- UID
- 782396
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-7-17
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
各位,江郎才尽niao.....标题是涂白了的哦
SPEED
[Time1]
COFCO, Danone join forces in dairy sector
COFCO (China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Corporation), China's largest food processor, manufacturer and trader, has signed an agreement with French food tycoon Danone Group, on establishing a joint venture in the dairy business.
COFCO has agreed to sell China Mengniu Dairy shares to the newly formed company, and COFCO and Danone will own 51 percent and 49 percent shares respectively. After the transaction, COFCO will still remain the single largest shareholder in Mengniu.
Danone will become Mengniu's strategic shareholder with some four percent shares in the initial stages and is expected to increase its shares based on market conditions.
Meanwhile, according to the framework agreement signed by Mengniu and Danone on Monday, the two companies will combine their respective yogurt businesses in China and form a new joint venture for the production and sales of chilled yogurt products. Mengniu and Danone will own 80 percent and 20 percent shares, respectively, in the new yogurt company.
Danone is expected to invest a total of 2.6 billion yuan (US$423.35) in the abovementioned cooperation projects.
Ning Gaoning, chairman of COFCO, welcomes Danone's cooperation with COFCO. "I hope that both companies take today's cooperation in the dairy business as a starting point to explore more business opportunities by making full use of their advantages in marketing, channels, products and management, as to jointly develop the Chinese market."
Franck Riboud, chairman and CEO of Danone, said, "Backed by COFCO's extensive expertise in the Chinese food industry and by Mengniu's nation-wide leading platform in the dairy sector, our brands will benefit from a significantly wider reach to the largest number of Chinese consumers."
COFCO has declared that the partnership between COFCO and Mengniu with Arla Foods will not be affected by the above agreements.
The transactions are subject to the approval of the relevant government authorities and expected to be completed in a few months.
(310)
[Time2]
How the Government Saved Lives in Moore, Oklahoma
Posted by Eric Klinenberg
Moore, Oklahoma, is not unfamiliar with tornadoes: it gets hit by one about once every five years. But the one that touched down there on Monday seemed especially cruel. The storm laid waste to nearly everything in its seventeen-mile path, destroying thirteen thousand homes, causing approximately two billion dollars in property damage, injuring two hundred and thirty-seven people and killing twenty-four, including nine children, so far. Powerful as it was, this week’s tornado pales in comparison to the one that hit Moore fourteen years ago, which tore up thirty-eight miles of land and killed thirty-six people, and to the one that hit Joplin, Missouri, in 2011, which left behind three billion dollars in damage and a hundred and sixty fatalities. The rebuilding effort in Oklahoma is already under way, but everyone in the state knows that more devastating twisters are coming, perhaps soon.
Just as coastal towns and delta cities are beginning to adapt to the “new norm” of recurrent extreme weather, states and towns in the vast Tornado Alley (which stretches from the Rocky Mountains to the Appalachians) need to improve their preparedness for dangerous winds and thunderstorms. The tragic deaths of the seven children who drowned in the basement at the Plaza Towers Elementary School in Moore suggests that, at a minimum, all schools and public office buildings should have secure shelters. Today, about a hundred schools in Oklahoma have safe rooms that were built with federal funds, but the Wall Street Journal reports that the program’s budget zeroed out long before the vast majority of the state’s schools, including Plaza Towers Elementary, could install one.
(268)
[Time3]
The W.E.A. is far from perfect. It works through the voluntary enrollment of wireless carriers, who could drop out at any time; it sends simple, generic messages to large groups rather than specific, targeted instructions to people and places that might need detailed information about how to stay safe; and it only reaches people with smart phones, which means that the most vulnerable—the elderly, the poor, and children—are least likely to get the alerts. Moreover, the system is as fragile as the cellular towers it depends on. It may work before a tornado or a hurricane hits, but it won’t do much good afterwards if, as in Moore this week or in parts of New York City after Superstorm Sandy, the power and the towers go down. That said, it’s a significant improvement over previous mobile alert systems, which required users to opt in (few did) and delivered messages based on the phone’s registered area code, missing anyone in the affected area with an out-of-state number while potentially sending alerts to some people who were thousands of miles away.
