和橙子一起看英语---连载中--7月27日更新

GIVING away money has never been so fashionable among the rich and famous. Bill Gates, today's pre-eminent philanthropist, has already handed over an unprecedented $31 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, mostly to tackle the health problems of the world's poor. Its generosity has earned the couple Time magazine's nomination as 2005's “people of the year”, along with Bono, an activist rock star.

The next generation of technology leaders are already embracing the same ethos. Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay, and Jeff Skoll, the auction site's first chief executive, are each putting their billions to work to “make the world a better place”. And when the founders of Google, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, took their company public, they announced that a slice of the search engine's equity and profits would go to Google.org, a philanthropic arm that they hope will one day “eclipse Google itself in overall world impact by ambitiously applying innovation and significant resources to the largest of the world's problems”.

The new enthusiasm for philanthropy is in large part a consequence of the rapid wealth-creation of recent years, and of its uneven distribution. The world now boasts 691 billionaires, 388 of them “self-made”, compared with 423 in 1996, according to Forbes magazine's “rich list” for 2005. Not all of these newly wealthy people are turning to philanthropy—and of those that do, many continue to give in unimaginative ways, say to support an institution such as their alma mater. But the extra wealth is creating huge new opportunities. “This is a historic moment in the evolution of philanthropy,” says Katherine Fulton, co-author of a recent report on the industry, “Looking out for the Future”. “If only 5-10% of the new billionaires are imaginative in their giving, they will transform philanthropy over the next 20 years.”

For now, it does look as though everyone, from Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor of New York, to hedge-fund tycoons and film stars, is opening their wallet for a good cause. In Manhattan these days, a table for ten at the best charitable fund-raising dinners can cost $1m. Celebrities are increasingly putting their own money into good works, as well as playing their time-honoured role of using their fame to raise money from others. The film star Angelina Jolie, for example, has backed up her public advocacy of the cause of refugees with substantial gifts to refugee organisations.

The media, which used to take little notice of charitable donations, now eagerly rank the super-rich by their munificence and berate those they regard as tight-fisted. The latest Business Week list, which ranks giving in the latest five years, is topped by Intel's co-founder, Gordon Moore, and his wife Betty, pushing Mr and Mrs Gates into second place. Among America's super-wealthy, it seems that only Warren Buffett, the world's second-richest man, still dedicates all his energies to making more money rather than giving away some of what he already has. But even he says it will all go to charity when he dies.

Nor is the fashion for giving limited to America, where philanthropists have long played a particularly prominent role. In Europe, too, entrepreneurs who have made a lot of money are starting to hand some of it to charitable causes. Examples include Britain's Dame Anita Roddick, founder of the Body Shop, and Arpad Busson, a colourful French hedge-fund boss. India's new wealthy, such as Azim Premji and Nandan Nilekani, two Bangalore technology-firm bosses, are also becoming keen philanthropists; and even the new rich of China and Russia are catching the bug. Roman Abramovich, a Russian oiligarch who became famous for buying Chelsea Football Club, has given away many millions to improve living conditions in the Kamchatka region of Russia. And so the list goes on.

The whys and wherefores
Why are they doing it? Many people are wary of rich folk bearing gifts, suspecting them of having hidden business or political motives, or feeling guilty about how they have made their pile, or simply enjoying an ego trip fuelled by generous tax breaks. But there could also be plenty of innocent and admirable reasons why the rich have become so much more open-handed. Never mind the motives: the important thing is to ensure that this largesse is put to good use.

Done well, philanthropy can have a hugely beneficial effect—witness the achievements of past giants such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Joseph Rowntree and William Wilberforce. This survey will argue that if the new generation of philanthropists get it right, they too can make a real difference to the world. But for that to happen, philanthropy will have to shed the amateurism that still pervades much of it and become a modern, efficient, global industry.

For much of the past half-century, America seemed exceptional in its enthusiasm for philanthropy. Claire Gaudiani, in her book, “The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism”, makes a distinction between charity, which is about easing symptoms of distress, and philanthropy, which is about investing in solutions to the underlying problems. The “investment approach distinguishes the most significant kind of American generosity from the ‘poorhouse and soup line’ method and expresses our values of freedom, the individual, and entrepreneurialism,” she says. In practice, though, the borderline between the two is often blurred.

Over the years, many wealthy Americans have broadly followed the blueprint laid out by Andrew Carnegie in his 1889 essay, “Wealth”. The steel tycoon believed that growing inequality was the inescapable price of the wealth-creation that made social progress possible. To prevent this inequality undoing the “ties of brotherhood” that “bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship”, he argued that the wealthy had a duty to devote their fortunes to philanthropy. Not to do so was the worst sort of personal failure: “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.”

