【每日阅读训练第四期——速度越障12系列】【12-10】文史哲

ElenW

深夜档来发帖了......拖延症......最近懒散的很严重啊.......
SPEED
[Time1]True Love
An ancient Hebraic text says:" love is as strong as death". It seems that not everyone experiences this kind of strong love. The increasing probably,crime and war tells us that the world is in indispensable need of true love. But what is true love?

Love is something we all need.But how do we know when we experience it?

True love is best seen as the promotion and action, not an emotion. Love is not exclusively based how we feel.Certainly our emotions are involved.But they cannot be our only criteria for love.True love is when you care enough about another person that you will lay down your life for them. When this happens,then love truly is as strong as death.How many of you have a mother, or father,husband or wife,son or daughter or friend who would sacrifice his or her own life on yours? Those of you who truly love your spells but unchildren, would unselfishly lay your life on the line to save them from death? Many people in an emergency room with their loved ones and prayed"please, God,take me instead of them".Find true love and be a true lover as well.May you find a love which is not only strong as death, but to leave to a truly for feeling life.
(212)

[Time2]US-China Audit Spat May Spill Over
As U.S. regulators and Chinese authorities spar over the right to oversee audits of companies in China, U.S. multinational firms like Sanmina Corp. could suffer collateral damage.
Sanmina, a San Jose, Calif., electronics maker, has major operations in China and is partly audited by KPMG Huazhen, which is one of five Chinese accounting companies facing legal action from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over their refusal to turn over audit work papers. KPMG Huazhen is the Chinese affiliate of accounting giant KPMG.
If the SEC prevails, the firms could be banned from auditing dozens of Chinese companies listed on U.S. markets. An SEC victory also could affect U.S. multinationals like Apple Inc., Qualcomm Inc. and Kimberly-Clark Corp. that have major Chinese operations. Chinese affiliates of U.S. auditors often contribute to audits of multinationals, a practice that couldn't continue if the affiliates were banned. Without complete audited financial statements, a company can't sell securities or remain listed on U.S. exchanges.'The consequences are monumental when it comes not only to Chinese companies but to Chinese subsidiaries of U.S.-based multinationals,' said Jacob S. Frenkel, a former SEC enforcement attorney now at Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker in Potomac, Md.
Sanmina declined to comment. KPMG and the other audit firms have said they could be penalized under Chinese 'state secrecy' laws if they hand over the documents, and urge that a solution be worked out between the SEC and the Chinese government.'We remain hopeful that a positive resolution that ensures cooperation and an appropriate level of information sharing will be reached,' KPMG said in a statement.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, another of the firms whose Chinese affiliate faces SEC action, said, 'We continue to hope that the two governments will find a way to come to an understanding and resolve this issue given the potential implications to the capital markets if they don't.'
Spokesmen for the three other firms -- Ernst & Young, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and BDO -- declined to comment. An SEC spokesman couldn't be reached. The SEC filed an administrative proceeding this month against the five firms, saying they were violating U.S. law by refusing to cooperate. An SEC administrative law judge will hear the case and render a ruling by next September.
(371)
[Time3]The Chinese Military Surveille Japanese Air Self-Defense Force Activity in the Airspace
China's Defense Ministry on Thursday said the Chinese military "closely monitors" and is "highly vigilant" concerning relevant Japanese Air Self-Defense Force activity in the airspace over the Diaoyu Islands.
Ministry of Defense spokesman Yang Yujun made the remarks at a press briefing while commenting on Japanese fighter jets' recent interception of a Chinese marine surveillance plane patrolling areas around the Diaoyu Islands.
"We will decisively fulfill our tasks and missions while coordinating with relevant departments such as maritime supervision organs, so as to safeguard China's maritime law enforcement activities and protect the country's territorial integrity and maritime rights," Yang said.
Yang said it is "justifiable" for the Chinese military to provide security in waters under China's jurisdiction, and other countries are "in no position" to make irresponsible remarks in this regard.