Unfortunately, the success of these recent innovations in weather forecasting and emergency communications has gone largely unrecognized, not only by the media and citizens but also by Congress. We’ve grown so accustomed to criticizing government in recent years that we’ve failed to see what it has done well, to acknowledge, appreciate, and continue funding the government projects that work. And now, paradoxically, the federal government’s budget cuts are undermining the nation’s critical infrastructure for earth observation at the very moment the public is coming to terms with the threat of extreme weather. Last year’s budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (N.O.A.A.) was about five billion dollars, which, as Time points out, was less than one per cent of the budget for the Defense Department, and a third of the budget for NASA. “N.O.A.A. runs our fleet of polar orbiting satellites,” Heidi Cullen, the climatologist, said. “And one of them, the GOES 13, went offline this week, for unknown reasons. We can’t just change it out like it’s a light bulb. This is our environmental intelligence, and if we don’t invest it, we’re putting ourselves at risk.”
(369)
[Time4]
Rand Paul’s dream
Can libertarianism break into the major league?
May 25th 2013
WHEN pondering a run for national office, it must be bittersweet to hear fans gush that your strong suit is being less of a crank than your dad. But that is the view of many Republicans who admire Rand Paul, a senator from Kentucky and star of the shrink-the-government right. They call him a worthy heir to his father, Ron Paul—a cult figure among libertarians, longtime congressman and serial contender for the White House—but with the added gifts of knowing how to talk to ordinary voters, and when to shut up. The elder Mr Paul inspired devotion among a slice of the electorate, but was ultimately confined to the fringes by his radicalism and mad-uncle manner. The younger Mr Paul is different, boosters say: a more political animal altogether.
Visiting New Hampshire on May 20th, a mere 31 months before that state holds the first primary of the 2016 presidential race, the first-term senator provoked revealing responses. He was welcomed by over 500 Republicans at a fund-raising dinner, including more youngsters than regulars had seen at a party event in years. He was also greeted by local Republicans selling T-shirts calling him: “The palatable Paul”.
Some guests thought the shirts disrespectful. After all, Ron Paul won second place in the 2012 Republican primary in New Hampshire: a state full of flinty Yankees who detest both taxes and meddling in folks’ private lives. But more guests endorsed the sentiment. Ron Paul wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve, close America’s foreign military bases and let the states decide whether to legalise drugs. He even questioned aid for Israel. Small wonder he never won more than a small slice of the vote.
Rand Paul frets about the Fed printing money, but stops short of wanting it scrapped. He stands for foreign policy “realism”, meaning fewer wars but a continued American presence abroad. He opposes aid for countries that burn American flags. But in contrast to his father, he took a trip to Israel in January and made supportive noises. He has talked up his Christian faith. He has called for the scrapping of mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders, but would not legalise drugs. He says he is not a libertarian but a conservative guided by the constitution. He opposes abortion and gay marriage, and does not urge anyone to “run around with no clothes on and smoke pot”.
(399)
[Time5]
'Black widow' bomber attacks Russia police
At least 11 people, including five policemen, were wounded in the attack, which occurred close to an interior ministry building.
Two police officers and two civilians were said to have been seriously hurt.
In recent years, Russia has seen a number of attacks by women suicide bombers, known as black widows.
They are often related to Islamist militants killed during a separatist campaign against Russia, particularly in the North Caucasus.
The bomber in Saturday's attack was also thought to have been previously married to at least one militant, Russian news agencies reported.
"She has already been identified as Madina Aliyeva, a widow. Her two previous husbands were also killed as members of militant groups," the Dagestan president's press secretary Magomedbek Akhmedov told Russian TV.
Her first husband was killed in 2009 and her second husband in 2012, a source told Interfax news agency. However, Interfax said the information could not be officially confirmed.
Some of the worst violence has been in Dagestan, bordering Chechnya. Four people were killed and many more wounded in two car bomb explosions in Makhachkala on Monday.
Mr Akhmedov said this week's attacks were "clearly" linked.
Dagestan was briefly home to the Boston bombing suspects, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who died in the police operation to capture the brothers, made a lengthy visit to the restive republic last year.
(225)
OBSTACLE
What makes British art ‘British’?
Without wishing to resort to national stereotypes, you could argue that the British used to be rather self-deprecatory, embarrassed even, about the art of their countrymen. “None of the other nations of Europe has so abject an inferiority complex about its own aesthetic capabilities as England,” wrote the German-born British art historian Nikolaus Pevsner in 1956.
Well, not any more. The BP Walk Through British Art, a splendid new chronological presentation of around 500 works from the Tate’s collection, offers a confident, concise and considered overview of the story of British art. It was hailed as a triumph by critics when it opened at Tate Britain in London last week.
