Joseph Schooling is Singapore's first Olympic champion
13 Aug 2016
RIO DE JANEIRO: Joseph Schooling on Saturday (Aug 13) won Singapore's first-ever Olympic gold medal after winning the 100m butterfly event at Rio 2016.
The 21-year-old Singaporean touched the wall in 50.39s, nearly one second ahead of an extraordinary joint-silver finish of 51.14s shared by American great Michael Phelps, South Africa's Chad le Clos and Hungarian Laszlo Cseh.
Schooling's time smashed the Olympic Games record of 50.58s, clocked by Phelps at Beijing 2008. This is the first time at Rio 2016 that Phelps, who won the 100m butterfly at the past three Olympics, has been beaten.
This is also the first ever gold medal by a Southeast Asian male swimmer.
"It feels great, it kinds of feels surreal right now, it's crazy," said Schooling after the race. "I really can't describe how this moment feels. All the adrenaline is running through my veins right now. It's a dream come true."
"I'm really honoured and privileged to swim alongside some of these great names, people who changed the face of our sport," he added.
"I can't really tell you how grateful I am to have this chance to swim in an Olympic final and to represent our country."
"I'm just ecstatic. I need it to sink in."
"I WENT FOR IT"
Singapore's chef de mission Low Teo Ping told Channel NewsAsia: "When Joseph's lane showed 'No.1', that was it. One can't describe the ecstasy. It's all for Singapore."
"We are a small and young nation and with three other guys chasing him down while clocking the same time, it speaks volumes of what Jo has done for Singapore," he added.
"I think the world was expecting some of the other swimmers to be there, for example for Phelps to win his 23rd gold. But here we have this boy from Singapore who really disappointed them, and we are all ecstatic."
"We are all ecstatic," repeated Mr Low.
Reflecting on his race, Schooling said: "I went for it and I didn't look back. I had some doubts. Everyone has doubts. It's all about how you turn those doubts into positive moments. And I'm really glad that I could do that."
"I'm going to have to pinch myself to see that I'm alive," said Colin Schooling, who watched his son make history from a viewing party in Singapore.
"Singapore, he did what you all wanted and he did it in style," he added, visibly overwhelmed with pride.
He said a world record could be next. "The most important thing is to be an ambassador for all our children in Singapore that gives them hope that they also can do it. There's nothing special about him, just a boy who is interested in the sport."
Also celebrating Schooling's success was his mother, May Schooling, who said she had "no doubt that this day would come".
Mrs Schooling thanked those who supported him - including the Singapore Swimming Association, family friends, the Singapore Sports Institute and the Defence Ministry for allowing him to defer his National Service, so he could continue training for the Games.
"We were screaming,” said Mrs Schooling. “But I think it also shows that if we give Singaporeans the chance to pursue (their goals) and train properly, we can reach the top of the world. He has proven it - you can do it."
Schooling was the fastest semi-finallist a day earlier and had also won his heat on Friday, pipping Phelps in the process.
The 100m freestyle and 200m butterfly were Schooling's other events but he withdrew from the latter and missed out on the finals for the former.
The Singaporean's groundbreaking Olympic feat follows his bronze at the 2015 World Championships, which was also a first-ever podium finish for his nation.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/joseph-schooling-is/3037512.html
Structure of the Lead:
WHO-Joseph Schooling
WHERE-Rio
WHEN-Saturday (Aug 13)
WHAT-won Singapore's first-ever Olympic gold medal
WHY-not given
HOW-not given
Keywords:
1.joint: 接頭，接縫；接合點
2.smash: 擊潰，擊毀
3.surreal: 不真實的
4.adrenaline: 腎上腺素
5.vein: 靜脈
6.pinch: 捏，擰
2017年3月19日 星期日
2017年2月27日 星期一
How legal tide turned on same-sex marriage in the US
How legal tide turned on same-sex marriage in the US
26 June 2015
Same sex marriage is now legal in the entire US after a Supreme Court ruling striking down state marriage bans.
The ruling means all US states must grant marriage licences to gay and lesbian couples and recognise marriages that have taken place in other states.
So how did we get to this point?
In 1996, the US Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
In 2003, Massachusetts judges ruled the state constitution allowed gay marriage, and marriage licences followed shortly after that. In the following years, a handful of states passed gay marriage bans while others began working towards allowing same-sex unions - either by court order or legislation.
One high-profile ban occurred by referendum in California in 2008 after courts had previously allowed same-sex marriage.
This continued across the US until the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013.
What did justices have to decide in this case?
The justices, who had previously stopped short of resolving the question of same-sex marriage nationally, had to consider whether or not states were constitutionally required to issue marriage licences and if states were required to recognise same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
How many states previously allowed same-sex unions?
Before the ruling, 36 states were issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples, as well as Washington DC, which sets its own marriage laws but is not legally a state.
Prop 8 supporters hold signs
A critical turning point came in October 2014, when the Supreme Court chose not to hear appeals against lower court rulings that had overturned same-sex marriage bans - expanding the legality of gay unions to many more states.
In other states, same-sex marriage has been approved either through legislation or voter referenda.
Michigan couples were briefly able to marry before a court stayed a ruling overturning its ban.
What have been the key Supreme Court rulings?
On 6 October 2014, the court turned away appeals from five states with gay marriage bans on the books that had challenged court rulings overturning those bans.
In challenging the gay marriage bans, proponents relied on a 2013 Supreme Court ruling in the case of United States v Windsor.
In that case, the court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma), which barred the federal government from recognising same-sex marriages.
