Many policy issues in forestry have no an income distribution side.

The Play of Power: An Introduction to American Government

James Eisenstein, Mark Kessler, Bruce A. Williams and Jacqueline Vaughn Switzer. The Play of Power: An Introduction to American Government. New York St. Martin's Press, 1996. 639 pp. Tables, appendices, glossary, references, index.

ISBN 0 - 312 - 13662 - 5

There are dozens of American Government textbooks on the market, many of them very respected and successful, some even regarded as classics in their umpteenth(无数次的) edition. Frequently there is little that distinguishes one from another, other than an idiosyncratic (特殊的) "conceptual framework," the number and kinds of graphics, boxes, and photos, or the package of ancillary(辅助的) materials available to the adopter. The Play of Power: An Introduction to American Government is typical of the standard American Government textbook on the market. It provides balanced coverage of political and constitutional history, American political institutions and processes, and political participation. This basic version does not include separate chapters on public policy, but many policy issues are addressed in the coverage of the congress, the presidency, the bureaucracy, the courts, and interest groups.

The chapters are organized in a logical sequence but they are written so that they may be used in an alternative sequence if an instructor would so desire. The writing style. is very straightforward and not unnecessarily academic and jargonistic. The tone is respectful of students and their experiences and, despite multiple authors, it remains consistent throughout the text.

There are a number of features of The Play of Power that make it attractive and that make it one of the textbooks that I have used with satisfaction for several years. As is suggested by the title, the authors describe politics as a game of power played by many players, though theirs is not an application of formal game theories to politics. Instead, they ask students to think of a number of familiar games, like basketball or Monopoly(强手棋), and the ways that the rules, strategies, and resources shape how players go about pursuing their goals and with what effect. The authors invite students, then, to look at politics as a game a "grand" game with sometimes deadly consequences that is shaped by certain rules (some found in the Constitution), that is played by many players (politicians, voters, organized interests, etc.) who bring various and unequal resources (money, status, connections, etc.) to the game, and who win various material and symbolic outcomes. The "game of politics" metaphor is sometimes difficult to sustain throughout the coverage of many topics, but it provides a useful organizational framework. It dashes some of the idealistic notions of American government and politics that students may have picked up in high school civics classes, as well as the more cynical notions that they pick up in the popular media. In the end, I think it is useful in helping students make sense of who gets what, and how, as well as who does what, and why and with what success.

Another attractive feature of The Play of Power is a serious, consistent, and ultimately successful effort to draw on students' own experience to uncover the relevance of politics and government. The authors compare and contrast political issues and dilemmas to student issues, to student relationships among themselves, with the university, with their parents, and with local government. This helps students see the rule -making and choice -making, as well as the tradeoffs(权衡) of the political process.

The authors of The Play of Power also pull off fairly effectively the challenge of describing the roles of minorities and women in American political history and contemporary politics. This has become an increasingly common undertaking for authors of American government textbooks. Some authors wea

A．Y

B．N

C．NG

ns in the early twentieth century, especially the black identity.

A．Invisible Man

B．I Wonder as I Wander

C．Native Son

D．Not Without Laughter

回答题。

Politician&39;s Attitude to Greenhouse Gas Emissions

This leaves us with the challenge of finding some politically practicable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But it is an awkward truth that when most U.S. senators were asked informally in 2000 if they would support the Kyoto Protocol should President George W. Bush send it to the Senate for ratification, the overwhelming majority, Democrats as well as Republicans, said they could not. The reason for the liberals&39; surprising reply is clear. Many studies, not all by conservatives, suggest that full compliance with the terms of the Kyoto Protocol would likely lead to a deep American recession. For those willing to run this risk, sober reflection on the consequences of the economic collapse of 1929 and the subsequent worldwide depression with all its political and ultimately military consequences is certainly in order.

That said, what can be done, in particular by our own country: Independent of the issues raised by the Kyoto Protocol, and given the weight of evidence that the problem of global warming is serious and fraught with dire consequences, failure to do anything at all and instead to promote "business as usual" is downright criminal.

Yet the Bush administration has given no more than lip service to the problem, though that could be changing. It is one thing to weigh alternatives and implement compromises that reflect the complexity of the problem; it is quite another thing to do nothing, especially if doing nothing is just a way of securing support from certain industries that worsen the problem.