It is full of inventive and unexpected juxtapositions that stimulate debate about the intrinsic characteristics of British art. My favourite example is the face-off between two enormous paintings in Tate Britain’s west wing. Separated in execution by almost 150 years, they eyeball one another like heavyweight wrestlers glowering across the length of the museum, visible through the doorways of six intervening galleries.
At one end is The Archers by Joshua Reynolds. Painted in 1769, it presents two young aristocrats hunting with bows and arrows in a forest. At the other is The Mud Bath (1914), by the Anglo-Jewish artist David Bomberg. In this image, angular blue and white figures move across a tilted red rectangle representing the pool of the Russian Vapour Baths in London’s East End.
At first glance, these two paintings could not be more different. Reynolds’s dramatic picture is a grand double portrait in the spirit of the Renaissance master Titian. The Mud Bath, by contrast, discards time-honoured conventions enshrined within Reynolds’s canvas. There is little sense of depth. The figures are geometric, almost abstract. The colour scheme is simplified and non-naturalistic.
And yet, hung within sight of each other, we are invited to consider what links two such diverse works. In The Archers, Lord Sydney and Colonel Acland, wielding antiquarian weaponry and wearing quasi-historical clothes, advance through ancient woodland in some semi-mythical realm. They are the inheritors of national traditions, laying claim to their country’s green and pleasant land. In The Mud Bath, Bomberg uses a controlled palette of red, white and blue to make his composition resemble a scrambled version of the Union Jack flag. The self-confident grandeur of the past makes way for the jangled uncertainty of modernity – yet both paintings articulate ideas about Britishness.
Looking in, looking out
Yet for every work of art that feels instinctively ‘British’, such as Joseph Highmore’s Mr Oldham and his Guests (c.1735-45), with its cast of bluff and doughty middle-aged drinkers enjoying a bowl of hot spiced wine (the sort of no-nonsense chaps we might find setting the world to rights in any modern English pub), there is also a welter of home-grown artworks that have more in common with foreign trends – like Eileen Agar’s madcap Angel of Anarchy (1936-40), a motley head decorated with Japanese silk and antique feathers and fur that visibly channels Parisian Surrealism. Walking through Tate Britain’s galleries, I was beset by a couple of questions: what, exactly, is ‘British’ about British art? And is there any point in thinking about national schools of art at all?
Charles Saumarez Smith, the former director of London’s National Gallery who is now secretary and chief executive of the Royal Academy of Arts, believes that there is. “British art has historically followed a different course of development from more mainstream European art,” he says. “Traditionally it has been particularly strong in landscape and portraiture, and less involved with religious art. Movements such as the Pre-Raphaelite School have not been paralleled in other countries.”
But Bendor Grosvenor, an art historian and dealer who has written about Tate Britain’s re-hang on his blog Art History News, is not so sure. “Not much is distinctively ‘British’ about British art until the early 18th century,” he tells me. “There are flashes of Britishness, or rather Englishness, before then – especially in more obscure fields like portrait miniatures, at which we excelled with native talent such as Nicholas Hilliard. But for oil painting we were almost wholly dependent on foreign artists: Holbein, Van Dyck, Lely, Kneller.”
Penelope Curtis, the director of Tate Britain who has masterminded the new display, is also cautious about identifying a native spirit within British art. “I think it’s dangerous to say that the British are more interested in landscape or in portraiture than other countries,” she says. “I don’t see that. Most artists don’t think of themselves as primarily British – they look abroad as much as to their immediate surroundings. And that’s been the case for a long time.”
Perhaps uncertainty over the nature of British art stems from doubt about its quality. “It’s only relatively recently that the British have properly celebrated British art,” explains Alexandra Harris, the art historian and author of Romantic Moderns: English Writers, Artists and the Imagination from Virginia Woolf to John Piper. “There was a sense that British art was a minor affair, only locally relevant if it was relevant at all. And that still lingers.
“But there are things that British artists tend to do wonderfully well,” Harris continues. “There’s a certain complex, understated colouring that recurs. John Piper thought it was partly about the weather: British eyes are accustomed to seeing things in a certain light. This is simple but makes sense. The great Spanish painters specialise in black shadows and intense light. The British are better at fathoming a thousand varieties of grey and green.”
………..
(917)
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-5-25 23:45:23
收藏
收藏