Under Doma, for example, individuals in same-sex marriages were ineligible for benefits from federal programmes such as the Social Security pension system and some tax allowances if their partners died.
Another key case, Hollingsworth v Perry of 2013, was filed by two lawyers, Theodore Olson and David Boies, working together on behalf of their California clients, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier and another couple, Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami.
They argued that the Supreme Court should strike down a state law, called Proposition 8, which stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. The law, approved by California voters in 2008, overrode a state Supreme Court decision that allowed for same-sex marriage.
What is next?
Marriages will continue as before in the 36 states. The remaining states will have to issue licences, although it is unclear how long they have to comply with the court's ruling. However, there were reports of court clerk offering licences only an hour after the Supreme Court decision.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-21943292
Structure of the Lead:
WHO-gay and lesbian couples
WHERE-US
WHEN-not given
WHAT-Same sex marriage is now legal
WHY-not given
HOW-not given
Keywords:
1.Supreme: 最高的，至上的
2.federal: （常大寫）美國聯邦政府的，國家的
3.referendum: 公民投票
4.constitutionally: 憲法上；立憲上
5.proponent: 提議人；擁護者
6.ineligible: 無被選資格的；不適任的
26 June 2015
Same sex marriage is now legal in the entire US after a Supreme Court ruling striking down state marriage bans.
The ruling means all US states must grant marriage licences to gay and lesbian couples and recognise marriages that have taken place in other states.
So how did we get to this point?
In 1996, the US Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
In 2003, Massachusetts judges ruled the state constitution allowed gay marriage, and marriage licences followed shortly after that. In the following years, a handful of states passed gay marriage bans while others began working towards allowing same-sex unions - either by court order or legislation.
One high-profile ban occurred by referendum in California in 2008 after courts had previously allowed same-sex marriage.
This continued across the US until the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013.
What did justices have to decide in this case?
The justices, who had previously stopped short of resolving the question of same-sex marriage nationally, had to consider whether or not states were constitutionally required to issue marriage licences and if states were required to recognise same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
How many states previously allowed same-sex unions?
Before the ruling, 36 states were issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples, as well as Washington DC, which sets its own marriage laws but is not legally a state.
Prop 8 supporters hold signs
A critical turning point came in October 2014, when the Supreme Court chose not to hear appeals against lower court rulings that had overturned same-sex marriage bans - expanding the legality of gay unions to many more states.
In other states, same-sex marriage has been approved either through legislation or voter referenda.
Michigan couples were briefly able to marry before a court stayed a ruling overturning its ban.
What have been the key Supreme Court rulings?
On 6 October 2014, the court turned away appeals from five states with gay marriage bans on the books that had challenged court rulings overturning those bans.
In challenging the gay marriage bans, proponents relied on a 2013 Supreme Court ruling in the case of United States v Windsor.
In that case, the court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma), which barred the federal government from recognising same-sex marriages.
Under Doma, for example, individuals in same-sex marriages were ineligible for benefits from federal programmes such as the Social Security pension system and some tax allowances if their partners died.
Another key case, Hollingsworth v Perry of 2013, was filed by two lawyers, Theodore Olson and David Boies, working together on behalf of their California clients, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier and another couple, Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami.
They argued that the Supreme Court should strike down a state law, called Proposition 8, which stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. The law, approved by California voters in 2008, overrode a state Supreme Court decision that allowed for same-sex marriage.
What is next?
Marriages will continue as before in the 36 states. The remaining states will have to issue licences, although it is unclear how long they have to comply with the court's ruling. However, there were reports of court clerk offering licences only an hour after the Supreme Court decision.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-21943292
Structure of the Lead:
WHO-gay and lesbian couples
WHERE-US
WHEN-not given
WHAT-Same sex marriage is now legal
WHY-not given
HOW-not given
Keywords:
1.Supreme: 最高的，至上的
2.federal: （常大寫）美國聯邦政府的，國家的
3.referendum: 公民投票
4.constitutionally: 憲法上；立憲上
5.proponent: 提議人；擁護者
6.ineligible: 無被選資格的；不適任的
Military Concedes Election to Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar
Military Concedes Election to Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar
By THOMAS FULLERNOV.
NOV, 2015
YANGON, Myanmar — Myanmar’s military establishment on Wednesday acknowledged the victory of the country’s democracy movement led by the Nobel Peace laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, raising hopes for a peaceful transfer of power after five decades of military domination.
President Thein Sein sent his congratulations to Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi and her party for “gathering the support of the people.” The statement, delivered in a Facebook post, amounted to an admission of defeat by the president, a former general who has led the military-backed government for the past five years.
“The government will respect and follow the people’s choice and decision, and work on transferring power peacefully according to the timetable,” the Facebook message said.
Both sides agreed to hold negotiations after the election commission announces the final results of the vote, expected later this month.
Winning a majority in both houses of Parliament, as the National League for Democracy appears to have done in Sunday’s elections, would give the party control over both the legislative and executive branches of government — a breathtaking sweep of power for the democracy movement.
In a letter released by her party on Wednesday, Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi asked to meet with Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, the commander in chief of the military.
“It is crucial for the dignity of the nation that the people’s will, which was shown in the election of Nov. 8, be truly implemented in a peaceful and stable manner,” she wrote in the letter, which was dated Tuesday.
She sent similar letters to the president and the speaker of the lower house of Parliament.
The office of General Min Aung Hlaing responded Wednesday night that the military “congratulates the National League for Democracy in getting a majority of seats” in the official results released so far.
The departing speaker of the lower house of Parliament, Thura Shwe Mann, suggested that he was open to the meeting, saying on his Facebook page that he wished to “work together to build a stable, peaceful and developed country.”