"China-Japan defense relations are an important and sensitive part of bilateral ties, and the Japanese side should face up to the difficulties and problems that currently exist in bilateral ties," Yang said.
He also called on Japan to take concrete steps to properly handle relevant issues and maintain the overall situation of Sino-Japanese ties.
Media reports say Japan's Air Self-Defense Force sent F-15 fighter jets to the area on Saturday to intercept a Chinese marine surveillance plane bound for the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea.
(218)
[Time4]Article The Simple Truth About Gun Control
We live, let’s imagine, in a city where children are dying of a ravaging infection. The good news is that its cause is well understood and its cure, an antibiotic, easily at hand. The bad news is that our city council has been taken over by a faith-healing cult that will go to any lengths to keep the antibiotic from the kids. Some citizens would doubtless point out meekly that faith healing has an ancient history in our city, and we must regard the faith healers with respect—to do otherwise would show a lack of respect for their freedom to faith-heal. (The faith healers’ proposition is that if there were a faith healer praying in every kindergarten the kids wouldn’t get infections in the first place.) A few Tartuffes would see the children writhe and heave in pain and then wring their hands in self-congratulatory piety and wonder why a good God would send such a terrible affliction on the innocent—surely he must have a plan! Most of us—every sane person in the city, actually—would tell the faith healers to go to hell, put off worrying about the Problem of Evil till Friday or Saturday or Sunday, and do everything we could to get as much penicillin to the kids as quickly we could.
We do live in such a city. Five thousand seven hundred and forty children and teens died from gunfire in the United States, just in 2008 and 2009. Twenty more, including Olivia Engel, who was seven, and Jesse Lewis, who was six, were killed just last week. Some reports say their bodies weren’t shown to their grief-stricken parents to identify them; just their pictures. The overwhelming majority of those children would have been saved with effective gun control. We know that this is so, because, in societies that have effective gun control, children rarely, rarely, rarely die of gunshots. Let’s worry tomorrow about the problem of Evil. Let’s worry more about making sure that when the Problem of Evil appears in a first-grade classroom, it is armed with a penknife.
There are complex, hand-wringing-worthy problems in our social life: deficits and debts and climate change. Gun violence, and the work of eliminating gun massacres in schools and movie houses and the like, is not one of them. Gun control works on gun violence as surely as antibiotics do on bacterial infections. In Scotland, after Dunblane, in Australia, after Tasmania, in Canada, after the Montreal massacre—in each case the necessary laws were passed to make gun-owning hard, and in each case… well, you will note the absence of massacre-condolence speeches made by the Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia, in comparison with our own President.
The laws differ from place to place. In some jurisdictions, like Scotland, it is essentially impossible to own a gun; in others, like Canada, it is merely very, very difficult. The precise legislation that makes gun-owning hard in a certain sense doesn’t really matter—and that should give hope to all of those who feel that, with several hundred million guns in private hands, there’s no point in trying to make America a gun-sane country.
(528)
[Time5]The “Men In Black” Franchise
Emerging from the original “Men in Black” movie, in 1997, I thought that perhaps half the people in Times Square were aliens. And the Upper West Side was obviously full of aliens, too. Those people on Broadway, concentrating so hard that they seemed to be far, far away somewhere? Aliens. The central joke in “Men in Black” was so good because it was flexible and expansive and, in a lovely way, utilitarian: The aliens were not snatching our bodies and turning us into pods, as in the old science-fiction tropes; they were ectoplasmic creatures (created by specialist Rick Baker) from outer space who sought refuge on Earth from obscure intergalactic wars. A secret government agency—the Men in Black—hid them in ordinary bodies, mainly in the New York area. Well, not just in the New York area. Sylvester Stallone and Newt Gingrich? Definitely aliens. The visitors included a talking dog and a kindly-looking neighborhood jeweler, who turned out to be the king of the Arquillians.
