| Ivory Tower 的个人资料Hone Our English Skill照片日志列表 |  工具  帮助 |
|
|
12月26日 The bottom lineThe bottom line
And another WTO...
Everyone knows that China is a member of the WTO. But China is in fact a member of two WTOs. So are many other countries. Compared to the World Trade Organization, the World Toilet Organization sounds like a bit of a joke.
But it's real. And November 19 has been declared World Toilet Day, which has been held every year since 2001 with the aim of increasing awareness of sanitation issues.
And sanitation is a big issue. According to a recent report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2.6 billion people across the world have no access to toilet facilities. Another 1.1 billion people -- a sixth of the world's population -- have to drink water contaminated by human waste. As a result, almost 2 million children die every year from diseases that could be prevented just by having a clean place to go to the bathroom.
"The lack of a safe, private, and convenient toilet is a daily source of indignity and undermines health, education, and income generation," said the report.
The report also found that half of all people in the developing world have an illness related to sanitation or water quality.
Everybody needs sanitation. Yet despite all the sickness and death that results when people do not have it, the issue never seems to be discussed.
"Sanitation is not on the political agenda, because it affects poor people and not decision makers," says Marisol Sanjines, a researcher at the UNDP. "The other problem is that people do not want to talk about human waste. It is taboo."
Perhaps what people are really dying of is embarrassment.
"Until we can talk about toilets comfortably, recognizing that dealing with human waste is a key priority of public health and hygiene the world over, we are not going to even get close to achieving the Millennium Development Goals," said Lauren Gelfand, media advisor for the British charity Oxfam.
The UN aims to move people up what it calls the "sanitation ladder". The aim is basically to get everyone a better toilet, starting with a "pit latrine" -- basically a hole hug into the ground -- and ending with a flush toilet connected to a piped water system.
This is the point where it becomes hardest to make progress. It's cheap to dig a hole in the ground. It's very expensive to construct a whole modern sewer system and water treatment plants.
Many poorer countires either don't have the money or are forced to choose between sanitation and more profitable public investments. And because those without sanitation do not have powerful friends, it is easy to forget about their needs.
The UN estimates that it would cost US$10 billion to give everyong effective sanitation. That sounds like a lot. But it is equal to five days global military spending and about half of what people in the West spend on bottled mineral water every year.
That's something to think about -- and not just on World Toilet Day. Speaking of businessSpeaking of business
It's not just a place to work. It's a whole new language
Blue sky thinking is always good. But it only works after you've drilled down into the issues, taken a helicopter view of strategy and pushed the envelope into raising the bar. And you need to start by getting your ducks in a row. Let's have a brain dump.
No, nobody else knows what it means either. But go into any English speaking workplace and you'll hear jargon like that. It's part of the language of business. Ordinary workers speak ordinary English. Managers speak a very special kind of language. It has no purpose and describess nothing that could not be described in English. But it does a identify them as managers. It makes them "ahead of the curve".
Many occupations develop what linguists call a jargon -- a private language with words invented to meet technical needs. Engineers have a jargon. Lawyers have a jargon. So do journalists. The difference is that managers take their jargon from many external sources.
The phrase "push the envelope" was first used by test pilots. It means flying a plane faster than it should go just to see what happens. In manager-speak, the phrase simply means working harder or performing better. In physics, "leverage" is a way of applying force. In business language, it means borrowing money to buy other companies. Words like "holistic" and "synergy" are taken from the world of psychology.
Sometimes it's hard to find out what a manager actually does, though most managers certainly do a lot of it. By using this language, they are mind readers, fighter pilots and builders of big things.
They may also be damaging their companies. A survey by Investors in People (IIP), a UK government group designed to raise productivity in the workplace, found that most employees had no idea what business jargon meant. They were therefore unable to follow instructions.
"Bosses need to lose needless jargon," says Nicola Clark, an IIP director. "Jargon is an obstacle to understanding, which can damage an individual's performance and an organization's productivity."
And the staff hate it. IIP's surveys found that two thirds wanted all management speak banned from the workplace.
That is unlikely to happen. So many staff are fighting back by inventing jargon of their own or -- as managers say -- "repurposing" actual managerment terms.
When a boss does "horizoning", he's thinking about the future. When a staff member does it, he's "staring out of the window". But maybe the boss is staring out of the window.
Staff also engage in "non specific perceptual abstraction" and occasionally perform "non specific interfacing". At least that's what they tell the boss when they're "performing expectation management". In other words, staff are daydreaming, gossiping and telling the boss what he wants to hear. And if "blue sky thinking" means having big new ideas about your business, "red sky thinking" is deciding what you are going to do after work.
Maybe this management speak is not so bad after all. Let's run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes. 12月22日 What's for dinnerWhat's for dinner
And is there any such thing as a free lunch?
It is not often that the death of an economist makes the front pages. But there have not been as many economists as famous as Milton Friedman from the US, who died at the age of 94 on November 16.
Friedman's ideas on markets and government have been tried out by many countries at different times. But to the wider public he is best known for one phrase: "there is no such thing as a free lunch."
This was meant as a criticism of government intervention in the economy. His idea was that if the government acts to help one section of the public there will be harmful effects elsewhere.
But the statement was not just about market economics. It was also about the idea of a market society. There is no such thing as a free lunch because everything we do is about exchange and reciprocation. We always hope to get something back. Everything is a market.
Is this true? One place everybody can hope to get a free lunch is from our parents. Surely they do it out of love and because parents want to feed and protect their children. The argument here is that by looking after us, our parents are investing in their own future when they need looking after.
Let's say that we buy a homeless person a meal. What can we possibly hope to get out of that? We can feel good about ourselves. We can feel that we have met a social obligation to those in trouble. In a small way, maybe we have contributed to making the world a better place.
