感觉自己应该是可以在45分钟写出来550以上的东西了，有点宽慰。能这样已经可以满足了，写得烂不烂已经是另一回事了。只要不碰上特别变态的题目。

36"The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries."

 

I agree with the speaker in some respect that some figures' greatness can be decided only by those who live after them for the reason that a great figures with eminent talent and thinking are usually out of step of their time and their society. But the assertion that no individuals' greatness can be decided by their contemporaries remains unconvincing considering the history and contemporary experience that there always are a lot of great men getting recognition and reverence during their lifetime. Also, we should not overlook another fact that some great men who were considered as great gradually be forgotten through the time and can not earn the same fame by those live after them as that by their contemporaries.

 Firstly, we should keep in mind the fact that the great figures especially the ones who have distinct thoughts in the field of philosophy or inspiration in art often go ahead of their time and their society. Van Gogh, who lived a depressive live and only sold one of his works in a low price when he was alive but earn a big reputation after his death, is a good example to illustrate this issue. His contemporaries did not realize his genius in painting and hardly anyone wanted to buy his works, but those who live after him considered him as one of the greatest artists who has created the impressionism in painting and his sun flower has broken all records in selling for an extraordinary price of fifty million. In addition to those owning a unique talent in arts, some individuals who found the truth before most human-beings hardly established fame for his discoveries, instead, even sometimes they would be sentenced to death by those contemporaries who denied the truth on purpose. Bruno, who developed and spread the Copernicus’ theory that the earth revolves around the sun and was burnt at a stake by Roman inquisition.

 The other respect of this issue is there are also some eminent ones can get recognition and appreciation by their contemporaries. If it is not the case, then we would live in a world without famous ones living around us and the absence of idol and authorities would harm the development of society. In the contemporary world, Hawking is appreciated by most of people even rarely an individual could understand his theory thoroughly. Even the ordinary people can not get the essence of his thought, it does not impede the reverence of the greatest scientist since Einstein.

 On the other hand, we should keep in mind the fact that there are some splendid individuals who earned a reputation during their lifetime have generally been eliminated through time passing by. It does not necessarily mean that their values have diminished and their achievements have no benefit to the modern people. It is in fact the high-pace modern society ignores its great ancestors who can teach a lot of experience and wits to the contemporaries. Confucius, who created a new age by his wits and had a persistent influence on the ancient Chinese are not paid the same emphasis as before. Most of modern people do not have time to learn what the greatest thinker said thousands of years ago even his thoughts actually can server to help some social problems.

 In sum, whether a individual's greatness can be decided by his/her contemporaries depends on the concrete circumstance. Some one who's wit is superior to his/her time might gain the reputation after death, but there are also a lot of eminent ones would be respected by the contemporaries for the achievement gotten in his/her lifetime. On the other hand, we should not overlook some individuals valuable for us but have already been forgotten. Such people also deserve a reputation and enough emphasis.  (45min 596)

130. "How children are socialized today determines the destiny of society. Unfortunately, we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society."

 
It is true that children determine the future destiny of society and the society should educate children to prepare well for their responsibility. But the speaker unfairly asserts that how children are socialized determine the destiny of society and we have not learnt how to raise children who can help bring about a better society. Consider the children's contribution to the society can be realized by more than one ways and countless children have already be brought about to devote themselves to the well-operation of the society, the speaker's conclusion has flaws in some respects.

 I concede that a socialized child good at communication and cooperation do have several advantages in influencing the society. When such a child grow up, he/she might fit to take the position of politician whose policy would have impacts on every individual's everyday life and the whole society. Such an impact not only can be positive but also negative, just like the different methods Roosevelt and Hitler took in the Great Depression to deliver the nation from suffering. It is their high socialization that resulted in their infectivity and earned them that position to determine the varied destinies of their countries. In view of contemporary society where many tasks can only be accomplished by the cooperation among individuals and even countries, a group spirit which requires one to be well socialized to attain is more important for careers interacting with the development of society. Without a sense of socialization, the world would be separated and powers from diversity persons have no way to be gathered to make efforts for a common goal.