The normalcy of the uncanny was the best part of the gag. Almost any banal object could be invested with unexpected cosmic significance: The ugly platter-like observation towers standing in the weedy ruins of the World’s Fair in Queens were actually a spaceship launch site. (“How else do you think we get them to Queens?” asked Tommy Lee Jones, one of the Men in Black. Well, that was before Queens became hip.) The supermarket tabloid front pages (“THE ALIEN STOLE MY HUSBAND’S SKIN”) were actually examples of good, straight, factual reporting. A certified monster, Bug, played by Vincent D’Onofrio, had taken over a human shape. D’Onofrio, with his enormous head and pre-occupied manner, is top-heavy and laborious to begin with. Director Barry Sonnenfeld pushed him a little further and turned him into a modern Frankenstein’s monster, who lumbered and smashed things.
The movie, written by Ed Solomon, adapting Lowell Cunningham’s comic-book material, was a parody of old F.B.I. pictures, as well as of “Dragnet” and “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” and also the paranormal-on-the-cheap TV thriller “The X-Files,” a big hit at the time. In pop sci-fi, the Earth is always about to be annihilated, but in “Men in Black,” the prospect of calamity was no more than a throwaway joke. In this world of routine crises, Tommy Lee Jones, with his odd, rapid, off-center delivery, was perfectly at home. Jones always seems a little alienated himself, yet his seriousness conveys the weight of long experience, not all of it merry. In the movie, as Agent K, his terse and definitive manner upends the obvious. Will Smith, as his freshly recruited partner, Agent J, danced around him indignantly, trying to figure out what was going on. When they met monsters, Jones stared them down, and Smith screwed up his face and taunted them. They were funny together—a mixed-race odd couple from different generations.
A movie that sparkles with surprise should probably not become a franchise. But Sonnenfeld, who was not doing well with his other projects, couldn’t leave it alone. After five years, he brought out “Men in Black II,” a huge smash that was nevertheless hated by people who adored the wit of the original. The special effects, which were kept at a minimum in the first movie, took over: The picture was mostly whoosh and slime and klutzy physical jokes. Will Smith spent a lot of time falling down. Tommy Lee Jones, the great, creased, middle-aged natural hipster, had been replaced by a seeming imitation saying synthetic lines.
(586)
[剩下部分]
“Men in Black III” is better, but it feels a little desperate at times. Sonnenfeld has said that the clownishness of “MIIB” was a bad idea, that the material had to return to emotion—to the bond between the two men. In order to pull that off, Sonnenfeld and screenwriter Etan Cohen called on a time-travel, back-to-the-future plot: J has to return to 1969 to prevent K from being killed by a very bad alien (Jemaine Clement), with terrible teeth, who wanted to destroy the earth. Since we know that K wasn’t killed in 1969, the idea lacks even routine suspense, and the movie stalls out at times, as Will Smith stops to explain the complicated plot. Taking advantage of 3-D, Sonnenfeld sends Will Smith diving off the Chrysler Building. Smith also wrestles with a giant fish that lives in a Chinese restaurant (one of those bug-eyed Chinese creatures). Compared to the original, special effects remain a much bigger part of the movie.
Back in 1969, the young K is played by Josh Brolin, who tries to match Tommy Lee Jones’s sang-froid by going silent and just staring. But silence in itself is not Jones’s secret. Brolin makes his face a stone wall, but you can always see Jones thinking, no matter how quiet he is. Brolin tries hard, but he can’t fill the dead air. Barging around New York, Will Smith winds up at a party at Andy Warhol’s Factory, where absolutely everyone is an alien—not a very good joke, since it’s what squares have always thought. The point that aliens were buried in the ordinary is gone. (The sequence will annoy people who take Warhol seriously; almost everything in it feels wrong.) In a better idea, the movie comes to a climax in a good action sequence staged on the superstructure holding Apollo 11 in place on July 16, 1969, the day of the moon launch. And there’s a gentle epilogue which comes as a surprise. The bond is restored between K and J in a way that none of us ever expected. This time, Sonnenfeld should really quit. The franchise has arrived at a nice resting place.