In this view, the homeless person is a kind of entrepreneur. He or she is selling the opportunity to show compassion. Maybe the donor wants to see more for his or her money than begging. Or maybe he or she is happy with the deal. Either way, a market exchange has happened.
Businesses always seem to be providing free lunches -- for their suppliers, their customers, their managers and sometimes even their staff. The market reason is clear. These businesses want to have the loyalty of the people they work with, and make them more productive. Both of these things contribute to profit.
So perhaps it is true that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Supporters of Friedman's views would say that this means that free market economics is therefore an expression of basic human nature. Because societies are markets, economies should be run in the same way.
Yet if social exchanges are market exchanges, they are also much more than that. A happy family may be a kind of market but it also puts into practice the principle of socialism -- from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs. Helping a homeless person may involve a market exchange. But that is not why we do it. And if businesses are generous because it contributes to their profits, it is also true that people want to work in a friendly environment and to be treated with respect.
So perhaps there is no such thing as a free lunch. But concentrating on that alone ignores too many other things about human nature that we want social and economic systems to recognize. Since we are paying for it, we want to enjoy our meal. 12月21日 A day to rememberA day to remember
On the first week of November every year, the poppy season begins in Britain.
Flowers in the winter may seem like an unusual sight. But the poppies -- which are really bright red imitation flowers -- can be seen everywhere in the days before what the British call Remembrance Sunday.
That's the day on which the British remember all those who have died in war, from medieval battle against French to today's conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The event is always held on the first Sunday after November 11, the day WWI came to an end. On that day, thousands of old soldiers march through London and lay wreaths at the military memorial known as the Cenotaph. A two-minute silence is held across the country. And everyone wears a poppy.
Why poppies? It's all because of a poem. It's not usual to find poets fighting with armies. But WWI was an exception. In that conflict, every male of age was forced to pick up a gun. The armies were full of policemen, printers, postmen -- and poets.
The "war poets" of WWI are still famous today. At first, their poetry was full of patriotic and inspiring verse. But as the conflict grew worse, the poetry became darker and more pessimistic. In 1915, John McRae, a Canadian poet, wrote in memory of a friend who had just been killed.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row
That mark our place
We are the dead
The poppy is a reminder of the flowers that grew on the graves of the soldiers who died. There are many to remember. More than 18 million people died in WWI.
The poppies are now made in a factory run by former soldiers and sold on the streets. The money goes to help former British troops, especially those injuried in battle. More than 30 million are sold every year, raising an average of $25 million.
The year 2006 was the first year in which old soldiers from WWI did not take part in the ceremony. Very few are now left alive. Yet "poppy day" has grown in popularity in thte 85 years since it was first held. This is partly because of the conflicts that British is involved in across the Middle East. War is in the air of the country.
There is also a feeling that as great conflicts like WWI pass out of memory and into history, it is more important not to let the men who died be forgotten. Now their friends are no longer here to remember the dead, the job belongs to their descendants.
Yet some are critical. With poppies everywhere, critics say, people are not wearing them to remember the dead. They are just wearing them to fit in with everybody else. People buy them to conform and then don't have to think about it any more. So a ceremony of remembrance becomes a way to forget.
It's certainly true that people seem to buy poppies out of habit. But one Remembrance Day this year, four British soldiers were killed by a bomb in Iraq. There will be much to remember on future Remembrance Days.
12月10日 Who do you want to be?Who do you want to be?
And where do you want to be to be yourself ...?
Britain has always been a neighbour of France, separated only by the 20 mile seaway of the English Channel. And for most of the time that the two countries have existed, the French and the British have been rivals or even enemies. One conflict between the two countries lasted over 100 years, and the British and French were at war for most of the 18th century. These were not just local difficulties. When American rebelled against British rule, thousands of French soldiers fought alongside with them, and American armies were armed and paid by France. Without conflict between Britain and France, there would probably have been no United States. There is no fighting now, of course. But there is still a strong sense of rivalry between the two nations. That's why a recent survey in the UK caused a major shock. It revealed that one third of the British people would like to live in France. It also showed that 21 per cent of British people would actually have preferred to have been born in France. Many reasons were given. France has a better climate and a more relaxed lifestyle, with some of the longest holidays in Europe. It is thought to have better public services in every area from health to transport. People in France work shorter hours and enjoy longer holidays. And think of the food! Others point to what they call "football diplomacy". French players like Thierry Henry and managers like Arsene Wenger have revolutionized British attitudes towards France. It's true that many British people only respect nations that play football well. And that may indicate why so many people want to leave England! But this may be part of a more general cultural change. Growing numbers of people in Britain drink wine instead of beer and coffee instead of tea. They pay more attention to the way they dress. In some ways, they are becoming more French. "A whole set of intangibles create something that is fabulously appealing," says Mark Cooper, an English marketing executive, about his move to France. "There's good food, and wine, a general conviviality and love of conversation, and if you live in the capital, the Metro's a damn sight more efficient than the Tube." Estimates of the numbers of Britons living in France range from 100,000 to half a million. But it is not one-way traffic. Around 15,000 French people per year come to live in Britain, mainly settling in London. They are attracted by higher pay in Britain, lower taxes and a more dynamic lifestyle. A third group of people live in France becaue they prefer the lifestyle but work in Britain, where there are greater economic opportunities. Now that citizens of the European Union are free to move between countries, we are likely to see more movement in both directions. Different countries within the EU have different social systems. Some are more socially conservative. Others offer better public services and a more relaxed lifestyle. Traditionally, debates over these issues have been part of the politics of European nation states. Now it seems that people can go to the place that suits them best. So perhaps the British are not becoming more French. Instead, both the French and the British are becoming more European. 11月30日 The big and the beautifulThe big and the beautiful
What would you say if your child turned into a 7-- foot tall coffee coloured giant who lived for 120 years?
