听力文章

Unit1Road BuildingGood morning, everyone. Today I’ll be talking about the relationship between road building and the development of the American economy during the 18th century. About 300 years ago, the United States’ economy was growing rapidly, mainly because of a booming trade in two important agricultural products: grain and cotton.Grain output in the eastern part of America increased quickly at that time due to the rapidly growing population and the large number of immigrants from Europe. As a result, the demand for grain almost doubled.For this reason, the trade in grain first developed in this part of the country. At the same time, the road system was gradually built up in order to transport the grain from the rural areas to various cities. The road building clearly helped develop the economy quickly in these areas and in the cities as well.During the same period, farmers in the South could get a large amount of laborers from Africa, and they started to grow cotton. As the cotton output increased, the farmers needed to sell it in other places. As a result, many roads were built to link the rural areas to the cities.At first, this trade of grain and cotton took place along the coast, or near rivers and lakes. It took place there because it was easy and cheap to transport goods from one place to another. Before 1700, it was very expensive to move the goods by road. So, farmers had to rely mainly on rivers to move their crops to markets.At that time, there was only one continuous road that existed in the US. It ran from north to south along country roads, which were linked together to make one long road. Within a short time, the first east-to-west roads were built. They were called turnpikes. Private companies built these roads and collected fees from all vehicles that traveled on them.Eventually, because of the booming trade of grain and cotton, a network of roadways was completed that connected some major cities and towns. Although traveling was still costly for farmers, they soon preferred to move their crops to cities and other areas on roadways rather than by boat because it was faster and more convenient.So here we can see a rather clear picture of road building in the United States and its impact on economic development during that period.Unit2An Eyewitness to Changes in China(Y:Yang Rui, anchor of Dialogue, CCTV-NEWS R:Sidney Rittenberg, president of Rittenberg & Associates.)Y: Mr. Rittenberg, you are a successful businessman and also a big name to the Chinese due to your close association with the first generation of the PRC leaders. How do you look at the impact that that experience has had on your current perception of China’s reform and development?R: I f eel in my heart that what I’m doing today is a continuation of what I was trying to do in the past. And that is, I had this ambition, this dream, from the time that I began studying Chinese at Stanford University in 1943, I had this dream of working to build bridges between Chinese peopleand American people, and to help them understand each other and cooperate together. And I tried to do that in the past, working in China in Mao’s day. And that’s exactly what I’m trying to do today. I really think that wha t I’m doing today is more effective than what I was able to do in the past.Y: At that time many foreigners came to China, but you were among the very few who got close to the Communist Party of China.R: You know, it’s quite obvious to me that the only re ason that the Communist Party of China was able to win in the final stages of the Civil War is because of their extremely close relations with the people. The Chinese people that came to know them, trusted them and considered them their representatives. This small peasant army led by Mao Zedong had no tanks, no big guns, no planes, and was greatly outnumbered by the opposition, which was the most powerful armed force in Asia after the Second World War. And yet in only three and a half years, the Nationalists were completely defeated and driven off to the island province of Taiwan. Why? Because the ties that the Communists had with the Chinese people were unbreakable. They had their trust. They had their confidence and support. And that was something that the Nationalists were not able to get. You know, the Revolutionary Army was a poor army, even in terms of the food they got. The soldiers had grass sandals that they made themselves along the march. But what made them do it? The fact that they had a vision. They believed that they were fighting for their land, for their family to have their own farmland, and for a fair government that would listen to the people and do what they needed. So this is the only explanation I can think of for why they were able to win. Y:In the Long March you just talked about, the Communist army had to overcome extreme difficulties. But in the new Long March of modernization today, we are also facing difficulties, though very different. What’s your view of this new Long March?R: I agree with calling this a new Long March, only the barriers are very different. Those barriers were certainly very grim and threatening. Some of these barriers look very good and inviting but actually they are not. I mean, in the days before and during the Long March, the leaders had the task of studying the Chinese reality and getting everybody that they could influence to study reality and from it to derive a set of policies, practical strategies to guide everybody. So people had a shared vision and dream. They were motivated by this common dream to work together. And I think, during the current Long March of modernization, China would need to do the same thing, to gradually study Chinese reality and develop a set of strategies, a common vision and a se t of values that most people will share. And then you’ll find that you don’t have a problem of disconnection between the central government and local governments, or a problem of a big gap between city and country life.Y:Still, people are wondering in this country why we were able to live with poverty but have problems living with the new wealth.R:Again it’s the lack of a practical, down-to-earth, realistic vision that everyone shares, in my opinion. I remember after t he “Great Leap Forward” when there was a famine, many, many people in Beijing, including government workers, professors in schools, their faces were swollen because