OBSTRACLE
Aimee Mullins: The opportunity of adversity
I'd like to share with you a discovery that I made a few months ago while writing an article for Italian Wired. I always keep my thesaurus handy whenever I'm writing anything, but I'd already finished editing the piece, and I realized that I had never once in my life looked up the word "disabled" to see what I'd find.
Let me read you the entry. "Disabled, adjective: crippled, helpless, useless, wrecked, stalled, maimed, wounded, mangled, lame, mutilated, run-down, worn-out, weakened, impotent, castrated, paralyzed, handicapped, senile, decrepit, laid-up, done-up, done-for, done-in cracked-up, counted-out; see also hurt, useless and weak. Antonyms, healthy, strong, capable." I was reading this list out loud to a friend and at first was laughing, it was so ludicrous, but I'd just gotten past "mangled," and my voice broke, and I had to stop and collect myself from the emotional shock and impact that the assault from these words unleashed.
You know, of course, this is my raggedy old thesaurus so I'm thinking this must be an ancient print date, right? But, in fact, the print date was the early 1980s, when I would have been starting primary school and forming an understanding of myself outside the family unit and as related to the other kids and the world around me. And, needless to say, thank God I wasn't using a thesaurus back then. I mean, from this entry, it would seem that I was born into a world that perceived someone like me to have nothing positive whatsoever going for them, when in fact, today I'm celebrated for the opportunities and adventures my life has procured.
So, I immediately went to look up the 2009 online edition, expecting to find a revision worth noting. Here's the updated version of this entry. Unfortunately, it's not much better. I find the last two words under "Near Antonyms," particularly unsettling: "whole" and "wholesome."
So, it's not just about the words. It's what we believe about people when we name them with these words. It's about the values behind the words, and how we construct those values. Our language affects our thinking and how we view the world and how we view other people. In fact, many ancient societies, including the Greeks and the Romans, believed that to utter a curse verbally was so powerful, because to say the thing out loud brought it into existence. So, what reality do we want to call into existence: a person who is limited, or a person who's empowered? By casually doing something as simple as naming a person, a child, we might be putting lids and casting shadows on their power. Wouldn't we want to open doors for them instead?
One such person who opened doors for me was my childhood doctor at the A.I. duPont Institute in Wilmington, Delaware. His name was Dr. Pizzutillo, an Italian American, whose name, apparently, was too difficult for most Americans to pronounce, so he went by Dr. P. And Dr. P always wore really colorful bow ties and had the very perfect disposition to work with children.
I loved almost everything about my time spent at this hospital, with the exception of my physical therapy sessions. I had to do what seemed like innumerable repetitions of exercises with these thick, elastic bands -- different colors, you know -- to help build up my leg muscles, and I hated these bands more than anything -- I hated them, had names for them. I hated them. And, you know, I was already bargaining, as a five year-old child, with Dr. P to try to get out of doing these exercises, unsuccessfully, of course. And, one day, he came in to my session -- exhaustive and unforgiving, these sessions -- and he said to me, "Wow. Aimee, you are such a strong and powerful little girl, I think you're going to break one of those bands. When you do break it, I'm going to give you a hundred bucks."
Now, of course, this was a simple ploy on Dr. P's part to get me to do the exercises I didn't want to do before the prospect of being the richest five-year-old in the second floor ward, but what he effectively did for me was reshape an awful daily occurrence into a new and promising experience for me. And I have to wonder today to what extent his vision and his declaration of me as a strong and powerful little girl shaped my own view of myself as an inherently strong, powerful and athletic person well into the future.
This is an example of how adults in positions of power can ignite the power of a child. But, in the previous instances of those thesaurus entries, our language isn't allowing us to evolve into the reality that we would all want, the possibility of an individual to see themselves as capable. Our language hasn't caught up with the changes in our society, many of which have been brought about by technology. Certainly, from a medical standpoint, my legs, laser surgery for vision impairment, titanium knees and hip replacements for aging bodies that are allowing people to more fully engage with their abilities, and move beyond the limits that nature has imposed on them -- not to mention social networking platforms allow people to self-identify, to claim their own descriptions of themselves, so they can go align with global groups of their own choosing. So, perhaps technology is revealing more clearly to us now what has always been a truth: that everyone has something rare and powerful to offer our society, and that the human ability to adapt is our greatest asset.