As a result, a far higher proportion of hospitals, libraries, universities and welfare services in America is funded by private donations than in other rich countries, where governments are spending proportionately more yet are still struggling to meet growing public expectations. Still, the differences can be exaggerated. America's basic health research is largely funded by the government, whereas in Britain much of it is paid for by the Wellcome Trust, a charitable foundation based in London, albeit set up by an American.

Britain's government has recently been trying to foster the philanthropic spirit, and other European countries are starting to follow suit. Even in China, the government seems keen to build up a non-profit sector that caters to social needs, and appears to be relaxing some of its rules to allow philanthropy to play a bigger role. The exception is Russia, where President Vladimir Putin, averse to concentrations of power outside his government, has cracked down on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and their backers. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former boss of Yukos, a big oil company, was reportedly Russia's leading philanthropist before he was jailed after a show trial.

But just as the world's wealthy and powerful are discovering the joys of giving, students of the American model of philanthropy are becoming increasingly critical of its flaws. This is not just a private concern for the donors: because of America's huge tax breaks for charitable donations, it is a matter for public scrutiny too. The cover story of a recent issue of Stanford University's Social Innovation Review is entitled “A Failure of Philanthropy”. It argues that those American tax breaks are of most benefit to things like elite schools, concert halls and religious groups. “We should stop kidding ourselves that charity and philanthropy do much to help the poor,” says the author, Rob Reich.

A series of scandals at charitable foundations—mostly over excessive pay, jobs for family members and other extravagances—has attracted the ire of Congress, which is threatening tough new legislation. State attorneys-general are taking a greater interest, too.

Mainstream charities that rely largely on donations from the general public have also come under fire. The American Red Cross was exposed for diverting money raised for the families of victims of the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks to other purposes. And after the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, two fund-raising former presidents, Bill Clinton and George Bush senior, found themselves having to reassure the public that they would monitor how the money was used.

One of the many things exposed by the collapse of Enron was that corporate philanthropy is often pretty sleazy too. A firm's executives can ingratiate themselves with business partners, and even with their own board members, by supporting their pet causes with funds from the company's charitable foundation, without breaking the law.

Wasting a fortune
But the problem lies far deeper. “Foundation scandals tend to be about pay and perks, but the real scandal is how much money is pissed away on activities that have no impact. Billions are wasted on ineffective philanthropy,” says Michael Porter, a management guru at the Harvard Business School. “Philanthropy is decades behind business in applying rigorous thinking to the use of money.” Mr Porter believes that the world of giving can be transformed by learning from the world of business. Many of the leaders of the new generation of philanthropists agree with him, so “there is a big opportunity over the next 20 years to figure out how to make philanthropy effective.”

Many of the new philanthropists are well aware that traditional philanthropy is not sufficiently businesslike. They want to bring about a productivity revolution in the industry by applying the best elements of the for-profit business world they know. That has prompted the industry to adopt (and adapt) some of the jargon familiar from the world of business. Philanthropists now talk about “social investing”, “venture philanthropy”, “social entrepreneurship” and the “triple bottom line”. The new approach to philanthropy is “strategic”, “market-conscious”, “knowledge-based” and often “high-engagement”, and always involves maximising the “leverage” of the donor's money.

Leverage is particularly important to the new philanthropists. They know that however large their personal fortunes, they are dwarfed by the financial resources at the disposal of governments and in the for-profit marketplace. So to make a real difference, they need to concentrate their resources on problems that are not being dealt with by governments or for-profit organisations. Being constrained by neither voters nor shareholders, they can take risks to find pioneering new solutions that can then be adopted on a larger scale by governments or for-profit firms.

But not everyone is convinced that philanthropists must become more business-minded. “We must reject the idea—well-intentioned, but dead wrong—that the primary path to greatness in the social sectors is to become ‘more like a business’,” wrote Jim Collins, a bestselling management author, in a recent monograph, “Good to Great and the Social Sectors”. His reason is disarmingly simple: “Most businesses are mediocre.”

Still, even Mr Collins agrees that the way in which money passes from philanthropists to the organisations that put it to work leaves much to be desired. Here there is some reason for hope. In recent years, a host of new firms and institutions have been created that, with luck and good management, will provide the infrastructure and intermediaries of a philanthropic capital market, an efficient way for philanthropists to get their money to those “social entrepreneurs” and others who need it. These newcomers include management consultants, research firms and a philanthropic investment bank of sorts.