people weren’t getting enough food. But nobody admitted that it was because of malnutrition. No one said, “It’s because we don’t have enough food.” You know, I personally don’t think that,for most people, they were motivated just for a distant future dream of Communism. It was because of what the new government had actually already done for the people: workers got their eight hours a day, farmers got their own land for the first time, thepublic health campaigns, etc. These things raised the standards of living, especially during the first five or six years from 1949 to 1955. Tremendous social c hanges made people feel, “This is my government; they represent my interests; they bring me real benefits.”Y: What lessons do you think we should draw from the Cultural Revolution?R: Well, I think the Cultural Revolution pointed out one fact, which actually was articulated by Deng Xiaoping in his interview after the Cultural Revolution with an American correspondent. He said that any government that doesn’t succeed in making life better for most people in China year by year is not going to succeed. And I think that was the lesson that was taught: it’s not enough just to have growth of the economy, you’ve got to make people feel that you represent their interests and you are working for them.Y:Besides making people’s life better, there is another core idea of Deng Xiaoping’s theory, that is, the emancipation of people’s mind.R: I think the emancipation of the mind that followed the Cultural Revolution is equally important to the development of the market economy in China today. But compared to the econom ic reform, I think the emancipation of the mind hasn’t gone far enough. There’s still the shadow of the old feudalistic habits of governments and individuals in their thinking and in their relationships. When I say a common vision, I don’t mean a political code that everyone recites. I mean a feeling that we are working together to build a common society that’s more or less represented by the eight lines that were raised by President Hu Jintao, the moral code.Unit5Suicide on CampusAnchor: Good morning, everybody. I’m expecting all of you to gather here for the half-hour Early Show. Today, parents and students alike are constantly reminded of the problems like drug and alcohol abuse, and unsafe sex on college campuses. But relatively few are warned about suicide. And suicide is second only to accidents as a leading cause of death among college students.Our Early Show correspondent Tracy Smith reports on this very real danger that often goes undiscussed. Hello, Tracy.Tracy Smith: Hi, Teresa. I know that today’s topic －campus suicides －is obviously weightier than the others we have talked about before. But we cannot give up eating for fear of choking. It is high time we looked at the issue face to face. A study by the American College Health Association showed that 15 percent of students meet the criteria for clinical depression. Although it’s a topic cloaked in stigma and shame, more colleges and universities are choosing to confront it, rather than wait until it’s too late. They have begun to look seri ously into the reasons and seek solutions to the problem and actively intervene. Now let’s watch a short film and get some hint of a young college guy’s tragedy.Tracy Smith: Nathan Eisert, 20, took his own life in his college dorm two years ago. In a cem etery on the outskirts of Louisville, Kentucky, you’ll find the message “Tell them, Momma, a life’s too much to lose” on his small headstone.Jan Ulrich (Nathan’s mother): The message is for Nathan’s friends. I want them to see that message, because I thin k it’s from Nathan, you know, I really do. I think Nathan sent that message for me to pass along. And when they come to the gravesite, it’s what I want them towalk away with.Tracy Smith: Always a lover of basketball, the 6-foot 5-inch player secured a spot on the Western Kentucky team as a walk-on.Stephen Ulrich (Nathan’s stepfather): Every time the team got ahead in the game, you’d hear the guys in the crowd and everybody chanting, “Nathan, Nathan …”Tracy Smith: But early in the second season, Nathan injured his foot. He lost his place on the team but never told his family.Stephen Ulrich: We’re not realizing that because he couldn’t play, because he wasn’t achieving, in his mind that he wasn’t measuring up. So all of a sudden, he’s sinking. Right before everybody’s eyes, he’s sinking, and we don’t even see him sinking.Tracy Smith: Nathan hit rock bottom. And when he didn’t show up for a family event, his father went looking for him.Jan Ulrich: Then the phone rang; it was Nathan’s dad. Ulrich said, “Where are you?” As soon as I heard this, I replied, “Uh-oh … Don’t tell me what you’re gonna tell me. I … Don’t tell me.” That’s when he told me, “He’s dead. He shot himself.”Tracy Smith: How did things go so horribly wrong, so quickly? Jan and Stephe n say they didn’t recognize the signs and that Nathan never asked for help.Tracy Smith: Nathan hit rock bottom. And when he didn’t show up for a family event, his father went looking for him.Jan Ulrich: Then the phone rang; it was Nathan’s dad. Ulrich said, “Where are you?” As soon as I heard this, I replied, “Uh-oh … Don’t tell me what you’re gonna tell me. I … Don’t tell me.” That’s when he told me, “He’s dead. He shot himself.”Tracy Smith: How did things go so horribly wrong, so quickly? Jan and Stephen say they didn’t recognize the signs and that Nathan never asked for help.Donna Satow: Some of them are also having trouble handling their romance. Sudden breakup of a relationship can hurt one to such a fatal extent.Tracy Smith: Just like other services on campus, parents should encourage their college kids to take advantage of counseling available there. It’s also a good idea for parents and classmates to know some of the warning signs fo r suicide. The Ulrichs hope that by telling their story, they’ll encourage others, including administrators, parents and the students themselves, to reach out. Stephen Ulrich: Yes, that’s right. It’s too late for us to save Nathan, but it’s not too late t o save another family and another Nathan out there, because there’s another kid out there that’s screaming for help.Anchor: Thank you, Mr. Ulrich. What you said is what our talk show aims for. Thank you all so much for attending our show. Welcome you back at the same time next