There are, after all, things that can be done. Reopening a serious international dialogue, and not just saying a few good words, would be a useful if inadequate start. Not every problem must be solved before the weight of evidence becomes so compelling that certain initial steps become almost mandatory. We already know how to make more fuel-efficient automobiles, yet no national policy has surfaced to accomplish this. The scientific and engineering communities are the ones best suited to identify the scientific research that is still needed and the technical projects that show the greatest promise. These issues should be decided by them and not the politicians. Once solutions look promising, as a few already do, industry will be all too ready to jump in, for at that stage there is money to be made. And only a fool would underestimate human ingenuity when given a proper incentive, or the strength of American industry once the boiler is lit under it.

What can be inferred about the Kyoto Protocol from paragraph I ？ 查看材料

A.It was about environment protection

B.It was supported by most Democrats

C.It was considered awkward by conservatives

D.It was officially rejected by most US senators

听力原文： Today we'll examine the role that private transportation-namely，the automobile-plays in city planning.

A number of sociologists blame the automobile for the decline of the downtown areas of major cities. In the 1950's and 1960's，the automobile made it possible to work in the city and yet live in the suburbs many miles away. Shopping patterns changed；instead of going to downtown stores，people in the suburbs went to large shopping malls outside the city and closer to the home. Merchants in the city failed，and their stores closed.

Downtown shopping areas became deserted. In recent years there's been a rebirth of the downtown area，as many suburbanites have moved back to the city. They've done this，of course，to avoid highways blocked with commuters from the suburbs. I've chosen this particular city planning problem-our dependence on private transportation-to discuss in groups. I'm hoping you will all come up with some novel solutions. Oh，and don't approach the problem from a purely sociological perspective；try to take into account environmental and economic issues as well.

(30)

A．It eliminated many factory jobs．

B．It allowed workers to live far from their jobs．

C．It gave workers opportunity for better training．

D．It allowed workers to spend more time at home．

for public offices, taxes, constitutional amendments, environmental concerns, foreign policy, and other issues. The opinions held by any population are shaped and manipulated by several factors: individual circumstances, the mass media, special-interest groups, and opinion leaders.

Wealthy people tend to think differently on social issues from poor people. Factory workers probably do not share the same views as white-collar workers, nonunion workers. Women employed outside their homes sometimes have perspectives different from those of full-time homemakers. In these and other ways individual status shapes one's view of current events.

The mass media, especially television, are powerful influences on the way people think and act. Government officials note how mail from the public tends to "follow the headlines". Whatever is featured in newspapers and magazines and on television attracts enough attention that people begin to inform. themselves and to express opinions.

The mass media have also created larger audiences for government and a wider range of public issues than existed before. Prior to television and the national editions of newspapers, issues and candidates tended to remain localized. In Great Britain and West Germany, for example, elections to the national legislatures were usually viewed by voters as local contests. Today's elections are seen as struggles between party leaders and programs. In the United States radio and television have been beneficial to the presidency. Since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his "fireside chats," presidents have appealed directly to a national audience over the heads of Congress to advocate their programs.

Special-interest groups spend vast sums annually trying to influence public opinion. Public utilities, for instance, tried to sway public opinion in favor of nuclear power plants. Opposed to them were citizens' organizations that lobbied to halt the use of nuclear power. During the 1960s the American Medical Association conducted an unsuccessful advertising campaign designed to prevent the passage of medicare.

Opinion leaders are usually such prominent public figures as politicians, show business personalities, and celebrity athletes. The opinions of these individuals, whether informed and intelligent or not, carry weight with some segments of the population. Some individuals, such as Nobel Prize winners, are suddenly thrust into public view by the media. By quickly reaching a large audience, their views gain a hearing and are perhaps influential in shaping views on complex issues:

How many factors could shape public opinion, as mentioned in the text？

A．2.

B．3.

C．4.

D．5.

What is the main theme of Mr. George Savvaides' lecture delivering at Harvard University？