Plenty can still go wrong. There is no market discipline to force philanthropists to adopt innovations, however desirable. And the new philanthropists, along with the innovators who are trying to help them become more efficient, may find the going harder than expected. “The new rich have often made their money very fast, and get intoxicated with their own brilliance into thinking they can quickly achieve results in the non-profit sector. They forget that their success may have been due to luck, and that the non-profit sector may be far more complex than where they have come from,” says Mario Morino of Venture Philanthropy Partners, one of America's leading venture philanthropists.

One obvious risk is of a political reaction against the philanthropic rich. The new philanthropists are not just into spending money. According to Greg Dees of Duke University, today's philanthropy is best defined as “mobilising and deploying private resources, including money, time, social capital and expertise, to improve the world in which we live.”

Peggy Rockefeller Dulany, who runs the Global Philanthropists Circle, makes a similar point. “With wealth comes education, decision-making power, links to elites in other countries and enormous convening power,” she says. “We are helping philanthropists to make use of all these advantages. It is using money and connections—whether personal, family or business—to create public benefit.”

A global elite, seeking to change the world by combining lots of money with new ideas, cutting-edge business techniques, media and marketing savvy, the mobilisation of citizens and helpful political connections: all this is bound to set alarm bells ringing in some quarters even as it spreads hope in others. Already George Soros, a famous hedge-fund philanthropist, has become embroiled in controversy over the role of some of the organisations he funds in various former communist countries as well as in America itself. And last year Bob Geldof, Bono's philanthropist partner in rock activism, provoked demonstrations in Uganda when he suggested that the country's president should not stand for re-election. Philanthropy seems sure to become an increasingly hot political potato.

但使用的词大家几乎都认识

克服恐惧之旅
2006年2月23日 星期四
A course in conquering your fear

当某件事快完成时，我往往会暂停下来，从我的行动中找寻意义。这常常意味着质问我的动机、评估是否达到目标，甚或事后做自我批评。
When I reach the end of something, I tend to pause and look for meaning in my actions. Often this means questioning my motivation, evaluating goals reached or even second-guessing myself.

随着在澳大利亚管理学院(Australian Graduate School of Management)的第四个学期过去，我不断地给我在悉尼生活的不同篇章划上句号。的确，至少还有一个学期的课要上，但核心课程都已结束，我的许多同窗踏上了交流之旅，现在是时候结束最后一门选修课去找工作了。
As term four at the Australian Graduate School of Management passed I kept closing different chapters of my life in Sydney. True, there is still at least one term to look forward to but the core classes are finished, many of my peers are on exchange trips and now it is time to wrap up with the last of our electives and look for jobs.

所有这些收尾工作——以及我在澳大利亚的可怕时光不可避免地终结，致使我分析了自己的MBA经历，并给了我最终的答案：我念MBA的真实动机其实是恐惧。不过幸好，课程的主要副产品是克服我的恐惧。
All that closure – and the inevitable end to my awesome time in Australia – has led me to analyse my MBA experience and has given me the ultimate answer: it turns out that the true motivator behind my MBA was fear. Better yet, the main by- product of the programme was conquering my fears.

大多数学院会问申请人为什么想读MBA。许多人会给出职业改变、个人发展或许多其它常见回答来获得入学许可。
Most schools ask their applicants why they wish to do an MBA. Many cite career change, personal development or a number of other stock responses to gain admission.

我也不例外。但一年后，我可以承认，虽然上述所有理由都没错，但恐惧才是潜在的动力。我敢说不光是我一个，其他一些人也会有类似体会。
I am no exception. But a year later I can admit that while all the above reasons were true, fear was the underlying force. I dare say that I am not alone and there are others who experienced a similar situation.

在就读MBA前，我颇自信。但雇主纷至沓来敲我门的景象并没有出现，我变得不那么自信了，并且意识到我需要更多地推销自己。
Before my MBA I was confident in my own skin. But when employers did not storm through my door, I became unsure of myself and realised that I needed to market myself more.

我当时以为，我只是在专业方面还不够好，必须想办法提高我的学历。许多个人危机造成了我脆弱的心理状态。我周围的世界似乎就要崩溃，我丧失了信心，我在寻找解决办法。
I thought I simply was not good enough professionally and had to do something to improve my qualifications. Contributing to my fragile state of mind was a slew of personal crises. My world seemed to be crumbling around me; my confidence lost, I sought a solution.