Mr. Shwe Mann lost his seat in Parliament in the election.
Despite the democracy movement’s triumph, the police, army and large parts of the bureaucracy will remain under the military’s direct control.
Analysts say the key to a functioning government will be cooperation between Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi and the military. The extent to which that is possible remains to be seen.
The new Parliament is expected to meet early next year and select a new president in March.
The military-drafted Constitution prohibits Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi from serving as president, but she has rankled the governing party, which is the political arm of the military, by saying she would serve above the president.
“The president will be told exactly what he can do,” she told a television interviewer on Tuesday. “I make all the decisions because I am the leader of the winning party.”
But she also sent signals that she was not out for revenge. She told another interviewer, “We are not going in for vengeance, and we are not going in for a series of Nurembergs.”
She added that she would “uphold the parts of the Constitution that are good.”
The Constitution was written by the generals, who have governed Myanmar in one form or another since 1962, and it was devised for them to retain significant power even in the case of electoral defeat.
By Wednesday evening, the commission had announced official results for 298 of the 491 seats contested in Sunday’s elections. Of those, Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, won 256, and the governing party won 21.
There are 664 seats in the two houses of Parliament; the military appoints 166 of them.
The commission also announced that Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi had been re-elected to her seat, which was expected given the almost divine reverence that she commands across the country.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/world/asia/aung-san-suu-kyi-myanmar-elections-military.html?_r=0
Structure of the Lead:
WHO-Aung San Suu Kyi
WHERE-Myanmar
WHEN-Wednesday
WHAT-Myanmar’s military establishment
WHY-a peaceful transfer of power after five decades of military domination.
HOW-not given
Keywords:
1.executive: 執行的；實施的；經營管理的
2.dignity: 尊嚴；莊嚴
3.triumph: 勝利
4.bureaucracy; 官僚政治
5.rankle: 仍然令人怨恨難消
6.vengeance: 報復；報仇
By THOMAS FULLERNOV.
NOV, 2015
YANGON, Myanmar — Myanmar’s military establishment on Wednesday acknowledged the victory of the country’s democracy movement led by the Nobel Peace laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, raising hopes for a peaceful transfer of power after five decades of military domination.
President Thein Sein sent his congratulations to Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi and her party for “gathering the support of the people.” The statement, delivered in a Facebook post, amounted to an admission of defeat by the president, a former general who has led the military-backed government for the past five years.
“The government will respect and follow the people’s choice and decision, and work on transferring power peacefully according to the timetable,” the Facebook message said.
Both sides agreed to hold negotiations after the election commission announces the final results of the vote, expected later this month.
Winning a majority in both houses of Parliament, as the National League for Democracy appears to have done in Sunday’s elections, would give the party control over both the legislative and executive branches of government — a breathtaking sweep of power for the democracy movement.
In a letter released by her party on Wednesday, Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi asked to meet with Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, the commander in chief of the military.
“It is crucial for the dignity of the nation that the people’s will, which was shown in the election of Nov. 8, be truly implemented in a peaceful and stable manner,” she wrote in the letter, which was dated Tuesday.
She sent similar letters to the president and the speaker of the lower house of Parliament.
The office of General Min Aung Hlaing responded Wednesday night that the military “congratulates the National League for Democracy in getting a majority of seats” in the official results released so far.
The departing speaker of the lower house of Parliament, Thura Shwe Mann, suggested that he was open to the meeting, saying on his Facebook page that he wished to “work together to build a stable, peaceful and developed country.”
Mr. Shwe Mann lost his seat in Parliament in the election.
Despite the democracy movement’s triumph, the police, army and large parts of the bureaucracy will remain under the military’s direct control.
Analysts say the key to a functioning government will be cooperation between Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi and the military. The extent to which that is possible remains to be seen.
The new Parliament is expected to meet early next year and select a new president in March.
The military-drafted Constitution prohibits Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi from serving as president, but she has rankled the governing party, which is the political arm of the military, by saying she would serve above the president.
“The president will be told exactly what he can do,” she told a television interviewer on Tuesday. “I make all the decisions because I am the leader of the winning party.”
But she also sent signals that she was not out for revenge. She told another interviewer, “We are not going in for vengeance, and we are not going in for a series of Nurembergs.”
She added that she would “uphold the parts of the Constitution that are good.”
The Constitution was written by the generals, who have governed Myanmar in one form or another since 1962, and it was devised for them to retain significant power even in the case of electoral defeat.
By Wednesday evening, the commission had announced official results for 298 of the 491 seats contested in Sunday’s elections. Of those, Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, won 256, and the governing party won 21.
There are 664 seats in the two houses of Parliament; the military appoints 166 of them.
The commission also announced that Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi had been re-elected to her seat, which was expected given the almost divine reverence that she commands across the country.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/world/asia/aung-san-suu-kyi-myanmar-elections-military.html?_r=0
Structure of the Lead:
WHO-Aung San Suu Kyi
WHERE-Myanmar
WHEN-Wednesday
WHAT-Myanmar’s military establishment
WHY-a peaceful transfer of power after five decades of military domination.
HOW-not given
Keywords:
1.executive: 執行的；實施的；經營管理的
2.dignity: 尊嚴；莊嚴
3.triumph: 勝利
4.bureaucracy; 官僚政治
5.rankle: 仍然令人怨恨難消
6.vengeance: 報復；報仇
2017年1月7日 星期六
the future of the United Kingdom
David Cameron falls on his sword as gamble backfires
By James Masters, CNN
June 24, 2016
(CNN)Has David Cameron's decision to gamble the future of the United Kingdom left his political career in ruin?