 On the other hand, however, it is premature to judge that only ones who are well socialized have the capacity to influent the society when given the fact that some eminent scientists or artists who are lack of skills of communication but focus themselves on academic or artistic explorations finally turned to achieve goals to give something valuable to the society. Van Gogh, who could not be understood by his coevals/contemporaries not to mention to communicate with them, turned out to have reached a high level in painting. China's famous writer Lu Xun has ever said: I am not a genius but just use the time others spent in tea time for work. We can not expect someone who takes all day long to chat and have coffee with others can concentrate in endeavor and make great achievement. Time is finite and the process of socialization actually carries an opportunity cost in terms of how the result will be when one seizes every minute to work for his/her most important career.

 Turning to the second assertion the speaker makes that we have not yet learnt how to raise children who can help bring about a better society, it is hardly to agree with unless no child educated has given the society something precise.  Admittedly, there is not a programmed way to instill children a sense of responsibility and ensure everyone receive such education will definitely contribute to bring about a better society. Growing is actually a positive rather than a passively process in which children can choose what to accept or not. The adults' role in telling kids right from wrong and what should be done is limited when a child refused to digest the experience learnt from parents or teachers. We can hardly discover a method effective for diverse kids with varied characteristics and thus we can only assure that the ways in which children are raised involves the correct systems of value and viewpoints of the world.

 In sum，children can determine the destiny of society by various means instead of just socialization. Learning this fact helps us to establish confidence that we have the ability to raise children who can make efforts to improve our society.（60min, 634）

最悲哀的，是自己明明在意，却连自己也无法相信自己的真诚。
讨厌后悔，却在这些日子里终于无法抗拒自己的悔过。
如果重新来过，我不会这样选择。
我不会选择这样荒废而龌龊地留下青春的印记。
再没有明天。

17"There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."

I agree with the speaker's assertion that laws can be divided into two types as just ones and unjust ones. But the speaker overlooks the standard, generally varying from person to person, by which laws are parted can hardly be considered just. In today's democratic society, the laws, which is based on the government's wills in order to ensure the society's well-operation by restriction of people's behaviors, cannot meet every need of each individual whose interests might conflict with others’. If anyone who feel uncomfortable with these restriction defines the law unjust and starts resisting it even by violence, the society is tend to be left noting but chaos. On the other hand, considering the persistent development of society, however, if a system of laws reveals its flaws and disadvantages along with the time going through, it is fair and necessary to make some modification, at best in some moderate ways.  (27min)

In the very notion of laws which made by the government lies my first point of contention with the speaker. In the democratic society, where the governing class is to protect its citizens, the system of laws is established to make sure every citizen has equal rights to do what he/she wants in case of harming no others' legitimate advantages. A driver troubling in finding a parking lot may consider the parking restriction unfair for him and park him car in the centre of the road where he fell convenient without caring about the traffic jam his car caused; an impatient parent who angry with his naughty boy may feel the minor protected laws unjust for him and claim he has the right to strike his own child to force him to be obedient without considering the child's own independence personality. Such individuals should be punished by laws no matter how reasonable their excuses seem to be because their resistant which they feel just damaged the legitimate rights of others which protected by laws and no one has the authority to sacrifice others to satisfy their own convenience.  (54min)

Also, when one disobeys and resists laws, it actually harms himself/herself given the fact mentioned above that everyone is equal in face of laws. Admittedly, in some developing countries where the system of laws has not been well built, there are some unjust laws which overlooks the majority's should-be legitimate rights. Take one of China's restrictions called household registration system, which actually almost limits a peasant in his farm for the whole life, for example, even though the citizens should have the right the travel and settle freely in their own nation, this system restricts people's immigration especially from rural to urban because the quality of life in the latter is better than in the former and moving to urban means more and superior opportunities in education and career. Despite of this situation, it is ill-conceived that every individual should resist this law because the existent of every law has its own reason like cater to some groups interests and unless it is abolished, anyone who disobeys would be punished without undermining the law a little, especially considering that when one resist one unjust law, he/she might also break some just one. For instance, in order to immigration without a registered residence identification, one might have to bribe an official and even deny checking by violence. It does not necessarily mean, however, such kind of laws would persist but they would surly pass away along with the society's development.