(942)
[剩下部分]
The human ability to adapt, it's an interesting thing, because people have continually wanted to talk to me about overcoming adversity, and I'm going to make an admission: This phrase never sat right with me, and I always felt uneasy trying to answer people's questions about it, and I think I'm starting to figure out why. Implicit in this phrase of "overcoming adversity" is the idea that success, or happiness, is about emerging on the other side of a challenging experience unscathed or unmarked by the experience, as if my successes in life have come about from an ability to sidestep or circumnavigate the presumed pitfalls of a life with prosthetics, or what other people perceive as my disability. But, in fact, we are changed. We are marked, of course, by a challenge, whether physically, emotionally or both. And I'm going to suggest that this is a good thing. Adversity isn't an obstacle that we need to get around in order to resume living our life. It's part of our life. And I tend to think of it like my shadow. Sometimes I see a lot of it, sometimes there's very little, but it's always with me. And, certainly, I'm not trying to diminish the impact, the weight, of a person's struggle.
There is adversity and challenge in life, and it's all very real and relative to every single person, but the question isn't whether or not you're going to meet adversity, but how you're going to meet it. So, our responsibility is not simply shielding those we care for from adversity, but preparing them to meet it well. And we do a disservice to our kids when we make them feel that they're not equipped to adapt. There's an important difference and distinction between the objective medical fact of my being an amputee and the subjective societal opinion of whether or not I'm disabled. And, truthfully, the only real and consistent disability I've had to confront is the world ever thinking that I could be described by those definitions.
In our desire to protect those we care about by giving them the cold, hard truth about their medical prognosis, or, indeed, a prognosis on the expected quality of their life, we have to make sure that we don't put the first brick in a wall that will actually disable someone. Perhaps the existing model of only looking at what is broken in you and how do we fix it, serves to be more disabling to the individual than the pathology itself.
By not treating the wholeness of a person, by not acknowledging their potency, we are creating another ill on top of whatever natural struggle they might have. We are effectively grading someone's worth to our community. So we need to see through the pathology and into the range of human capability. And, most importantly, there's a partnership between those perceived deficiencies and our greatest creative ability. So it's not about devaluing, or negating, these more trying times as something we want to avoid or sweep under the rug, but instead to find those opportunities wrapped in the adversity. So maybe the idea I want to put out there is not so much overcoming adversity as it is opening ourselves up to it, embracing it, grappling with it, to use a wrestling term, maybe even dancing with it. And, perhaps, if we see adversity as natural, consistent and useful, we're less burdened by the presence of it.
This year we celebrate the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, and it was 150 years ago, when writing about evolution, that Darwin illustrated, I think, a truth about the human character. To paraphrase: It's not the strongest of the species that survives, nor is it the most intelligent that survives; it is the one that is most adaptable to change. Conflict is the genesis of creation. From Darwin's work, amongst others, we can recognize that the human ability to survive and flourish is driven by the struggle of the human spirit through conflict into transformation. So, again, transformation, adaptation, is our greatest human skill. And, perhaps, until we're tested, we don't know what we're made of. Maybe that's what adversity gives us: a sense of self, a sense of our own power. So, we can give ourselves a gift. We can re-imagine adversity as something more than just tough times. Maybe we can see it as change. Adversity is just change that we haven't adapted ourselves to yet.
I think the greatest adversity that we've created for ourselves is this idea of normalcy. Now, who's normal? There's no normal. There's common, there's typical. There's no normal, and would you want to meet that poor, beige person if they existed? (Laughter) I don't think so. If we can change this paradigm from one of achieving normalcy to one of possibility -- or potency, to be even a little bit more dangerous -- we can release the power of so many more children, and invite them to engage their rare and valuable abilities with the community.
Anthropologists tell us that the one thing we as humans have always required of our community members is to be of use, to be able to contribute. There's evidence that Neanderthals, 60,000 years ago, carried their elderly and those with serious physical injury, and perhaps it's because the life experience of survival of these people proved of value to the community. They didn't view these people as broken and useless; they were seen as rare and valuable.
