snakes' defensive habits on different islands, Japanese researchers proposed that R. tigrinus may acquire its toxin from toads. Acquiring poison secondhand is not unheard of. The monarch butterfly is famous for harvesting its defensive poison from milkweed insects, and certain brightly colored poisonous frogs collect their toxin from mites, but Hutchinson says such cases in vertebrates are rare.
To find out if toads are indeed the source of the snake venom, Hutchinson and her colleagues raised R. tigrinus hatchlings on a diet of toads or fish. Most of the young snakes contained little or no poison in their nuchal glands at birth. They quickly accumulated toxin, however, after just days of feeding on poisonous Bufo quercicus toads, the researchers report in a paper published online January 29 by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.
The finding fits with the group's other principal observation: snakes living on the toad-free island of Kinkazan contain no bufadienolides in their nuchal glands, while those on the toad haven of Ishima are rich in poison.
Hutchinson says the snakes may have a hard time evolving a more sophisticated way of secreting their toxin. The nuchal glands come from a different embryonic layer than other vertebrate skin glands, which typically synthesize their own fluids and have ducts for emitting it, she says. The snakes, though, don't seem to be complaining about their peculiar glands. "They work pretty well for the snakes as they are," she says.
梦想照进现实
2006级的还没认全，2007级的就要来了！俗话说，“铁打的营盘流水的兵”，“一代新人换旧人”。看到行将进入法大的“90后”的学弟学妹们，我们这些已经开始“奔三”的师兄师姐们后背似乎感到有些发麻，子曾经曰过：岁月是无情的。曾几何时我们也被誉为“早上八九点钟的太阳”，这不没几年的光景，就快成了落日余辉了。
高中同学已有相夫教子的了，可是我们还在学校里装清纯，想想就觉得“怪”。记得有位师弟说过，他的一个小学时的同学现在在作搬运工，自己却一副书生装扮，差别实在太大。可不是吗？这人与人的差距，有的时候的确要比人与猿猴的差距大。不能比啊！
书归正传。看到07级的学弟学妹，就知道什么叫稚气，什么叫年轻了。已经过了“花季雨季”的年龄，无论如何都不可能这样“嫩”了，哪怕穿着童装也不会被人当作儿童了。前几年，邻家小孩儿管我叫“哥哥”，现如今都改叫“叔叔”了，这辈份也升得忒快了些吧！？虽然我还是面带微笑，点头回应，但是心里别提多难受，要知道在中国人观念中“一代人”的概念是相差15岁呢！我和那些管我叫“叔叔”的小盆友们可差不了那么多，每当向友人抱怨被这些“不懂规矩”的小孩儿时，他们总会说我是“老黄瓜刷绿漆——装嫩”。是吗？我是“老黄瓜”，咿~~~才不是，我......我....“不细看问题不大，主要是面部老化”，其实我的心理年龄也就是十三、四、五、六、七的样子啦~~~~呵呵！
玩笑归玩笑，看到江山代有人才出，我们作学长学姐的，还是很高兴的。至少我们的床铺后继有人，哪天我时来运转了，发了大（“大”字请重读）财，谁继承我的床位，我就资助谁上学，上北大、上牛津、上哈佛、上月球，圆我多年前想过但未曾实现过的梦想........盖“梦想”者，晚上做梦时所想也，看看表，不早了，还是洗洗睡吧......梦里继续想。ZZZZZ
高中同学已有相夫教子的了，可是我们还在学校里装清纯，想想就觉得“怪”。记得有位师弟说过，他的一个小学时的同学现在在作搬运工，自己却一副书生装扮，差别实在太大。可不是吗？这人与人的差距，有的时候的确要比人与猿猴的差距大。不能比啊！
书归正传。看到07级的学弟学妹，就知道什么叫稚气，什么叫年轻了。已经过了“花季雨季”的年龄，无论如何都不可能这样“嫩”了，哪怕穿着童装也不会被人当作儿童了。前几年，邻家小孩儿管我叫“哥哥”，现如今都改叫“叔叔”了，这辈份也升得忒快了些吧！？虽然我还是面带微笑，点头回应，但是心里别提多难受，要知道在中国人观念中“一代人”的概念是相差15岁呢！我和那些管我叫“叔叔”的小盆友们可差不了那么多，每当向友人抱怨被这些“不懂规矩”的小孩儿时，他们总会说我是“老黄瓜刷绿漆——装嫩”。是吗？我是“老黄瓜”，咿~~~才不是，我......我....“不细看问题不大，主要是面部老化”，其实我的心理年龄也就是十三、四、五、六、七的样子啦~~~~呵呵！
玩笑归玩笑，看到江山代有人才出，我们作学长学姐的，还是很高兴的。至少我们的床铺后继有人，哪天我时来运转了，发了大（“大”字请重读）财，谁继承我的床位，我就资助谁上学，上北大、上牛津、上哈佛、上月球，圆我多年前想过但未曾实现过的梦想........盖“梦想”者，晚上做梦时所想也，看看表，不早了，还是洗洗睡吧......梦里继续想。ZZZZZ
订阅：
博文 (Atom)