That would be the good news. Alternatively, your child might turn into an ugly, stupid dwarf who dies young. Either way, it would be a bit of a shock. But it may be something we all have to get ready for, according to evolutionary theorist Dr Olive Curry of the London School of Economics. According to Dr Curry, globalization is slowly turning all the different races and cultures on planet earth into two types. This is because of a process called assortative mating. As different countries and cultures become ever more closely connected, he says, the wealthy, intelligent and good looking members of each won't find partners in their own countries. They will look across the world to find people who are also wealthy, intelligent and beautiful. The rest of us will have to make do with what's left over. And if wealthy, beautiful and intelligent people will only marry each other they will not share their genes. So the rest of us will get more and more ugly, short and stupid. There are some problems with this argument. Beautiful people can be very stupid, for instance. Weathly people can be very ugly. Short people can be good looking. And if you think smart people are also beautiful, just take a look at room full of scientists. Dr Curry says that this is the point where cosmetic surgery and improvements in health care will come to the rescue. "People of the year 3000 will have reached the peak of human enhancement, leading the longest, healthiest and most accomplished lives in the entire history of the human race." Cosmetic surgery will encourage the genetic elite to work towards one ideal of beauty. Improvements in nutrition and health care will make them taller, stronger and longer lived. It will add to the difference in appearance between them and the ugly majority until it seems like they are members of different species. Eventually, says Dr Curry, we will begin to pay a genetic price for our dependence on high technology. "One way to look at it is that we will become a bit weedy -- like domestic animals who need to be looked after," he says. And as we rely on technology to look after us, we become less capable of looking after ourselves. Then maybe all the short ugly people will have a revolution and take over. Or maybe they won't. The problem with Dr Curry's vision of the future is that it seems very boring. In his world, there is only one standard of beauty and everybody wants to be with people exactly like themselves all the time. Even an ugly dwarf might think twice before becoming part of that world. Making an impactMaking an impact
First, the lights go out ...
Everybody knows one thing about planet earth. Humans are in charge. One third of the planet's land is covered by our cities, farms and fields. Someone looking at the planet from outer space would know right away that one species was dominant. What would happen if all six billion of us just vanished? How long would our achievements last? How long would nature take to recover from our crimes against it? Viewed from space, planet earth is a gigantic light bulb. The blaze of artificial light in the night sky covers all of Western Europe and Japan and over 60 per cent of North America. Without humans to provide the fuel, the lights would quickly go out. The world as a whole would be as dark as central Africa is now. The next things to go would be our cities and urban environments. Modern buildings and other structures are built to last anything from 60 to 250 years. Yet these figures include human maintenance. Without people to make repairs, our cities will crumble much more quickly. This destruction will be a revenge of the trees. The city of Pripyat in the Ukraine was abandoned after the Chernobyl disaster 20 years ago. Most of it has already collapsed. And most of that collapse has been caused by tree roots undermining local buildings. Buildings made out of stone are likely to last much longer. Many places on earth have stone ruins from ancient civilizations. But modern buildings are often built from lighter and more fragile materials. On a planet without humans, thses may disappear comparatively quickly while ancient monuments like Stonehenge in the UK will remain standing. Humans like to think of themselves as separate from nature. In fact, we fulfil the role of top predator in the global ecosystem. Without us, this role would be filled by other creatures. In Pripyat, for instance, when humans left there was an explosion in numbers of rats and mice. But these attracted predators of their own. Now wolves stalk the streets of the city. The absence of humans would also be good news for other big predators like lions, sharks and bears. Biologists estimate that 85 per cent of the reduction in animal numbers is due to humans taking their land. Without people, cities and farmlands would provide food for herbivores -- and they would provide food for carnivores. Some changes that humans have made to the planet would be permanent. In Hawaii, for instance, grass species introduced by colonists are subject to frequent wild fires, and these would prevent local types of vegetation returning. Anyone looking at a post human earth from space would at least be able to see more clearly. With no cars and factories, polluting gases would quickly begain washing out of the atmosphere. But it would take a century before the effects of global warming were reversed. 11月18日 Growing their ownGrowing their own
Meet the UK's new peasantry
This summer, fashionable young people in Britain have been digging holes in the ground. They have been growing their own vegetables. They have turned themselves into urban peasants. This seems strange. Britain was the first nation to become fully industrialized. More people in Britain have lived in towns and cities than in any other country for a longer time. Yet urban peasantry has along history in Britain, stretching way back into the 18th century. That was the time when people first came to the towns to look for work. In fact, they came in such great numbers that no work was available for many. Local authorities took the decision to set aside plots of land so that the new arrivals could grow their own food. And even as Britain's cities grew and spread, these "allotments" remained part of the urban scene. Allotments operate in a similar way to the "household responsibility" system in Chinese countryside. The land belongs to the local authority. It is rented for a small amount per year to anyone who wants it. In return, the allotment holer must promise to keep the land under cultivation. If he neglects it, it is taken from him and given to someone who will use it more effectively. Over the years, allotments have played an important role in helping the British public feed itself as agriculture in the UK declined. Yet allotments are also gardens of the imagination. Many of their users prefer to create spectacular displays of flowers. They also unite in fierce competitions against other allotments, to grow the biggest and best vegetables. Allotments started out as a necessity. Then they became a pastime. But for some, they are an obsession. In the past, the typical allotment holder was a man who worked in a factory. For him, an allotment was a place of peace and quiet. It was a place to get away from his boss and his wife. He would build a small shed to store his tools and make himself comfortable. At the end of the day he could be seen sitting outside his shed, enjoying a quiet smoke and watching the world go by. These days, the allotment holder is likely to be a young professional. "He" is also quite likely to be a "she". "It's becoming much more of a community activity," says Claire Willis, of the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners. I see my neighbouring allotment holder bringing his children, so they can watch how to cultivate vegetables and see the distinction between growing food and buying it from a supermarket." Green issues are important to the modern allotment holder. He or she worries about the global food industry. She or he does not want to eat food transported by planes which create huge amounts of greenhouse gases. There are worried about whether the food on their plates is organic and about whether it contains artifical additives. The only way to know for sure is to control your own food supply. And the only way to do that is to grow your own food. In urban Britain, the time has come for many to learn from the wisdom of the peasantry. 11月13日 Being somebody elseBeing somebody else