A few years ago, I was in a food market in the town where I grew up in that red zone in northeastern Pennsylvania, and I was standing over a bushel of tomatoes. It was summertime: I had shorts on. I hear this guy, his voice behind me say, "Well, if it isn't Aimee Mullins." And I turn around, and it's this older man. I have no idea who he is.
And I said, "I'm sorry, sir, have we met? I don't remember meeting you."He said, "Well, you wouldn't remember meeting me. I mean, when we met I was delivering you from your mother's womb." (Laughter) Oh, that guy. And, but of course, actually, it did click.
This man was Dr. Kean, a man that I had only known about through my mother's stories of that day, because, of course, typical fashion, I arrived late for my birthday by two weeks. And so my mother's prenatal physician had gone on vacation, so the man who delivered me was a complete stranger to my parents. And, because I was born without the fibula bones, and had feet turned in, and a few toes in this foot and a few toes in that, he had to be the bearer -- this stranger had to be the bearer of bad news.
He said to me, "I had to give this prognosis to your parents that you would never walk, and you would never have the kind of mobility that other kids have or any kind of life of independence, and you've been making liar out of me ever since." (Laughter) (Applause)
The extraordinary thing is that he said he had saved newspaper clippings throughout my whole childhood, whether winning a second grade spelling bee, marching with the Girl Scouts, you know, the Halloween parade, winning my college scholarship, or any of my sports victories, and he was using it, and integrating it into teaching resident students, med students from Hahnemann Medical School and Hershey Medical School. And he called this part of the course the X Factor, the potential of the human will. No prognosis can account for how powerful this could be as a determinant in the quality of someone's life. And Dr. Kean went on to tell me, he said, "In my experience, unless repeatedly told otherwise, and even if given a modicum of support, if left to their own devices, a child will achieve."
See, Dr. Kean made that shift in thinking. He understood that there's a difference between the medical condition and what someone might do with it. And there's been a shift in my thinking over time, in that, if you had asked me at 15 years old, if I would have traded prosthetics for flesh-and-bone legs, I wouldn't have hesitated for a second. I aspired to that kind of normalcy back then. But if you ask me today, I'm not so sure. And it's because of the experiences I've had with them, not in spite of the experiences I've had with them. And perhaps this shift in me has happened because I've been exposed to more people who have opened doors for me than those who have put lids and cast shadows on me.
See, all you really need is one person to show you the epiphany of your own power, and you're off. If you can hand somebody the key to their own power -- the human spirit is so receptive -- if you can do that and open a door for someone at a crucial moment, you are educating them in the best sense. You're teaching them to open doors for themselves. In fact, the exact meaning of the word "educate" comes from the root word "educe." It means "to bring forth what is within, to bring out potential." So again, which potential do we want to bring out?
There was a case study done in 1960s Britain, when they were moving from grammar schools to comprehensive schools. It's called the streaming trials. We call it "tracking" here in the States. It's separating students from A, B, C, D and so on. And the "A students" get the tougher curriculum, the best teachers, etc. Well, they took, over a three-month period, D-level students, gave them A's, told them they were "A's," told them they were bright, and at the end of this three-month period, they were performing at A-level.
And, of course, the heartbreaking, flip side of this study, is that they took the "A students" and told them they were "D's." And that's what happened at the end of that three-month period. Those who were still around in school, besides the people who had dropped out. A crucial part of this case study was that the teachers were duped too. The teachers didn't know a switch had been made. They were simply told, "These are the 'A-students,' these are the 'D-students.'" And that's how they went about teaching them and treating them.
So, I think that the only true disability is a crushed spirit, a spirit that's been crushed doesn't have hope, it doesn't see beauty, it no longer has our natural, childlike curiosity and our innate ability to imagine. If instead, we can bolster a human spirit to keep hope, to see beauty in themselves and others, to be curious and imaginative, then we are truly using our power well. When a spirit has those qualities, we are able to create new realities and new ways of being.
I'd like to leave you with a poem by a fourteenth-century Persian poet named Hafiz that my friend, Jacques Dembois told me about, and the poem is called "The God Who Only Knows Four
Words": "Every child has known God, not the God of names, not the God of don'ts, but the God who only knows four words and keeps repeating them, saying, 'Come dance with me. Come, dance with me. Come, dance with me.'"