澳大利亚和澳大利亚管理学院符合我受恐惧驱使的标准。优秀的学校、遥远的国度、众多与美国人截然不同的新鲜人物——太好了。此外，获得扶轮国际(Rotary International)的海外学习奖学金，并被顶级MBA课程录取，马上提高了我的自信心，也是我消除恐惧战斗的有效开端。
Australia and AGSM matched my fear-driven criteria. Great school, far-away country, many new people dramatically different from Americans – perfect. More-over, receiving a Rotary International scholarship for oversees(overseas?) studies and being accepted by a top-rated MBA programme was an instant ego boost and an effective kick-start to my fear- banishing campaign.

在悉尼的这12个月与我此前的预期大相径庭。我克服的恐惧比我想承认的还要多。澳大利亚管理学院创造了支持学员的舒适环境，让我可以尝试那些我不太适应的事物。
The past 12 months in Sydney have been unlike anything I expected. I conquered more fears than I care to admit. AGSM created a comfortable, supportive environment to allow me to try those things I was not comfortable with.

过去，“财务(finance)”这个词总让我害怕。一年后，财务报表再也不是一门外语(致我的教授：我没说我熟练！只是能用了……)。
The word “finance” used to terrify me. A year later, financial statements are no longer a foreign language (note to my professors: I did not say I was fluent! I’m just conversational . . . ).

我学政治学出身，MBA的大部分概念对我都是新的、可怕而让人畏惧的。核心课程是我商业教育的良好开端，而我完成的选修课确实让我对一系列学科应对自如了。战略人力资源揭示了许多问题，比如工作场所的强迫排名或反向歧视，顾客分析则帮助我理解了营销背后的科学与心理学的奥妙之处。谈判与策略或许是我最中意的选修课，因为它让我体会了诸多不同情况，让我尝试了在“真实世界”不会冒险试验的各种谈判策略。它也让我更为自信，对其他人的动机有了更现实的看法。
Coming from a political science background, I found most of the concepts in the MBA new, scary and intimidating. The core was a good start to my business education, but the electives I completed really made me comfortable with a range of subjects. Strategic human resources brought to light many issues such as forced ranking or reverse discrimination in the workplace, while customer analysis helped me understand the intricacies of the science and psychology behind marketing. Negotiations and strategy was probably my favourite elective as it let me put myself in many different shoes and try out negotiation tactics I would not risk testing in the “real world”. It also made me more confident and more realistic about others’ motivations.

尽管我有与小企业打交道的经验，但独立创业的想法仍然是最让人恐惧的一件事。我在课程中学到的理论知识很有用，但实践经验才是克服这种恐惧的关键。作为创业课程的部分内容，我与一个团队合作，为一种可能具有划时代意义的抗癌药撰写商业计划。在一整年里，我目睹了我的同学对创意的不断发展，也明白了如何依靠策划与强有力的团队实现这些创意。
Although I have experience with small business, one of the scariest things is still the notion of starting something on my own. The theoretical knowledge I gained through my courses was helpful, but practical experience was key in conquering this fear. As part of my entrepreneurship class I worked with a team to create a business plan for a potentially revolutionary cancer drug. And, throughout the year I watched my classmates develop ideas and saw how, with planning and a strong team, these things can be accomplished.

我恐惧的另一件事情是让别人失望。但作为班里的活动协调员，我策划了几十项活动，包括我们的班级舞会和许多派对。每次结果都非常棒，再也没有比“赢得一个又一个成功”更有价值的事情了。在澳大利亚管理学院创造的环境中克服这些恐惧，导致了个人的转变，而且我感觉自己为日后生活中的挑战做好了准备。
Another of my fears was that of letting someone down. But, as my class’s events co-ordinator, I planned dozens of events, including our class ball and many parties. Each time the results were great and there is nothing more rewarding than pulling off one success after another. Conquering these fears through the environment at AGSM has led to a personal transformation and I feel ready for what life throws at me next.

由于生活在澳大利亚的缘故，我更悠然自得了，少了点物质唯上，更加珍惜已经拥有的一切。澳大利亚人全身心地投入生活，似乎每个人都知道，什么对他们而言是重要的。我意识到，我应该使用澳大利亚人“别担心” （no worries）这一信条，让每天都过得不留遗憾。
As a result of living “Down Under” I am more laid back, less materialistic and I appreciate far more everything I already have. Australians live life to the full and seem conscious of what is important to them individually. I have learnt I should apply the Australian “no worries” mantra and live each day without regret.

在澳大利亚管理学院读书是我职业生涯中一笔很好的投资，而在悉尼生活则是我生活中一次不错的投资。
Being at AGSM was a good investment in my career; being in Sydney was a good investment in my life.