To aptly illustrate this situation, the experience of America in the Civil War is an appropriate example. Why was the slavery abolished at that but not other time? Before the Civil War the keeping slavery is permitted by law in the south of America and we can imagine there might be someone ever resist this law but failed. That is because the society did not develop enough to abolish this regime until the time before the Civil War when the industrial factories in the north of America need labors which limited by the system of slavery. This dramatic transform can not be attributable to Lincoln who defied the former law but to Lincoln who followed the historical trend. In fact, society transformation does not necessarily take place by revolution, a moderate reform like Glorious Revolution in England can also be effective and efficient, but hardly can be realized by individual when the time is immature.

In sum, one should obey laws in a democratic society however uncomfortable it brings and even in face of some unjust laws in a country with no perfect system of laws, it is wise to wait for the development of economy or society instead of one's own slight power to change them.. (105 min 817)

51"Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student."

I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that education should be designed specially to meet the  students' needs and interests instead of the attempting of implementing a certain kind of education methods to every individual without concerning the possible differences among them. But the speaker unfairly assumes that it is the only way to make education effective and each student's need and interest should be taken into account no matter how dramatically they differ from each other and whether each of them is worth concerning.

It is generally accepted that the exam is a efficient means by which the quality of education can be evaluated. Yet no one would deny that the exam, which has changed into the purpose of education, was originally designed as a method or a process of educating. It is especially evident in China where high schools put the marks their students getting in the National College Entrance Exam (NCEE) primarily and focus every business on increasing the number of students who finally succeed in entering colleges. Staring being educated in China is actually means starting the process of striving for entering college and every exam with a nice score during this long heading period is a milestone. For this reason, the curricula in schools sever to the purpose of doing well in exams rather than learning for knowledge and skills one might be useful for one's survive or development in the future. Whatever interest one might has--music, painting or literature, he/she has to learn the same subjects involved in the NCEE with every classmates nationwide. This kind of education do has some benefits in training a researcher devoted to science, especially in retrospect that how many gold medals Chinese students have won in international mathematics and physics Olympic Games, but it is ineffective when it come to the very notion and nature of education.

There are no two leaves could be exactly the same. Forcing different individuals varying in interests to share the same education is a regret. In the very notion of education, which includes the equal right of everyone to chase the useful information related to their own distinct interests and need, lies my point of view consistent with the speaker's. Consider the experience of Copernicus who was interested in astronomy and mathematics when majoring in theology and how long the exploration for the truth of solarism would be delayed if he was enforced to quit the field of his interests. No one can tell the exact number of individuals who ever had a willingness, which turns out to be impossible for the heavy assignment for better exam scores, of learning something besides the subjects taught in schools. In fact, educating groups of individuals by only one method is carrying an opportunity cost in terms of what a career one now being forced to focus on science might establish in the future in music or art. (60min)

On the other hand, however, it is also the fact that there are no two leaves could be exactly the same that contributes to the impossibility for educators to meet every need and interest when educating as a result of the finite resource and energy. Even the group sharing the same interest in music would differ in details--some might be fond of sonata while another would be crazy for aria. Unless hiring a tutor to teach one student according to his/her characteristic, the teachers in school hardly have the capacity to treat every student differently. Another reason why student's need can not be fully satisfied is that a growing child might has no idea about what is truly needed for himself/herself. For example, in the condition that someone who feels like reading and considers himself having talent in writing actually accomplish nothing in literary assignment but on the contrary in mathematics, it is the teacher's responsibility to encourage interest in mathematics domain for him. It is also possible that some children take sleeping or video games as their primary need which can be considered deserving satisfied by no one. In fact, one of the role of education is to tell right interests from the wrong ones.