Someone else's face could be your fortune
You may have heard of Paris Hilton. But you probably won't know why. She goes to the right parties and the right nightclubs. Her photograph is taken and appears in the newspapers. Because her pictures have appeared in the papers, she becomes famous. And because she is famous, she appears in the newspapers. She is one of those people who is "famous for being famous." Like many famous people, she has "look-alikes". These are people who try to become famous by looking like people who are famous for being famous. A British girl called Chantelle Houghton used to be a Paris Hilton look-alike. Then she won the British reality TV show Big Brother and became famous herself. Now she has at least 20 look-alikes of her own. Planet celebrity can be a confusing place. It is filled by people who are famous for no reason and people trying to become famous for no reason except that they look like famous people. In fact, the look-alike business is probably the fastest growing part of the whole fame economy. Susan Scott Look-alikes, the first theatrical agency specializing in this area, was founded in 1979 with 30 people on its books. In those days, the market was restricted to people who looked like members of the British Royal family and Hollywood film stars. Now the agency looks after 8000 people, each convinced that they can make a fortune from having someone else's face. These days, everyone has a double. As well as Hollywood stars, there are TV personalities, singers and comedians. As well as Royals there are revolutionaries. The Susan Scott agency has a Che Guevara look-alike, who promotes Latin American restaurants while urging the masses to rebel and playing dance music. People sometimes say that the modern world is a democracy of fame. But there still does not seem to be enough fame to go around. That gives look-alikes their chance. They are booked to appear at corporate events, wedding celebrations, nightclub openings and any public occasion. Look-alikes can earn up to $300 just for making an appearance. It seems like easy money. The problem is that the look-like's career depends entirely on the fortunes of the famous person he or she imitates. Hundreds of Lady Diana Spencer look-alikes suddenly found themselves without work on the day that she died. And the market for David Beckham's is beginning to dry up now that he has been dropped from the England football team. Look-alikes are better off if they resemble someone whose fame is more permanent. But that does not explain why anybody wants to see look-alikes at all. Perhaps the answer lies in our strange attitude to celebrity. We want famous people to be different. That is what makes them special. But we also want them to be just like us. A famous person might have a reputation for being rude and arrogant. But his or her look-alikes is always instructed to be warm and friendly. That way, we can have look-alikes who look like famous people but who are really just like us. And the whole look-alike business proves that anybody can be famous, provided they look like somebody. How scared should we be?How scared should we be?
The terror alert that followed the discovery of an alleged plot to bomb up to 10 aircraft in early August caused widespread chaos.
Even though the attacks were based in the UK, governments all over the world rushed to place extra security restrictions on passengers. Politicians talked of "apocalyptic" attacks and "unimagineable" numbers of dead. Not surprisingly, fear rapidly spread amongst air travellers. They began taking their own measures against people who they thought might be terrorists. On August 16, two Asian men were taken off a plane to Manchester, UK, when other passengers refused to fly with them. The previous day, a Muslim man was taken off a plane in the US after other passengers objected to him praying. And on August 23, a plane to Mumbai, India, wes escorted to Amsterdam by fighter jets after passengers became worried about a group of "Muslim-looking" men on board. There have been many similar examples. But is all the fear justified? Many of the group arrested in Britain have not yet been charged with anything. Some have been released. Others did not have passports, making it impossible for them to get on a plane and blow it up. Even so, says Mike Grannatt, the current threat justifies the response. "You have to believe it might happen," he says. Grattan is the ex-head of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, which monitors terrorist and other threats to the British government. He looks on the reaction of passengers as a natural result of a networked world. "The key thing we learnt was that we live in a very connected world, a network society," he say. "Nothing happens on a big scale that doesn't affect lots of other things." Other defense experts say we should look at the long term picture. "Al-Qaeda is a passing phase," says Admiral Chris Parry, of the British Army's Defense Academy. "It's an expression of grievance. It will either mutate into something else, be part of a bigger political process or just fade into the light of common day." In Admiral Parry's view, the real threat comes from long term developments like increasing competition for basic resources and growing inequalities in wealth. These mean that terrorism will be a permanent threat for many years to come. "If peace breaks out tomorrow I'd be very happy," he says, "but in my experience war is the normal nature of mankind." So should we be permanently scared? No, says US cryptologist and security expert Bruce Schneier, "The point of terrorism is to cause terror," he say. "Blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us; the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act." When we give in to fear, he says, we don't just let the terrorists win. We also do their work for them. He adds that if the alleged plot had succeeded in blowing up the aircraft, the actual reaction would not have been much different than it already is. Security analyst John Robb agrees, and says that terrorists are already using the weapon of what he calls "fear management." "What's disturbing is how this type of fear management could be scaled to radically increase the effects generated by simple and somewhat random terrorist bombings," he says Simply by threatening air travel, the terrorists cause a global panic response. During another war 60 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt, the US President at the time, remarked that "we had nothing to fear but fear itself." Perhaps that is worth remembering now. 10月25日 Two battlefieldsTwo battlefields
The war between Israel and Lebanon takes to cyberspace.
