Mixed potential

It has been a wretched few weeks for America’s. celebrity bosses. AIG’s Maurice Greenberg has been dramatically ousted from the firm through which he dominated global insurance for decades. At Morgan Stanley a mutiny is forcing Philip Purcell, a boss used to getting his own way, into an increasingly desperate campaign to save his skin. At Boeing, Harry Stonecipher was called out of retirement to lead the scandal-hit firm and raise ethical standards, only to commit a lapse of his own, being sacked for sending e-mails to a lover who was also an employee. Carly Fiorina was the most powerful woman in corporate America until a few weeks ago, when Hewlett-Packard (HP) sacked her for poor performance. The fate of Bernie Ebbers is much grimmer. The once high-profile boss of WorldCom could well spend the rest of his life behind bars following his conviction last month on fraud charges.
In different ways, each of these examples appears to point to the same welcome conclusion: that the imbalance in corporate power of the late 1990s, when many bosses were allowed to behave like absolute monarchs, has been corrected. Alas, appearances can be deceptive. While each of these recent tales of chief-executive woo is a sis of progress, none provides much evidence that the crisis in American corporate governance is yet over. In fact, each of these cases is an example of failed, not successful, governance.
At the very least, the beards of both Morgan Stanley and HP were far too slow to address their bosses’ inadequacies. The record of the Boeing beard in picking chiefs prone to ethical lapses is too long to be dismissed as mere bad luck. The fall of Messrs Greenberg and Ebbers, meanwhile, highlights the growing role of government-and in particular, of criminal prosecutors in holding bosses to account: a development that is, at best, a mixed blessing. The Sarbanes-Oxley act, passed in haste following the Enron and WorldCom scandals, is imposing heavy costs on American companies; whether these are exceeded by any benefits is the subject of fierce debate and may not be known for years.
Eliot Spitzer, New York’s attorney-general, is the leading advocate and practitioner of an energetic "law enforcement" approach. He may be right that the recent burst of punitive actions has been good for the economy, even if some of his own decisions have been open to question. Where he is undoubtedly right is in arguing that corporate America has done a lamentable job of governing itself. As he says in an article in the Wall Street Journal this week: "The hour cede among CEOs didn’t work. Board oversight didn’t work. Ser-regulation was a complete failure." AIG’s board, for example, did nothing about Mr Greenberg’s use of murky accounting, or the conflicts posed by his use of offshore vehicles, or his constant bullying of his critics let alone the firm’s alleged participation in bid-rigging--until Mr Spitzer threatened a criminal prosecution that might have destroyed the firm.
What does the author mean by "a mixed blessing" (Line 6, Par

A:A．3) All kinds of good things. Something mixed with confusion. Something both good and bad. Something mixed with optimistic and pessimistic results.

Text 4
It has been a wretched few weeks for America’s celebrity bosses. AIG’s Maurice Greenberg has been dramatically ousted from the firm through which he dominated global insurance for decades. At Morgan Stanley a mutiny is forcing Philip Purcell, a boss used to getting his own way, into an increasingly desperate campaign to save his skin. At Boeing, Harry Stonecipher was called out of retirement to lead the scandal-hit firm and raise ethical standards, only to commit a lapse of his own, being sacked for sending e-mails to a lover who was also an employee. Carly Fiorina was the most powerful woman in corporate America until a few weeks ago, when Hewlett-Packard (HP) sacked her for poor performance. The fate of Bernie Ebbers is much grimmer. The once high-profile boss of WorldCom could well spend the rest of his life behind bars following his conviction last month on fraud charges.
In different ways, each of these examples appears to point to the same, welcome conclusion: that the imbalance in corporate power of the late 1990s, when many bosses were allowed to behave like absolute monarchs, has been corrected. Alas, appearances can be deceptive. While each of these recent tales of chief-executive woe is a sign of progress, none provides much evidence that the crisis in American corporate governance is yet over. In fact, each of these cases is an example of failed, not successful, governance.
At the very least, the boards of both Morgan Stanley and HP were far too slow to address their bosses’ inadequacies. The record of the Boeing board in picking chiefs prone to ethical lapses is too long to be dismissed as mere bad luck. The fall of Messrs Greenberg and Ebbers, meanwhile, highlights the growing role of government--and, in particular, of criminal prosecutors in holding bosses to account: a development that is, at best, a mixed blessing. The Sarbanes-Oxley act, passed in haste following the Enron and WorldCom scandals, is imposing heavy costs on American companies; whether these are exceeded by any benefits is the subject of fierce debate and may not be known for years.
Eliot Spitzer, New York’s attorney-general, is the leading advocate and practitioner of an energetic "law enforcement" approach. He may be right that the recent burst of punitive actions has been good for the economy, even if some of his own decisions have been open to question. Where he is undoubtedly right is in arguing that corporate America has done a lamentable job of governing itself. As he says in an article in the Wall Street Journal this week, "The honour code among CEOs didn’t work. Board oversight didn’t work. Self-regulation was a complete failure." AIG’s board, for example, did nothing about Mr. Greenberg’s use of murky accounting, or the conflicts posed by his use of offshore vehicles, or his constant bullying of his critics let alone the firm’s alleged participation in bid rigging--until Mr. Spitzer threatened a criminal prosecution that might have destroyed the firm.

What does the phrase "a mixed blessing" (Line 6, Paragraph 3) mean（）

A:All kinds of good things. B:Something mixed with confusions. C:Something both good and bad. D:Something mixed with optimistic and pessimistic results.