week. Good-bye.Unit6What does the Future Hold for Marriage?Eighty years ago, Arnold Bennett, Hilaire Belloc, Rebecca West and other luminaries predicted the future of marriage －did they get it right? Despite its decline in popularity and rising divorce rates, Bel Mooney argues against the loosening of matrimonial ties. But does marriage really have a future in the 21st century?I’m Richard Right. My wife and I have recently cel ebrated our Sapphire Anniversary (45 years),with,hopefully, many years to come. We made a commitment to each other and, through thick and thin, have stuck by that commitment. Today’s generation is always in a hurry and doesn’t see anything beyond the next hurdle, so they give up if the wall ahead looks too high. We must encourage people in the belief that marriage is the best social institution ever invented, but we must be prepared to work at it. The government could help by reintroducing the married per sons’ allowance.I feel very disappointed that so many men feel the way they appear to about marriage. To me marriage is sacred. I didn’t promise to love, care for and be with my husband until next week, or until another offer comes along. I promised to love him and be with him in sickness, health, riches or poverty for the rest of our lives. I meant it. I still mean it almost four years on. Things have not been easy, but I didn’t expect a bed of roses, or everything to be plain sailing. I have never expected someone else to support me in the style to which I would like to become accustomed. I expect to have to work hard for the things that we want. The notion that caring and sharing is somehow old-fashioned and out of tune with modern life, and living together is in any way compatible with the lifetime commitment of marriage is just wrong. Some of us do care, and some of us do commit to another and mean it.Any man that praises the delights of marriage has never experienced the agony of divorce and the loss of his children. Marriage is very much for the benefit of women.I don’t know about marriage but the future of the wedding industry is more than secure. My daughter is getting married this Sunday in a beautiful ceremony in Santa Barbara. We had to take a second mortgage on the house to pay for it. I am going to quit teaching school and become a wedding planner －she makes twice my salary!Unit7Opening Speech for the Sydney 2000 Olympic GamesG’day Sydney! G’day Australia!Yes, the Olympic Games are back down under.Tonight we are gathered together to celebrate the Games of the new millennium, the athletes’ Games, a unique tradition that can trace its origins back over 2,500 years to ancient Olympia.Welcome to the athletes of the world.Welcome to 28 International Sports Federations and 199 National Olympic Committees. Our gratitude must go to:•The people and government of Australia, New South Wales, Sydney and all other communities involved, for their friendly welcome and hospitality;•Sydney 2000 for the excellent preparation of the Games;•The Australian Olympic Committee for its dedication to Olympism;•The thousands of volunteers for their exceptional services －you have made the Games possible;•The mass media for their contribution to presenting the Games to the world;•Our partners and sponsors for their support and their belief in the Olympic ideal;•And also to all of you, sport-loving spectators here and television viewers around the world.Finally, I would like to express our respect to all those who have made Australia what it is today －a great country, with special tribute to Aboriginal and Torres Straight Island people. The Olympic Games are unique. They unify men and women of all origins and creeds. The contribution of sport to the understanding and unity of our society is extraordinary. Sport and the Olympic Movement are also an essential part of education, which is the real wealth of any country in the world. The entire Olympic Movement would like to pay tribute to Greece, cradle of the Olympic ideal, whose tradition goes back more than 25 centuries. We would also like to honour the memory of the Frenchman Pierre de Coubertin, founder of the modern Olympic Games.To all the athletes of the world, good luck!And I also would like to thank Dawn Fraser for being with me this evening!I now have the honour of inviting the Governor General of Australia to proclaim the Games of the 2000 Olympiad in Sydney, the first Games of the new millennium, open.Unit8Nuclear Power PlantsAnchorman:I’m Clare Flado. Welcome to this special broadcast on Science Friday from . You’re listening to Talk of the Nation on Science Friday. I’m Clare Flado. France gets about 70% of its electricity from nuclear power. Here in the US, that number is less than a third of that. France has brought 58 nuclear plants online in the last 30 years. The US hasn’t ordered any new plants here since the 1970s, following the Three Mile Island Accident. But that may all be changing. President Bush has said he wants to see an increased emphasis on nuclear power here in the US, including starting construction on new plants by the end of the decade. But is the country ready for nuclear power? Has the technology improved to the point where concerns over issues such as safety and waste disposal can be addressed? Will the phrase “Not in my backyard” strike fear in the heart of politicians? Is there a political will to build new plants? On the other hand, ironically, we’re seeing environment alists who once were rigidly opposed to nuclear power. Some of them are now saying “As compared to global warming, nuclear energy poses much less threat. It’s really the lesser of two evils, although this would be enough to reinvigorate the call to go nucl ear.” What do you think? We’ll be telling you … debating on the nuclear energy proposal this hour. Do you think we should consider revising nuclear energy policies in the United States? What do you think about it? Our number 1-800-989-8255, 1-800-989 TALK. Let me introduce my guests. Dave Modeen is the vice president of the nuclear division for the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). It’s based in Charlotte, North Carolina. He’s joining us from our Washington studio. Welcome to Science Friday.Dave: Thank you Clare.Anchorman:And Arjun Makhijani is the president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) from Takoma Park, Maryland. Welcome to our program.Arjun: Thank you Clare.。