It was a move that backfired spectacularly and led to the dramatic announcement that he'll quit as Britain's prime minister in the aftermath of the Brexit vote -- an era-defining moment that will no doubt lead to him being remembered for generations to come as the man who took the country out of the European Union.
For a man who told members of the Conservative Party to stop "banging on" about Europe in his first conference speech as leader, it is perhaps fitting that his reign comes to end with such symmetry.
Outside 10 Downing Street Friday, Cameron, who had defiantly championed the cause of the Remain campaign, conceded that his position had become untenable after a night of drama.
Though Cameron said he would remain in charge until a new leader is appointed in early October, he pledged to try to "steady the ship" over the coming months before handing over responsibility.
Failure?
It's a huge blow to Cameron, who led the Conservative Party to victory in the 2015 general election and saw off the threat of Scottish independence a year before that.
But his decision to attempt to solve party infighting and see off the threat of the United Kingdom Independence Party by offering a referendum on membership of the EU if he won the general election has proved fatal to his reign.
Cameron's name will no doubt be cast by some alongside the likes of Neville Chamberlain and Anthony Eden, former prime ministers whose careers were defined by failure.
Cameron had been regarded as a lucky politician by some of his closest colleagues but that luck ran out as the "Leave" campaign won 51.9% of the vote to win by 1,269.501 votes, with turnout at 72%.
He'll now be left to watch on as rivals make a claim for his job, with Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London, the current favorite.
Clearly emotional, Cameron, with his wife Samantha by his side, ran through his achievements, including the introduction of gay marriage and progress with the country's economy.
"I fought this campaign in the only way I know how, which is to say directly and passionately, what I think and feel -- head, heart and soul.
"I held nothing back, I was absolutely clear about my belief that Britain is stronger, safer and better off inside the European Union and I made clear the referendum was about this and this alone -- not the future of any single politician including myself.
"But the British people have made a very clear decision to take a different path and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction.
"I will do everything I can as prime minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination.
"This is not a decision I've taken lightly but I do believe it's in the national interest to have a period of stability and then the new leadership required."
Party infighting
But all of those points will be washed away by the enormity of this result -- a result that has changed the landscape of British politics forever.
Cameron's undoing was that he believed the constant infighting within the Conservative Party over Europe had to be resolved -- but the calling of a referendum was an unnecessary gamble.
He attempted to use the economy to persuade voters that remaining in Europe would be best for Britain -- but "Project Fear" as it was dubbed by his opponent, failed to resonate with a divided country.
He resignation was perhaps inevitable -- a man who said that leaving the EU would be like "putting a bomb under our economy" was never going to be able to negotiate the country's exit.
In the end, Cameron's gamble, one that he had been warned against, failed to come off, as CNN's Max Foster summed up from Downing Street.
"We thought he would reassure the markets but obviously the pressure was so high that he had to come out with another solution and he fell on his sword. An extraordinary day here.
"What this country doesn't need right now is more political instability on top of the market turmoil," Foster said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/24/politics/david-cameron-resignation-brexit/index.html
Structure of the Lead:
WHO-David Cameron
WHERE-not given
WHEN-not given
WHAT-the future of the United Kingdom
WHY-not given
HOW-not given
Keywords:
1. backfired: 事與願違
2. symmetry: 對稱（性）
3. defiantly: 大膽對抗地
4. concede: （勉強）承認
5. pledge: 保證，誓言[
6. enormity: 滔天大罪
7. referendum: 公民投票
8. inevitable: 不可避免的
9. resonate: （使）共鳴
10. turmoil: 騷動；混亂
By James Masters, CNN
June 24, 2016
(CNN)Has David Cameron's decision to gamble the future of the United Kingdom left his political career in ruin?
It was a move that backfired spectacularly and led to the dramatic announcement that he'll quit as Britain's prime minister in the aftermath of the Brexit vote -- an era-defining moment that will no doubt lead to him being remembered for generations to come as the man who took the country out of the European Union.
For a man who told members of the Conservative Party to stop "banging on" about Europe in his first conference speech as leader, it is perhaps fitting that his reign comes to end with such symmetry.
Outside 10 Downing Street Friday, Cameron, who had defiantly championed the cause of the Remain campaign, conceded that his position had become untenable after a night of drama.
Though Cameron said he would remain in charge until a new leader is appointed in early October, he pledged to try to "steady the ship" over the coming months before handing over responsibility.
Failure?
It's a huge blow to Cameron, who led the Conservative Party to victory in the 2015 general election and saw off the threat of Scottish independence a year before that.
But his decision to attempt to solve party infighting and see off the threat of the United Kingdom Independence Party by offering a referendum on membership of the EU if he won the general election has proved fatal to his reign.
Cameron's name will no doubt be cast by some alongside the likes of Neville Chamberlain and Anthony Eden, former prime ministers whose careers were defined by failure.
Cameron had been regarded as a lucky politician by some of his closest colleagues but that luck ran out as the "Leave" campaign won 51.9% of the vote to win by 1,269.501 votes, with turnout at 72%.
He'll now be left to watch on as rivals make a claim for his job, with Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London, the current favorite.
Clearly emotional, Cameron, with his wife Samantha by his side, ran through his achievements, including the introduction of gay marriage and progress with the country's economy.
"I fought this campaign in the only way I know how, which is to say directly and passionately, what I think and feel -- head, heart and soul.
"I held nothing back, I was absolutely clear about my belief that Britain is stronger, safer and better off inside the European Union and I made clear the referendum was about this and this alone -- not the future of any single politician including myself.