In the 21st century, every war has two battlefields. The first is the physical space where the armies fight. The second is the information battlefield, where supporters of both sides engage in a kind of virtual combat -- a war of argument on weblogs, chat rooms and bulletin boards across the world. The current war between Israel and Lebanon is no exception. After the Lebanese Hezbollah militia captured two Israel soldiers on July 12, Israel responded with airborne attacks on Lebanon the next day. Since then, fierce fighting has erupted between the two sides. Israel cyber warriors were just as quick to get into the action. Within days of the conflict starting, the Israeli foreign office issued special software package to the country's supporters across the world. The software searches the web and alerts users to chat room discussions, polls and weblog postings about the conflict, giving users the chance to visit and put the Israeli point of view. Numerous websites, displaying the Lebanese flag and calling on all patriotic Lebanese to rise up against Hezbollah have also appeared. The websites promise a reward for anyone with information about Hezbollah's troop movements and a phone number is prominently displayed. Lebanese bloggers were quick to note that the site was registered in Israel, and that the organization which wanted news about Hezbollah was in fact the Israel Defence Force. Pro-Israel propaganda is spread through a wide network of sympathetic groups worldwide and goes under the general name of hasbarah, the Hebrew word for "explain". Groups taking part in the hasbarah effort send out detailed documents to make in support of Israel, talking points for the day or week, and even advice on vocabulary. Supporters of Israel are advised to refer to Palestinian demonstrations against Israel as "riots" and Palestinian political organizations as "terror groups" at all times. The aim is to create what public relations specialists call "message discipline" and put forward a consistent pro-israel theme. It might be working. Assaf Shariv, media adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, told the Jerusalem Post newspaper on July 24 that Israelis have been interviewed by the foreign press four times as much as spokespeople for the Palestinians and Lebanese. But there are limits to the success of Israeli's information war. A poll in Britain on July 28 found that two thirds of the British public thought that Israel's attacks on Lebanon were going too far. And according to the United Nations, over a third of the Lebanese victims have been children. That takes a lot of explaining away. Some are taking a different route. Mana is in her mid-20s and lives with her parents in an apartment near the city centre of Beirut, the Lebanese capital. She's been blogging about the Israel-Lebanon conflict since it began. And more than a week ago, and blog has become a gathering point for vibrant and friendly discussions by both Lebanese and Israelis. "We have opportunities of directly talking to the person on the other side and figuring out what they want," she said. "What surprised me the most is what I found out from my Israeli readers that they're aware that all Lebanese don't support Hezbollah. I thought they really believe that we all hate Israel." Peace can break out sometimes even in the most bitter information war. Sick of it allSick of it all
Can modernity be an illness?
This year in Britain it is fashionable to have red eyes and sneeze a lot. Alternatively, people who want to keep up with the times can scratch themselves until they bleed or have difficulty breathing. All these are symptoms of allergies, also sometimes known as intolerances. Allergies happen when the body responds negatively to common substances. These can include everything from grass, which causes "hay fever" to cat fur to common varieties of food. Around a quarter of people in Europe are allergic to something. In Britain there are 20 million sufferers, according to UK government estimates. Yet a century ago allergies were hardly heard of. Could this remarkable rise be a "fashionable response" to the modern world? Yes, says Professor Mark Jackson, who heads the Centre for Medical History at the University of Exeter in the UK. "Consider food allergies. These rose massively in the 1990s, and that must surely be linked to various cultural factors -- to the obsession with body image, weight, fears of food additives and so on." "In a sense, saying 'I have a food allergy' has become a way of saying 'I'm too sensitive for this modern, brutal world." Professor Jackson thinks that allergies are real illnesses. It is just that their causes are cultural, rather than physical. "Our angst about modern living, the environment, what to eat, cars, pollution and many other things are projected onto the debate about allergies," he says. Certain types of disease have always had cultural meanings. Asthma -- an allergic condition which causes breathing difficulties -- has always been associated with the idea of a refined and sensitive character. Gout, an illness caused by excessive eating and drinking, has always been thought of as a disease of the wealthy. Using this logic, the ries in allergies is a kind of physical revolt against the conditions of the modern world. Allergy sufferers disagree. "Most of the people with food allergies would love to be able to safely eat the food that could kill them. Having a food allergy is both scary and incredibly inconvenient," says Muriel Simmons, of Allergy UK, a support group for sufferers. Simmons says that allergies are rooted in modern living conditions. But these are physical, not cultural. Houses in the UK are increasing built in a way that encourages the spread of dust mites, a tiny insect that is believed to cause a whole range of allergic responses, for instance. Others think that allergies are a response to another feature of modern life -- that people live in cleaner environments and pay more attention to personal hygiene. "Children are not exposed to bacteria in the way they used to be, which might make them more sensitive to such things in the long run," says Professor Stephen Durham, President of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Whatever the direct cause, most experts seem to agree that allergies are a result of modern life and living. When we build civilizations, we distance ourselves from nature and the natural world. Perhaps it is no surprise when our bodies then experience natural things as hostile forces. 10月23日 Snake lessonsSnake lessons
How we learned to be human
Most people have a phobia -- an irrational fear of a thing, creature or action. One of the most common of these is the fear of snakes. While snakes can be dangerous, they do not set out to attack human beings. We are far too big for them to eat. And most of us live in areas which have few or no dangerous breed of snakes. So our fear of them seems to be irrational. But that's not the way it used to be. At one time snakes and the primates who were the ancestors of humans were rivals. And it is from that rivalry that we get our fear of snakes -- and perhaps much more. According to Lynne Isbell, an anthropologist at the University of California, snakes and the ancestors of human beings shared a long and intimate history. And it was in response to the threat posed by snakes that cause these ancestors to adapt features that cause them to become human. "Primates went a particular route," said Lynne Isbell. "They focused on improving their vision to keep away from [snake]. Other mammals couldn't do that." The story starts in the period after the dinosaurs became extinct. Fossil evidence suggests that the snakes were already around when the first mammals evolved some 100 million years ago. The reptiles were among the first predators mammals faced. Today, the only other threats faced by primates are birds such as eagles and hawks, and large carnivores, like bears and large cats. But these animals evolved long after snakes. To avoid becoming snake food, early mammals had to develop ways to detect and avoid the reptiles before