单项选择：
Text 4 The world is undergoing tremendous changes. The rise of globalization, both an economic and cultural trend that has swept throughout the world, has forged new ground as we enter the 21st century. But are the effects of globalization always positive Some say no. Michael Tenet, head of the International Institute for Foreign Relations in Atlanta, is worried about current resentment throughout the world toward the rise of globalization. "Ever since the 1980s and the economic collapse of the Asian Tigers in the late 1990s, there has been a re-evaluation of the role of globalization as a force for good," he said. "Incomes in many countries has declined and the gap between the most rich and the most poor has been aggravated. Without further intervention by governments, we could see a tragedy expressed in an increased level of poverty throughout the Latin America and Asia." Yet George Frank, an influential economist who works on Wall Street, sees no such danger "Economic liberalization, increased transparency and market based reforms have positive effect in the long run, even if market mechanisms can produce short-term destabilization problems," he said. "What is most important is that barriers to trade continue to fall so that active competition for consumer goods reduces prices and in turn raises the average level of income." Others feel that globalization's cultural impact may be more important than its economic implications. Janice Yawee, a native of Africa, feels strongly that globalization is undermining her local culture and language. "Most of the world's dialects will become extinct under globalization. We're paving the world with McDonald's and English slang. It tears me up inside," she said. Governments of different countries have had mixed responses to the wave of globalization. The United States is generally seen as an active proponent of greater free trade, and it certainly has enormous cultural influence by virtue of its near monopoly on worldwide entertainment. But other countries, most notably in Europe and developing nations, have sought to reduce the impact that globalization has on their domestic affairs. "When I was a boy we had very little to speak of," says one Singaporean resident. "Now our country has developed into a booming hub for international finance." Others, however, are not so optimistic. "Globalization is an evil force that must be halted," a union official at a car plant in Detroit recently commented, "It's sucking away jobs and killing the spirit of our country." Notes: slang 俚语。tear up撕碎，挖开。proponent支持者，拥护者。hub轮毂，中心。suck away减少。

According to paragraph 5, the responses of different countries to globalization may be looked on as（）

A:a mixed blessing. B:an active stimulus. C:an evil force. D:intervention in their domestic affairs.

What does the phrase "a mixed blessing" (Line 6, Paragraph 3) mean

A:All kinds of good things. B:Something mixed with confusions. C:Something both good and bad. D:Something mixed with optimistic and pessimistic results.

Text 4

What does the author mean by "a mixed blessing" (Line 6, Para. 3)

A:All kinds of good things. B:Something mixed with confusion. C:Something both good and bad. D:Something mixed with optimistic and pessimistic results.

Mixed thrombus

It has been a wretched few weeks for America’s. celebrity bosses. AIG’s Maurice Greenberg has been dramatically ousted from the firm through which he dominated global insurance for decades. At Morgan Stanley a mutiny is forcing Philip Purcell, a boss used to getting his own way, into an increasingly desperate campaign to save his skin. At Boeing, Harry Stonecipher was called out of retirement to lead the scandal-hit firm and raise ethical standards, only to commit a lapse of his own, being sacked for sending e-mails to a lover who was also an employee. Carly Fiorina was the most powerful woman in corporate America until a few weeks ago, when Hewlett-Packard (HP) sacked her for poor performance. The fate of Bernie Ebbers is much grimmer. The once high-profile boss of WorldCom could well spend the rest of his life behind bars following his conviction last month on fraud charges.
In different ways, each of these examples appears to point to the same welcome conclusion: that the imbalance in corporate power of the late 1990s, when many bosses were allowed to behave like absolute monarchs, has been corrected. Alas, appearances can be deceptive. While each of these recent tales of chief-executive woo is a sis of progress, none provides much evidence that the crisis in American corporate governance is yet over. In fact, each of these cases is an example of failed, not successful, governance.
At the very least, the beards of both Morgan Stanley and HP were far too slow to address their bosses’ inadequacies. The record of the Boeing beard in picking chiefs prone to ethical lapses is too long to be dismissed as mere bad luck. The fall of Messrs Greenberg and Ebbers, meanwhile, highlights the growing role of government-and in particular, of criminal prosecutors in holding bosses to account: a development that is, at best, a mixed blessing. The Sarbanes-Oxley act, passed in haste following the Enron and WorldCom scandals, is imposing heavy costs on American companies; whether these are exceeded by any benefits is the subject of fierce debate and may not be known for years.
Eliot Spitzer, New York’s attorney-general, is the leading advocate and practitioner of an energetic "law enforcement" approach. He may be right that the recent burst of punitive actions has been good for the economy, even if some of his own decisions have been open to question. Where he is undoubtedly right is in arguing that corporate America has done a lamentable job of governing itself. As he says in an article in the Wall Street Journal this week: "The hour cede among CEOs didn’t work. Board oversight didn’t work. Ser-regulation was a complete failure." AIG’s board, for example, did nothing about Mr Greenberg’s use of murky accounting, or the conflicts posed by his use of offshore vehicles, or his constant bullying of his critics let alone the firm’s alleged participation in bid-rigging--until Mr Spitzer threatened a criminal prosecution that might have destroyed the firm.

What does the author mean by "a mixed blessing" (Line 6, Para. 3)（）

A:All kinds of good things B:Something mixed with confusion C:Something both good and bad D:Something mixed with optimistic and pessimistic results