"But the British people have made a very clear decision to take a different path and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction.
"I will do everything I can as prime minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination.
"This is not a decision I've taken lightly but I do believe it's in the national interest to have a period of stability and then the new leadership required."
Party infighting
But all of those points will be washed away by the enormity of this result -- a result that has changed the landscape of British politics forever.
Cameron's undoing was that he believed the constant infighting within the Conservative Party over Europe had to be resolved -- but the calling of a referendum was an unnecessary gamble.
He attempted to use the economy to persuade voters that remaining in Europe would be best for Britain -- but "Project Fear" as it was dubbed by his opponent, failed to resonate with a divided country.
He resignation was perhaps inevitable -- a man who said that leaving the EU would be like "putting a bomb under our economy" was never going to be able to negotiate the country's exit.
In the end, Cameron's gamble, one that he had been warned against, failed to come off, as CNN's Max Foster summed up from Downing Street.
"We thought he would reassure the markets but obviously the pressure was so high that he had to come out with another solution and he fell on his sword. An extraordinary day here.
"What this country doesn't need right now is more political instability on top of the market turmoil," Foster said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/24/politics/david-cameron-resignation-brexit/index.html
Structure of the Lead:
WHO-David Cameron
WHERE-not given
WHEN-not given
WHAT-the future of the United Kingdom
WHY-not given
HOW-not given
Keywords:
1. backfired: 事與願違
2. symmetry: 對稱（性）
3. defiantly: 大膽對抗地
4. concede: （勉強）承認
5. pledge: 保證，誓言[
6. enormity: 滔天大罪
7. referendum: 公民投票
8. inevitable: 不可避免的
9. resonate: （使）共鳴
10. turmoil: 騷動；混亂
White Helmets
'White Helmets' bring civilian aid to Syria's conflict
By Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Chief Medical Correspondent
May 27, 2015
Turkey (CNN)In the last five years, life expectancy has dropped by nearly 20 years in Syria. It is an astonishing figure.
And the reason is not because of deadly infectious diseases or lack of clean water, although those are problems there as well. Instead, it has to do primarily with rusty old barrels that are packed with explosives and hurtled out of helicopters onto large neighborhoods. These barrels often contain nails, wire, glass and anything else that can brutally maim and destroy a human body.
The images are awful to imagine, and even worse to see.
According to the Syrian Civil Defense, barrel bombs, as they are called, are now the greatest killer of civilians in many parts of Syria.
Every time one of these barrels strikes, it is the seismological equivalent of a 7.6 magnitude earthquake, and it happens around 50 times a day. While I spoke to James Le Mesurier in Southern Turkey last night, he received word that three more barrel bombs had fallen in just the past few hours. He also told me that when this happens, there is no one for the average citizen to call. "You can't dial 911. You can't dial the fire service. You can't call the local police department. They don't exist."
Over time, it was ordinary men who started to respond to the explosions, fires and attacks. Barbers, bakers, students and electricians, to name a few -- consistently showed up to help in any way they could. In many of these areas, it was the same people who kept running into each other while conducting rescues. Most had bought helmets that were white, instead of colored, simply because they were cheaper. And, according to James, it was the local media who first asked "who are all those guys with the white helmets?" It was the birth of a humanitarian organization that three years later has saved 18,000 lives, and recently been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
There are now around 2,600 White Helmets, including 56 women who joined over the last several months. In some of Syria's more conservative communities, women trapped in the rubble cannot be rescued by a man no matter how dire the situation. For them, the women of the White Helmets satisfy an unmet need.
Obama says Syria war unlikely to end during his presidency
Over the last few days, I have had a chance to sit down and talk to 25 of the White Helmets to try and better understand their lives, their motivations and their future. We were in Southern Turkey, not too far from the border with Syria, where the White Helmets were going through a sophisticated training exercise. I was invited to tag along. On our first day, the men all sat in a circle with me, and just started gushing their stories. It was almost cathartic for them, maybe even therapeutic.
Every single one of them raised their hands when asked if they had personally saved a life.
Ibrahim Armanazi, age 28, worked as a barber. He saved a 17-year-old woman with a head injury after a bombing near a local bakery. Abdul Kader Suleyman, 32, is a farmer who saved a 7-month-old girl after two thermobaric missiles hit the town of Darkoush. Mohammed Ata Rashwani, 44, previously worked as a hospital administrator. He rushed to the scene of a missile attack, and "rescued a man whose entire lower half was buried." It was only later that he added something I will never forget. Mohammed joined the White Helmets five days after his son was killed doing the very same job.
Ahmad Rahhal worked as a policeman, and at age 27 moved up the ranks quickly to detective. He told the story of two other White Helmets, who had died after being "double tapped." This is a particularly malicious act that occurs when a helicopter carries two barrel bombs. After dropping the first one, the helicopter circles in the sky waiting for the first responders to arrive. Once a big enough crowd has gathered, they drop the second bomb.
It is different level of savagery.
Ahmad survived that double tap, and was able to also rescue three young girls, who are alive and well.
Ahmad, like all the other White Helmets, is doing his part to turn around the plummeting life expectancy in Syria. And, for him, it is even more personal than that. He is getting married next week, and will be starting a family of his own. When he shared that news, the entire group of hardened White Helmets broke out into spontaneous applause, hooting and hollering.
Despite all they have seen and endured, the men and women who wear the white helmets believe Syria and its citizens can be saved. They have a palpable optimism about the future -- and, they want to share it with everyone.