they could strike. Some animals evolved into better "snake sniffers." Early primates developed a better eye for colour, detail and movement and the ability to see in three dimensions -- making it easier to see threats at close range. This was important because early snakes killed by launching surprise attacks and suffocating their victim. Good close range vision made it easier for mammals to run away. That's why snakes developed venom. Think of it as the first vision of an attack with chemical weapons. Some snakes even developed the ability to spit venom -- and they usually aim for the eyes. High energy foods are needed to develop strong vision. High energy foods also increase the size and capabilities of the brain generally. And that is the basic fact behind what makes us human. Many anthropologists have followed the theory that primates evolved into humans by developing hunting skills, which enabled us to learn to run on two legs, see far and throw accurately. Through hunting, our ancestors also developed the ability to work together and evolved different social roles for men and women. There is no fixed answer to this question. Perhaps the idea of man the hunter simply appeals to us because it suggests that we are basically brave and strong. No one likes to think that they became who they are because their ancestors were good at running away. Yet it is not so bad to think of humans developing through their ability to avoid conflict. In fact, we could learn a few lessons from that today. Losing their coolLosing their cool
If you want to see an entire country change its personality, now's the time to visit Britain
Normally, the weather in Britain is best described as comfortable. People from hotter countries think of it as cold and wet. But the British seem to like it. After all, the British are famous for talking about the weather, though there is not normally much to talk about. Most of the time, the temperature never goes below freezing or above 20 centigrade. That changes for a few weeks every summer. Suddenly the temperature shoots up, and the country responds as though it is under attack. The newspaper are full of warnings about exposure to the sun. Some people bolt their doors and refuse to come out until September. Others rush to the nearest beach and take all their clothes off. "It changes your mood," says psychology professor Alex Gardner. "You get into the 'child state'. You whine and moan. There is anger, irritation, poor judgement and fatigue." Many people live in hot countries, or at least in countries where it is very hot for much of the year. They learn to live with the temperature. The problem in Britain is that the hot weather nerve lasts long enough for people to adjust. Instead, many lose their tempers and become aggressive. "We have looked at road rage over the past five or six years. You do tend to find there are more incidents when the weather is hotter," says Edmund King of the RAC foundation, a UK motorist organization. "People get stuck in road works, they get frustrated because it is hot, particularly if they don't have air conditioning. They tend to literally lose their cool." According to a study conducted by the University of East Anglia in the UK, crime rates can rise by as much as 15 per cent in periods of very hot weather. The study also found that crime falls below normal levels once the temperature drops. It is almost as though people are ashamed of themselves. What makes the problem worse is that Britain is not designed for hot weather. Houses in the UK are built to keep the heat in. Many offices and public works like the London Underground have no air conditioning. And the concrete and glass of Britain's cities simply absorbs the heat. Yet air conditioning simply makes things worse in the long term. It contributes to global warming. And that causes temperatures to rise worldwide. It's already the hottest summer on record in Britain. And Britain's last hottest ever summer was only three years ago. Europe as a whole simply melted in the summer of 2003, regularly recording temperatures of over 40 centigrade. And because Europeans were not used to the heat, they died in large numbers. High temperatures killed 2,000 people in Britain, 7,000 in Germany and 15,000 in France. If current projections on climate change are accurate, very hot summers will happen every year by the 2040s. Higher temperatures over longer times are already here. Like it or not, the British are going to have to get used to the idea of being summer people. 7月25日 Turning against warTurning against war
How a terrible battle helped to change Europe
Ninety years ago on a sunny morning in Northern France, something happened that changed Britain and Europe for ever. At half past seven on the morning on July 1, 1916, whistles blew and thousands of British soldiers left their positions to attack their German enemies. By the end of the day, 20,000 of them were dead, and another 30,000 wounded or missing. The Battle of Somme, as it is called, lasted for six months. When it ended, 125,000 British soldiers were dead. They had gained five kilometres of ground. This was one of a series of great battles during the WWI. The attack on the Somme was staged to relieve pressure on the French, who were engaged in a great battle of their own at a place called Verdun. By the time that ended, over a million French and German troops had been killed. About 17 million people were killed in WWI. There have been wars with greater numbers of dead. But there has never been one where most of the dead were concentrated in such a small area. On the Somme battlefield, two men died for every metre of space. Local farmers working in the land still find the bodies of those who died to this day. The dead of all nations were buried in a series of giant graveyards along the line of the border between France and Belgium. Relatives and descendants of those who died still visit these graveyards today. What the French call the "tourism of death" makes an important contribution to the local economy. Britain went eagerly into WWI. Millions of working class men were proud to volunteer. They regarded the aristocracy as their natural leaders and had confidence in their conduct of the war. That began to change after the Somme battle. In the words of British Prime Minister Lloyd George, the soldiers were "lions led by donkeys". There was a widespread feeling that Britain's class system needed to change, and that society needed to be made more equal. It took a second great conflict before Europe was to turn against war itself. Twenty-eight years after the Somme battle, a liberating army of British, American and Canadian troops took back France from another German invasion. More than 500,000 people were killed. New graveyards were built. Two great conflicts across two generations helped to change the European mind about war. Once Europe's most warlike country, German public opinion is now possibly more in favour of peace than any other. One major cause of war in Europe was rivalry between France and Germany. The European Union was specifically formed to end that rivalry. And in making all Europe's economies dependent on each other, the hope is that the EU can make another war in Europe impossible. And while some European countries took part in the war in Iraq, public opinion across the continent was strongly opposed to it. According to US commentator William Pfaff, "Europeans are interested in a slow development of civilized and tolerant international relations, compromising on problems while avoiding catastrophes along the way. They have themselves only recently recovered from the catastrophes of the WWI and WWII, when tens of millions of people were destroyed. They don't want more." The last British veteran of the Somme battle died in 2005, aged 108. And the WWI is passing out of memory and into history. But for anyone who wants to understand how Europeans thinks, it is still important to know a little about the terrible events of July 1, 1916. Time off for the top menTime off for the top men
What do politicians do when they're not ruling the world?