涂涂Claire

占座喽~~ 说起拖延症，涂涂为了治愈我的拖延症，早在去年就买了一本拖延心理学，拖了快两年了，第二章还没看完呢…… 此乃绝症
——————————————————————————————交作业吧——————————————————————————

Time 1: 1'17"
Time 2: 2'21"
Time 3: 1'30
Time 4:3'43"
Time 5:3'18"
Obstacle: 5'46" Our language influence how we think and how we behave.

yangreat

谢谢啦！刚补完你上一份作业。。。

miffyhui

1'34"
1'47"
1'21"
2'27"
3'40"

Stonebutch

1'27
what is true love--promotion and action,some emotion in there maybe, as strong as death and as life feeling
2'51
SEC and Chinese government voilates influence some firms--KPMG,the consequences and what they banned,which law to obey--KPMG and other 4 firms' hope--SEC and Chinese government could make a deal
1'41
虽然很愤青的感觉，但：
钓鱼岛是中国的。
3'50
faith-healer go hell--gun control is necessary,the US didn't do well in gun control--other countries' law--America should control guns more tight.
4'21
"Men in Black",alience,utilitarian and some classic roles in this movie,the actor,what the author feeling about all of them,laud. --"Men in Black II"
6'45
"disabled"--dictionary definitions and what people thoughts--Dr.P who change the author's life--how she exercise and what Dr.P courage her

frankiepn

1'141'59
1'21
2'50
3'05
obstacle
3'55

starlitcream

先占座 开始读啦~~

starlitcream

1‘17
2’27
1‘32
3’25
3‘53

annysweety

many thx!!!

1'20''(212)true love, emotion and action. sacrifice .
2'46''(371)SEC, no audit U.S. corporation. expect resolution.
1'28''(218)J jet Diaoyu island, china protect territory.
3'44''(528)children die of gunshot, compaire with C, A, S, agree gun control.
4'02''(586)author favor Man in Black.
5'19''(942)Dr. P help A reshape altitude about disable.

263602973

1‘12 The true love is the action that you can lay down your life. It is not only an emotion, but also an action and promotion.
3'55 居然读了这么长时间，郁闷……
   SEC and Chinese authority violation influences the affiliates of the multinational companys, and they hope the regulators can make a deal.
2'05 Chinese military monitors the Japanese millitary activity in order to protect the territorial integrity and maritime right.
3'45 US should propose a gun control law to protect the children and teens. It is a bad living envirnment for the young people with gun.
4'19 something about the 'Men in Black'.
7'18 Human ability to adapt is greatest asset. The author describe the experience that she changed her altitude to the disabled life in the help of the Dr.P.