Syrians look for survivors amid the rubble of a building targeted by a missile in the al-Mashhad neighborhood of Aleppo on January 7, 2013.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/21/health/white-helmets-profile/index.html
Structure of the Lead:
WHO-not given
WHERE-Syria
WHEN-the last five years
WHAT-life expectancy has dropped by nearly 20 years
WHY-not given
HOW-not given
Keywords:
1. barrel: 槍管；砲筒
2. hurtle: 猛烈碰撞
3. brutally: 殘忍地
4. seismologic: 地震學的
5. magnitude: 巨大
6. conservative: 守舊的
7. cathartic: 有淨化作用的
8. plummet: 重壓
9. spontaneous: 不由自主的
10. palpable: 可觸知的
1. barrel: 槍管；砲筒
2. hurtle: 猛烈碰撞
3. brutally: 殘忍地
4. seismologic: 地震學的
5. magnitude: 巨大
6. conservative: 守舊的
7. cathartic: 有淨化作用的
8. plummet: 重壓
9. spontaneous: 不由自主的
10. palpable: 可觸知的
2016年12月17日 星期六
Leonardo DiCaprio Oscar Speech
LEONARDO DICAPRIO OSCAR SPEECH: DID LEO GIVE ONE OF THE BEST ACCEPTANCE SPEECHES EVER?
March 6, 2016
By Jonathan Franks
Actor Leonardo DiCaprio finally won his well-deserved Oscar last Sunday — pleasing millions of fans and critics around the world.
For decades, the 41-year-old actor has been able to shock and surprise his fans with one impressive performance on the big screen after another.
Whether as a supporting actor (What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?) or a leading star (The Aviator, Romeo & Juliet,The Great Gatsby, etc.) Leonardo DiCaprio has never hesitated to deliver his best work regardless of the director placed in the driver’s seat.
When he took the stage last Sunday to accept his first Oscar, the many-times-nominated actor was able to make every single second count — presenting what could arguably be viewed as one of the most impressive acceptance speeches of all time.
Unlike so many of the other speeches presented during the same ceremony, not a single note of the iconic “Your Time is Up” ceremony music played during Leonardo DiCaprio’s speech. Why? The Revenant actor mastered his time so beautifully by presenting a well-developed, well-rehearsed speech that flowed as smoothly as a well-written poem or heartwarming song… even though his memorable speech did go over the allotted 45-second time limit.
If you pay close attention to the actual acceptance speech itself, it is almost as if Leonardo DiCaprio follows a specific formula from start to finish that allowed him to hit all of the necessary points and highlights without sounding rushed or leaving any important stone untouched.
He started by paying his respects to the Academy, his fellow nominees, family and friends, as well as his supporting co-star Tom Hardy — all of which are major highlights that are also presented in many other memorable Oscar acceptance speeches.
“Thank you all so very much. Thank you to the Academy. Thank you to all of you in this room. I have to congratulate the other incredible nominees this year. The Revenant was the product of the tireless efforts of an unbelievable cast and crew. First off, to my brother in this endeavor, Mr. Tom Hardy. Tom, your talent on screen can only be surpassed by your friendship off screen … thank you for creating a transcendent cinematic experience. Thank you to everybody at Fox and New Regency … my entire team. I have to thank everyone from the very onset of my career … To my parents; none of this would be possible without you. And to my friends, I love you dearly; you know who you are.”
Perhaps addressing his friends with the blanket statement “I love you dearly, you know who you are” is one of the most efficient ways of saying thanks to friends, colleagues, and even close acquaintances. There have been so many other actors and actresses on the Oscar stage that apparently tried to name off each of their friends individually during their relatively short period of time.
During this year’s broadcast, an added feature of listing the names that the winners wanted to thank on the screen was apparently supposed to relieve some of that burden – making it possible for the award winners to keep their speeches short without risking the overtime music. However, that on-screen list did not stop quite a few of the winners that simply wanted to share those names on stage regardless of the words running across the TV screen at the time.
Leonardo DiCaprio did not even bother doing that – something that he very easily could have done. With the vast list of A-list actors, actresses and directors that he has worked with over the years, that particular “Thank You” list may have easily caused the new Oscar winner to exceed his allotted time before he got a chance to present the rest of his well-crafted message.
Once the expressions of gratitude were out of the way, Leonardo shifted the focus of his speech towards the film and the cause that he wanted to promote: climate change awareness. Instead of focusing on both separately — a feat which would have taken much more time to accomplish, Leonardo beautifully delivered a notable speech interwoven with references to both at the same time.
“Making The Revenant was about man’s relationship to the natural world. A world that we collectively felt in 2015 as the hottest year in recorded history. Our production needed to move to the southern tip of this planet just to be able to find snow. Climate change is real, it is happening right now. It is the most urgent threat facing our entire species, and we need to work collectively together and stop procrastinating. We need to support leaders around the world who do not speak for the big polluters, but who speak for all of humanity, for the indigenous people of the world, for the billions and billions of underprivileged people out there who would be most affected by this. For our children’s children, and for those people out there whose voices have been drowned out by the politics of greed. I thank you all for this amazing award tonight. Let us not take this planet for granted. I do not take tonight for granted. Thank you so very much.”
Chances are that this will not be the last acceptance speech that Leonardo DiCaprio gives on the Oscar stage. Now that the Academy has awarded the longtime actor with the “Best Actor” recognition once, his chances of being nominated (and even selected as a winner) again in the future are pretty high. Perhaps Leonardo DiCaprio will become the next Daniel-Day Lewis or Meryl Streep – turning each performance into an Oscar-winning performance with a “King Midas” touch of golden cinema.