A．The Centennial Archieratical Divine Liturgy

B．Boston and Globe

C．The Centennial Anniversary Luncheon

D．The foreign policy issues of the USA, EU and Greece

根据短文，回答11~15题In fl democratic society citizens are encouraged to forn their own opinions on candidates for public offices。taxes，constitutional amendments，environmental concerns，foreign policy，and other issues．The opinions held by any population are shaped and manipulated by several factors：individual circumstances，the mass media，special-interest groups，and opinion leaders． Wealthy people tend to think differently on social issues from poor people．Factory workers probably do not sbare the same views as white-collar workers，non-union workers．Women employed outside their homes soInetimes have perspectives different from those of full—time homernakers．In these and other ways individual status shapes one’s view of current events． The mass media，especially television，are powerful influences on the way people think and act． GoverDinent officials note how mail from the public tends to“follow the headlines”．Whatever is featured in newspapers and magazines and on television attracts enough attention that people begin to inform themselves and to express opinions． The mass media have also created larger audiences for government and a wider range of public issues than existed before．Prior to television and the national editions of newspapers，issues and ca耐idates tended to remain localized．In Great Britain and West Germany，for example，elections to the national legislatures were usually viewed by voters as local contests．Today’s elections are seen as struggles between party Ieaders and programs．In the United States radio and television have been beneficial to the presidency．Since the days of Franklin D．Roosevelt and his“fireside chats”，presidents haveappealed directly to a national audience over the heads of Congress to advocate their programs． Special—interest groups spend vast sulns annually trying to influence public opinion．Public utilities，for instance，tried to sway public opinionin favor of nuclear power plants．Opposed to them were citizens’ organizations successful advertising campaign designed to prevent the passage of medicare． Opinion leaders are usually such prominent public figures as politicians，some business personalities，and celebrity athletes．The opinions of these individuals，whether informed and intelligent or not，carry weight with some segments of the population．Some individuals，suchas Nobel Prize winners，are suddenly thrust into public view by the media．By quickly reaching a large audience，their views gain a hearing and are perhaps influential in shaping views on complex issues． How many factors could shape public opinion，as mentioned in the text？[A]2． [B]3． [C]4． [D]5．

makes a leader？ I think this question is very relevant for everyone here today since you are all senior, executives in your company and have leadership responsibilities to a larger or smaller degree.

Being a good leader in business is very much similar to being a good leader in public life or even in the army. Many of the qualities required are the same though, of course, a few qualities are quite special to leaders in business. First of all, however, a good leader in public life or in business mustn’t be frightened to make firm decisions. You must be able to arrive at quick decisions and act on them. It’s no good thinking too long about what to do nor is it much use, seeking else’s opinion. And it’s not very good to be cautious and careful about, everything. No good leader appears hesitant to his or her subordinates. Good leaders know exactly what to do they always give the impression of being absolutely convinced about the correctness of their decisions and their subsequent actions. There’s no doubt in their mind about what they should do and, as a result, people find it easy to believe in them and to follow them They know they are right.

So far what I have said will seem obvious. But what may not be so obvious is that some business leaders actually, create their own crises to give them an excuse or an opportunity, shall we say to control things. As a result they are able to act in a more authoritarian way and have direct control over a situation. Surprising as this may sound, it’s true. A crisis may not always be deliberately caused by any conscious decision or action, of course. Often good leaders are intuitively able to create such crises. Or possibly the crises arise since a good leader is invariably someone with strong opinions and firmly held beliefs.

Good leaders are not necessarily bad people in any way. Above all, they are reliable. And they are consistent in their actions. They don’t change their minds easily and they keep their promises and agreements.

As I’ve just implied, good leaders know precisely what they want to achieve. They have clear goals policies which they are determined to pursue at all costs. And also their messages are usually quite simple and clear, which everyone under them can understand and try to follow.

Above all, good leaders are always good communicators whether in business or in public life. As I’ve just said their message is generally simple. But even when it’s rather complex and hard for some people to understand, a good leader knows instinctively how to communicate it with great ease and clarity. He or she will appeal to people’s emotions just as much as to their intellects. Good leaders can persuade others to do what they want by winning people’s hearts and minds. Ambitious leaders in particular play on people’s emotions. Sometimes a sense of humor will help in communicating a message.

A lot of leaders lead by example. They are persuasive but they also provide examples and, in many cases, role models for colleagues and subordinates to follow.

Almost all leaders know how to delegate their authority. They are able to identify the kind of people to act for them and carry out their policies. If they are in business, these subordinates are trusted to deal with all the small, but important policy details and the day-to-day running of offices and factories. Letting subordinates deal with everyday matters enables the leader to be free to concentrate on issues that are important.

There’s also the question of luck. Great leaders are invariably very lucky or perhaps they make their own luck. For example, a good leader seems to be in the right place at the right time. Whenever there is a crisis, the leader is there, ready to act just when needed.

I’ll stop at this point but I’ll set you a good exercise to do. Think carefully about the qualities

A．hesitant

B．decisive

C．cautious

The second paragraph suggests that______.

A．Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush both support the war on terrorism

B．Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush have very different views on national security issues

C．Mr. Kerry prefers a more sober and substantial foreign policy than Mr. Bush

D．Mr. Kerry has nothing new to offer in his opening speech

ing and help.