In short, students interests and needs surely deserve concerning in education considering indiscriminative education system would harm the development of students. At the same time, it is the education's duty to establish the right and useful interests and needs for the growing children.(85min,723) 

前两天终于写了第一篇~~这两天持续郁闷,写不出来了.放上来一篇安慰自己,至少还写了一篇.
10 "Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated."


I agree with part of the speaker's assertion that governments should play some certain role in ensuring the cultural traditions are preserved and generated. However, it is not a necessary and proper duty of the governments to breed and boast the cultural traditions and might be unjustifiable to assume that the big cities are the distinct ground where the cultural traditions are preserved and generated.

 

It is generally accepted that cultural traditions are important for a country to display its nature and character and also have some benefits in providing jobs for groups and individuals who engaged in activities concerning cultural traditions. For example, celebrating Christmas is a cultural tradition in the USA and it tells foreigners the region tradition of American. Also, in China, eating moon cakes is a cultural tradition on the Mid-autumn day and it boast the industry of moon cake making as well as providing jobs for cake maker. For this sake, government should make some effort to preserve and generate the nation's cultural traditions in order to preserve the nature and character of the nation at the same time benefit the economical condition.

 

However, it is not a necessary role of government to support the cultural traditions financially to make them survive and thrive, firstly because it is ill-conceived to relegate the decision and choice of what kind of cultural traditions be supported--maybe primarily supported to handful of bureaucrats, whose notions might be easily influenced by the interests of their own state or group. Meanwhile, bureaucracy, who are usually short visional and overemphasize economical benefit might overlook the very notion of cultural traditions.

 

The other reason why preserving cultural traditions is not a necessary role of government is that nowadays the private foundations and charities, which primarily have the responsibility, are well operated. In the days of Renaissant, the medicis had supported Raphael and Michelangelo. During the twentieth century it is the private foundations established by magnates like Bill Gate and Rockfeller etc who support the art career which is a kind cultural tradition in the USA. The influence of such supports are more powerful, efficient, and direct than those from government and thus to some extent government should not intervene.

 

The third point of my contention with the speaker is that major cities are not necessarily the distinct breed ground where the cultural traditions survive and thrive. In fact, cultural traditions are primarily preserved in rural regions in many countries in terms of folk songs, crafts, traditional music and so forth. Given the trends of globalization nowadays, big cities are becoming the center of global cultures where various cultural traditions are met. Subsidizing the cities is actually subsidizing the world's variety of cultures instead of the nation's distinct cultural traditions.

 

 

In the final analysis, the cultural traditions of a country are so important that the government should have some strategies to ensure their survive and thrive, however, the private foundations and charities vital role in this process. On the other hand, in order to preserve the cultural traditions, it is not enough to subsidizing the big cities but more regions where cultural traditions are preserved and generated should be taken into account.(54min 492)

  正因为有这样绝望的悲哀，那点点滴滴的快乐，才会珍贵。 

  我提到过好几次了，那个叫粥粥的人的博客，还有他画的可爱死了的画子。并且直接导致我开始画画了。
  今天又去看他的画子，看到有一个新的东西。
  粥粥说，其实我一直很犹豫，要不要在博客上写这件事情，因为粥粥的笔记本上记录的基本上都是快乐的东西，但是如果没有痛苦，幸福又有什么价值呢。
 
  所以粥粥在他的博客上画了一个叫廖梦君的中学生的故事。那是一个不明不白死掉了并且其家人至今没有得到任何合理说法的中学生。
  还是丧钟为谁而鸣的那句话。
  粥粥说，请关注。请传播。请议论。为了梦君，也为了我们自己。

  偶觉得粥粥这样的男人真是不错。 
  所以偶无聊地说了这些。

http://pangtuzi.blogbus.com/index.html
10月24日

时评家童大焕网络评论文章：
■一个中学生的“自杀”为何如此讳莫如深