我认为，攻读MBA迫使你走出安逸的环境。你被这么多新的信息狂轰滥炸，迫使自己拓展思维能力。MBA能让你成为自信的领导——不管你喜不喜欢。MBA让你克服恐惧。
I think that studying for an MBA forces you outside your comfort zone. You are bombarded by so much new information that you are compelled to expand your thinking capacity. The MBA makes a confident leader out of you – whether you like it or not. The MBA makes you conquer your fears.

我还要在澳大利亚管理学院念一个学期。尽管一些学生敲定工作已有几个月了，但我们这些更加以市场营销为导向的学生才刚开始找工作。由于有几个工作面试在等着我，澳大利亚的夏天也让人相当分心，所以我很难把注意力集中在剩下的选修课上。课程还没结束，但我觉得我已经取得了许多成就，我的投资已物有所值了。
I have one term remaining at AGSM. Although some students have had their jobs secure for months now, those of us who are more marketing-oriented are just starting the process of seeking employment. With several job interviews lined up and the Australian summer a significant distraction, it is hard to focus on my remaining electives. The course is not over, but I feel I have accomplished so much that my investment has already been worthwhile.

入学新生正在涌入教学楼，他们在把澳大利亚管理学院变成自己的学院。许多人已经为课业负荷感到灰心，而且想知道他们是否具备成功的必要条件。这一过程再次重复。
The new first year students are now flooding the building and making AGSM their own. Many are already frustrated with the workload and are wondering if they have what it takes. The process repeats itself once more.

我希望他们认识到，有机会经历这种转变是多么幸运。
I hope they realise just how lucky they are to have the opportunity to go through this transformation.

这样学英语早晚要晕死的，我看还是新概念实用啊

顶

好好好~学习一下  都快不会了

blue movie 黄片

我们这儿的人都觉得他有婚外恋。
      [误] Pepple around here all feel that he has affairs outside his own
      marriage.
      [正] Pepple around here all feel that he is leading a double life.
      注：affair 本身就指“私通”或“暧昧关系”，当然是“婚外”的事，所以 outside one\'s own marriage
      无疑是多此一举了。英语中“有婚外恋”的地道说法应该是 lead a double life。

我没料到这个无耻的女人居然同她好友的丈夫调情。
      [误] I had not expected that this shameful woman should flirt with her best
      friend\'s husband.
      [正] I had not expected that this shameless woman should flirt with her
      best friend\'s husband.
      注：shameful 通常指某事物是“可耻的，丢脸的”，而 shameless 表示 having or showing no feeling of
      shame; immodest or impudent,它一般用来指人“不知羞耻的，不要脸的”或“伤风败俗的”。原文也可译为：It\'s
      shameful that the woman should flirt with her best friend\'s husband.

给这们女士来杯威士忌，记在我的账上。
      [误] Whisky for this lady, and put it on my bill.
      [正] Whisky for this lady, and put it on my tab.
      注： 我们可以说 Could we have the bill, please? （请给我们账单好吗？）或 pay the
      bill（埋单），但“记在某某的账上”却不用 bill，而要用 put...on one\'s tab 表示。tab
      是“小纸片”的意思，因为过去小店的生意都是靠住在附近的老主顾，赊账时有发生，于是老板们通常把每个人的赊账情况记在各自的小纸片上，也就是
      put...on one\'s tab，以防遗忘。渐渐地，该词组就成了一种习惯用法。

亚洲四小龙。
      [误] the Four Little Dragons of Asia
      [正] the Four Little Tigers of Asia
      注：
      在我国古代传说中，龙是降雨和惩治妖魔鬼怪的神奇动物，是吉祥和力挽狂澜的象征。很多汉语成语与“龙”有关，如“龙飞凤舞”、“龙凤呈祥”、“藏龙卧虎”等，而且多为褒义词。但如果把“四小龙”直译成英文却不行，因为西方人对“龙”的联想和看法与中国人完全不同。“龙”（dragon)在西方是贬义词，是邪恶的免征，西方人不会理解为什么要把亚洲经济的四个强国说成“四个小魔鬼”，所以要用
      tiger 进行替换。在西方人眼里，tiger “是朝气蓬勃、坚忍不拔、努力奋斗、充满希望”的免征，所以用 tiger 才能准确表达原文的意思。

不错不错，努力更上节奏，今天看了第一张，go to sleep now,bye!

难的还有如此上进的男人。坚持跟橙子一起学英语。橙子继续呀！

8错，支持

是得好好学英语了，一起看

谢谢你，橙子！
只是我每天都没时间看，已经积攒了好多。唉

橙子
小橙子
老橙子
我爱吃橙子

英语真的好难学啊，我在跟外教学！他总说我的思维不能跟着国际走！