However, if it was the last time that Leonardo DiCaprio will win an Oscar, he definitely made his mark with his nearly perfect acceptance speech.
Structure of the Lead:
WHO-Actor Leonardo DiCaprio
WHERE-not given
WHEN-last Sunday
WHAT-won his well-deserved Oscar
WHY-not given
HOW-not given
Keywords:
March 6, 2016
By Jonathan Franks
Actor Leonardo DiCaprio finally won his well-deserved Oscar last Sunday — pleasing millions of fans and critics around the world.
For decades, the 41-year-old actor has been able to shock and surprise his fans with one impressive performance on the big screen after another.
Whether as a supporting actor (What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?) or a leading star (The Aviator, Romeo & Juliet,The Great Gatsby, etc.) Leonardo DiCaprio has never hesitated to deliver his best work regardless of the director placed in the driver’s seat.
When he took the stage last Sunday to accept his first Oscar, the many-times-nominated actor was able to make every single second count — presenting what could arguably be viewed as one of the most impressive acceptance speeches of all time.
Unlike so many of the other speeches presented during the same ceremony, not a single note of the iconic “Your Time is Up” ceremony music played during Leonardo DiCaprio’s speech. Why? The Revenant actor mastered his time so beautifully by presenting a well-developed, well-rehearsed speech that flowed as smoothly as a well-written poem or heartwarming song… even though his memorable speech did go over the allotted 45-second time limit.
If you pay close attention to the actual acceptance speech itself, it is almost as if Leonardo DiCaprio follows a specific formula from start to finish that allowed him to hit all of the necessary points and highlights without sounding rushed or leaving any important stone untouched.
He started by paying his respects to the Academy, his fellow nominees, family and friends, as well as his supporting co-star Tom Hardy — all of which are major highlights that are also presented in many other memorable Oscar acceptance speeches.
“Thank you all so very much. Thank you to the Academy. Thank you to all of you in this room. I have to congratulate the other incredible nominees this year. The Revenant was the product of the tireless efforts of an unbelievable cast and crew. First off, to my brother in this endeavor, Mr. Tom Hardy. Tom, your talent on screen can only be surpassed by your friendship off screen … thank you for creating a transcendent cinematic experience. Thank you to everybody at Fox and New Regency … my entire team. I have to thank everyone from the very onset of my career … To my parents; none of this would be possible without you. And to my friends, I love you dearly; you know who you are.”
Perhaps addressing his friends with the blanket statement “I love you dearly, you know who you are” is one of the most efficient ways of saying thanks to friends, colleagues, and even close acquaintances. There have been so many other actors and actresses on the Oscar stage that apparently tried to name off each of their friends individually during their relatively short period of time.
During this year’s broadcast, an added feature of listing the names that the winners wanted to thank on the screen was apparently supposed to relieve some of that burden – making it possible for the award winners to keep their speeches short without risking the overtime music. However, that on-screen list did not stop quite a few of the winners that simply wanted to share those names on stage regardless of the words running across the TV screen at the time.
Leonardo DiCaprio did not even bother doing that – something that he very easily could have done. With the vast list of A-list actors, actresses and directors that he has worked with over the years, that particular “Thank You” list may have easily caused the new Oscar winner to exceed his allotted time before he got a chance to present the rest of his well-crafted message.
Once the expressions of gratitude were out of the way, Leonardo shifted the focus of his speech towards the film and the cause that he wanted to promote: climate change awareness. Instead of focusing on both separately — a feat which would have taken much more time to accomplish, Leonardo beautifully delivered a notable speech interwoven with references to both at the same time.
“Making The Revenant was about man’s relationship to the natural world. A world that we collectively felt in 2015 as the hottest year in recorded history. Our production needed to move to the southern tip of this planet just to be able to find snow. Climate change is real, it is happening right now. It is the most urgent threat facing our entire species, and we need to work collectively together and stop procrastinating. We need to support leaders around the world who do not speak for the big polluters, but who speak for all of humanity, for the indigenous people of the world, for the billions and billions of underprivileged people out there who would be most affected by this. For our children’s children, and for those people out there whose voices have been drowned out by the politics of greed. I thank you all for this amazing award tonight. Let us not take this planet for granted. I do not take tonight for granted. Thank you so very much.”
Chances are that this will not be the last acceptance speech that Leonardo DiCaprio gives on the Oscar stage. Now that the Academy has awarded the longtime actor with the “Best Actor” recognition once, his chances of being nominated (and even selected as a winner) again in the future are pretty high. Perhaps Leonardo DiCaprio will become the next Daniel-Day Lewis or Meryl Streep – turning each performance into an Oscar-winning performance with a “King Midas” touch of golden cinema.
However, if it was the last time that Leonardo DiCaprio will win an Oscar, he definitely made his mark with his nearly perfect acceptance speech.
Structure of the Lead:
WHO-Actor Leonardo DiCaprio
WHERE-not given
WHEN-last Sunday
WHAT-won his well-deserved Oscar
WHY-not given
HOW-not given
Keywords:
1.allot: 分配
2.formula: 客套話
3.nominee: 被提名人
4.endeavor: 努力
5.surpass: 勝過；優於
6.interweave: 使交織
7.indigenous: 生而俱有的
8.underprivileged: 社會地位低下的
9.grant: 同意
Paris Climate Deal Passes Milestone as 20 More Nations Sign On
SEPT. 21, 2016
By CORAL DAVENPORT
UNITED NATIONS — More than 20 world leaders tendered legal documents on Wednesday, formally binding their governments to the Paris climate accord at a General Assembly ceremony here and all but ensuring that the agreement will go into force by the end of the year.