They called him a "henjin". That's Japanese for "weirdo". So when Junichiro Koizumi became Prime Minister of Japan in 2001, he did something to reassure the Japanese that he was just like everyone else. He released a CD of his own versions of Elvis Presley songs. "I never get tired of listening to his songs no matter how many times I hear them," he said. "There is a healing power in Elvis's music that helps me endure the stress of high office." Koizumi doesn't just let the Japanese people know about his love for Elvis. Other world leaders quickly find out about it too. Last year he sang a version of the Elvis song "I Can't help Falling in Love with You" to the Australian Foreign Minister. And he beat that by singing another Elvis song called "I Want You, I Need You, I Love You" to US president Bush on his birthday. International statesmen know that their day with Junichiro Koizumi may start with important negotiations about trade or defence -- but it will always end with Elvis. Singing is also the hobby of former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. As a young man, he made a living singing on cruise ships, and he recently released a CD of traditional Italian love songs. Unfortunately the Italian public didn't love him back, and he is now looking for a new job. If the Japanese Prime Minister is an admirer of US popular music. French President Jacques Chirac is a big fan of Japanese culture. And what he likes best is Sumo wrestling, which he calls an "international and eternal art." According to reports in the French press, the President likes nothing better than to end a hard day at work by looking at two fat Japanese men dressed in diapers throwing each other about. President Chirac's other hobby is eating, says his biographer Franz-Olivier Giesbart:" He starts with a breakfast fit for an army. But by 10:30 am, he requires more food so he was a snack of cold meat sandwiches. A four-course lunch follows, then more sandwiches for tea before, finally, a four-course dinner." He sounds like a hungry man. Or perhaps he sounds like a man training to become a Sumo wrestler. The British politicians Denis Healey once said that everyone in politics needed a "hinterland". He meant that politicans needed something that made them forget about politics for a while. In fact, what most politicians seem to have are obsessions. Hugo Chavez originally joined the Venezuelan army because it offered him the chance to play baseball. Now, as president, he can create a Venezuelan all star-team and appoint himself the captain. Saddam Hussein sits in his jail cell in Iraq writing novels. South African Prime Minister Tahbo Mbeki admits to spending most of each night on the Internet. Kim Jong-il II of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea loves old Hollywood movies. King Abdullah II of Jordan parachutes from aeroplanes and goes motor racing. Britain's Tony Blair played guitar in a band at university. He gave that up to become a lawyer and then enter politics. By an odd coincidence, Rolling Stones lead singers Mick Jagger gave up law school to join the band. What Prime Minister Jagger would have been like? 7月22日 People and cats -- a love storyPeople and cats -- a love story
Do you like cats? There may be something wrong with you. If there is, you probably won't notice. Toxoplasma is a very small thing. It's a parasite that enters the human body after contact with cats. Then it enters cells in the body's immune system and tells them to move to the brain. Once is arrives there, is usually just goes to sleep. Football for the forgottenFootball for the forgotten
Forget World Cup. Meet the Wild Cup
There are 207 member nations in FIFA, the governing body of international football. Even the smallest of these nations has high hopes of getting into the World Cup. If countries like Trinidad and Tobago can make it, why not us? Any nation can enter the World Cup. But the problem is that only nations can enter the World Cup. And that leaves millions of football fans across the world without hope of their team reaching the finals. That's because of the forgotten places of the world. There are hundreds across the globe -- colonies of major powers, autonomous territories within nations, administrative areas created by peace treaties, former war zones. How can a real World Cup leave football fans from these places out? Back in February, a group of fans of a German club. Hamburg St Pauli, were discussing the issue in an online bulletin board. They asked the question: They were going to host the biggest football party in the world this summer. So why not invite some new guests? It was the kind of idea that people associate with St Pauli. That team have never won anything. Right now they play in the German third division. But the fans are famous for their radical and democratic spirit, and the team has a cult following all over Europe -- there are 120 St Pauli fan clubs across thet continent. The fans quickly swung into action. They arranged publicity. They found sponsors. And they sent letters. They got a quick response. It seems that places like Zanzibar, which consists of a couple of islands off the African Coast, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus were desperate to have a World Cup of their own. Of course, the name World Cup could not be used. It is owned by FIFA. Instead, the Wild Cup was staged in early June at St Pauli's ground in Hamburg, Northern Germany. A team came from Gibraltar, a tiny island in the Mediterranean owned by Britain. A team came from Greenland, a massive island near the Arctic Circle, ruled by Denmark. A team of priests came from the Vatican City, the Pope's own independent territory. Some found it hard to adapt. "In Greenland, we don't have grass and have to play on sand so this is really different. We also don't have sun four months out of the year," said Greenland player Anders Corten. At least Greenland had a national team. Others had to find and build one especially for the tournament. Despite difficulties like these, the Wild Cup was taken seriously by all the participants. And after a series of hard fought matches, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus were the eventual winners, beating Zanzibar in the final. St Pauli itself joined in the spirit of the competition. The club declared itself to be an independent republic while the competition lasted. For the teams taking part, it provided a rare chance to be recognized on the world stage. "For us, it was a real tournament," Turkish Cyprus coach Suleyman Goktas said after the final. his face partially obscured by the large silver-coloured Wild Cup trophy. " We came here to play football. We won the cup and we're happy." 7月5日 And the beat goes onAnd the beat goes on
A tale of cultural globalization.
The reggae music star Desmond Dekker died in London on May 24. Originally from Jamaica, Dekker was not one of the pop music world's biggest stars. But he was a success in the UK. Everyone in Britain grew up knowing his hits. That's why the moved there. But Dekker's success, and the whole story of reggae music, does not just connect the UK and Jamaica. It is a story of cultural blobalization that stretches from southern China to New York, and many places in between, over a period of 100 years. It happened like this: Jamaica has a small but influential Chinese community, which began arriving on the island to work as indentured labourers in the late 19th century. Most came from Guangdong and Fujian. Like overseas Chinese communities everwhere, they started businesses and tried to get rich. In a small, poor country like Jamaica, that means finding opportunities that others can't see. It means trying out new ideas and finding out what people like. Jamaicans like music. The island has a strong tradition of singers and musicians. And despite its relative poverty it has always been a profitable market for the record industry. That's why a Chinese Jamaican businessman called Leslie Kong decided to expand his business. At first he had an icecream parlour. Then he added a record shop. That proved to be such good business that he decided to build himself a studio and produce the music that people loved to buy. He didn't go looking for musicians. Anyone who wanted to record with him simply visited the shop and sang him a song. If Kong liked what he heard, he made a record with them. That's how Desmond Dekker started, along with many others. The most famous of these was Bob Marley and the Wailers. Like the rest, they started by singing for Leslie Kong as he sat behind the counter of his icecream parlour. But they went on become international superstars. Leslie Kong died in 1971. According to local rumours, a member of the Wailers put a curse on him when he released a record of what they thought was sub-stanard material. Leslie Kong then visited his accountant to hear how much money the record would make. As soon as he heard the figure, the dropped dead from a heart attack. Many other Chinese Jamaicans helped drive forward the local record industry. Some took the creative path. Byron Lee is credited with inventing ska, a version of reggae which is still popular the UK and US, and soca, which is played at Caribbean carnivals. Others became impresarios. Thomas Wong organized "dance hall" events where people would come and listen to the lastest music played by a disc jockey. He encouraged the disc jockeys to talk over the instrumental parts of the record. This style of music became popular in New York, where it later developed into hip hop. Other Chinese Jamaicans are involved as record producers, radio station owners and music journalists. Many people fear that globalization will lead to cultural dominance by one society, usually the US. This may be true when cultures meet on unequals terms. But when they meet as equals and bring complementary skills to each other, amazing things can happen. Let the beat go on. When the stars move inWhen the stars move in
Welcome to the world of celebrity colonialism.
For six weeks in April and May a Western security force took over an African nation. It sealed off territory and refused access to local people. It declared a "no fly" zone in the skies overhead. It decided who could cross the country's borders. This wasn't a conventional military invasion. It was not about oil or power politics. It was not threat to change the government. Instead, it was a story of Hollywood, and the things that some stars will do to protect their privacy. When ordinary people gon on holiday, they take a camera and a few kilos of baggage. When US film stars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie decided to have their child in the African Nation of Namibia, they took along a private army. By African standards, Namibia is a small country. It has a small population of 1.8 million people. And most of these people live in poverty. It's famous amongst archaeologists as one of the places where human life originated. That's why Jolie wanted to go there to have her baby. "It's the cradle of human kind," said Ms Jolie of Namibia. Having a baby there would be a "very special experience" for her and Brad Pitt. It was certainly a very unusually experience for Namibians. When the couple arrived at the luxurious Burning Shore beach resort to have their child, they arrived with a large private security force. In addition to that, they hired many officers in the Namibian police force along with private security guards. All were heavily armed. And as well as that, Pitt and Jolie insisted that the Namibian government divert all aircraft away from the skies for miles around. The arrival of two Hollywood film stars in the middle of a poor country in Africa created a lot of interest amongst local media. Journalists from surrounding countries immediately travelled to Namibia. Or they did until Pitt and Jolie contacted their friends in the Namibian government. The couple demanded, and received, the final say over which journalists could enter the country during their stay. As well as dictating the immigration policy of a sovereign nation, their security people also declared a "journalist free zone" around the couple's home. They conducted house-to-house searches of the area, interrogating and threatening local people for information about unauthorized reporters and photographers. Even the Namibian Prime Minister spoke up for the couple. "The lady is expecting a baby," Nahas Angula told journalists before Angelina gave birth. "You guys are harassing her and harassment is not allowed in Namibia." Stars are used to getting their own way. They demand that roads are closed off when they appear, and that shops shut to the general public when they want to use them. But this is the first time that they have taken over an entire country. And it was entirely because of the fact that Namibia is both desperately poor and stunningly beautiful. Tourism is its only hope of economic development. "For a small country like ours, with a small economy and a growing tourism industry, this is of major marketing value," said Namibia's tourism minister Leon Jooste. Pitt and Jolie's daughter Shiloh Nouvel was born on May 27. When she grows up, will she ever learn that as well as being Hollywood stars, her parents were also the temporary King and Queen of an African nation. |
|
|