The specifics of each country’s plans, though, are voluntary. There are no sanctions for failing to control pollution or to put economic polices into practice, or for submitting unambitious pledges.
The legally binding portion of the Paris accord does little more than require governments to continue to convene at high-profile global climate summit meetings, make public pledges to tackle global warming at home and submit those plans to be published on a United Nations website.
The ultimate importance of the climate accord will be determined by its members.
“If enough countries start implementing the Paris agreement, historians will see this as a watershed moment,” said Erik Solheim, director of the United Nations environment program. “But if we don’t implement it, this will just be bringing a bunch of politicians together around a piece of paper.”
In total, 60 countries representing 48 percent of global planet-warming emissions have now legally bound themselves to the Paris accord. The deal goes into legal force when at least 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions sign on. At Wednesday’s ceremony, leaders of countries representing at least an additional 12 percent of global emissions pledged to submit their legal documents by the end of this year. If they follow through, the pact will take effect.
“What once seemed impossible now appears inevitable,” said Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, who will step down from his position at the end of the year.
Some of the plans that were already submitted, such as those of the United States, the world’s second-largest greenhouse polluter, have hard targets backed up with detailed policy pledges. The Obama administration promised that by 2025, aggressive regulations designed to shut down coal-fired power plants will cut the nation’s emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent from 2005 levels.
Even that plan stands in legal limbo. Twenty-seven states have sued the administration to stop it, and the Supreme Court has halted it until the suit is resolved.
Other plans are less aggressive and less detailed. India, the world’s third-largest polluter, would essentially allow its emissions to triple by 2030 — an improvement, Indian officials say, from the sevenfold increase in emissions without any action. Exactly how India can carry out that plan, which includes a significant increase in solar power, is not clear. India’s climate strategy does include references to Gandhi and yoga.
The more detailed plan put forth by China, the world’s largest polluter, calls for Chinese emissions to drop — but only after 2030 — and for China to put a national cap-and-trade system in place starting in 2017. But China has also been plagued by questions about its own emissions data.
“Obviously, ratifying Paris quickly is better than doing it slowly,” said Christoffer Ringnes Klyve, director of climate and environment programs at Future in Our Hands, a Norwegian advocacy group. “But there are lots of problems with the Paris agreement, and lots of problems with the countries that are ratifying it not having the faintest idea how they’re going to achieve the goals.”
Lacking emissions-reduction targets and sanctions, the Paris accord relies heavily on global peer pressure and public scrutiny — including many more events like Wednesday’s. A regular series of global conclaves will spotlight countries that follow through on ambitious emissions cuts and publicly name those that don’t.
Countries will be legally bound to attend summit meetings where they must give progress reports on their commitments. After 2025, countries must draw up more stringent emissions reduction plans, although the Paris pact does not say how much more stringent those plans should be.
“If I’m Singapore and I see China’s doing it, that leads me to do it,” said Jonathan Pershing, the American climate envoy. “If I’m a Latin American country and I see Mexico’s doing it, I’ll do it too.”
But that strategy does not account for leaders who do not care about global opinion. Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, has called climate change a hoax and vowed to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement if he is elected. Once the deal has entered into force, all countries will be legally bound to it for four years. But a Trump administration could refuse to attend summit meetings or submit plans or progress reports, with no consequences beyond lacerating speeches at United Nations podiums.
That attitude appears to be shared by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, the world’s fourth-largest climate polluter. Russia put forth a plan that is essentially business as usual, requiring no new domestic policies.
At the next major United Nations climate change summit meeting in November in Marrakesh, Morocco, diplomats hope to create an independent body to monitor and verify countries’ pollution levels — and to use public scrutiny to push countries to reduce their emissions. If each nation’s pollution levels are publicly reported on a website that showcases apples-to-apples comparisons of progress, governments will be more inclined to act, diplomats reason.
But several countries, including China and India, are expected to push for a more lenient system that is reliant on self-reporting.
“There is an expectation that people will report their emissions. But how does that happen?” said Jo Tyndall, the climate change envoy of New Zealand, who played a central role in brokering the Paris agreement. “What’s the process for review? Who will review?”
In Marrakesh, countries will also take up the thorny question of money: Under the Paris deal, rich countries voluntarily pledged to spend $100 billion annually by 2020 to help poor countries adapt to climate change and develop new clean energy technologies. There is already resistance in several countries, particularly the United States. Peer pressure may be enough to persuade countries to sign on to a global deal, but diplomats fear it may not be enough to open their wallets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/world/americas/climate-change-paris-agreement-united-nations-ban-ki-moon.html?_r=0
Structure of the Lead:
WHO-more than 20 world leaders
WHERE-General Assembly ceremony
WHEN-Wednesday
WHAT-formally binding their governments to the Paris climate accord
WHY-ensuring that the agreement will go into force by the end of the year
HOW-tender legal documents
WHO-more than 20 world leaders
WHERE-General Assembly ceremony
WHEN-Wednesday
WHAT-formally binding their governments to the Paris climate accord
WHY-ensuring that the agreement will go into force by the end of the year
HOW-tender legal documents
Keywords:
1.sanction: 認可
2.pledge: 保證
3.convene: 集會
4.implement: 執行
5.watershed: 轉折點
6.emission: 排放物
7.inevitable: 不可避免的
8.ratify: （正式）批准
9.advocacy: 擁護；提倡
10.scrutiny: 詳細的檢查
11.conclave: 祕密會議
12.envoy: 使者
13.pledge: 保證，誓言
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)