单选题
单选题
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.
As for the issues involved in the economy, Eliot Spitzer would be in favor of______.
A:"law enforcement" approach B:decisions open to question C:the hour code among CEOs D:board oversight and self-regulation
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.
A:"Law enforcement" approach. B:Decisions open to question. C:The honour code among CEOs. D:Board oversight and self-regulation.
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.
A:"law enforcement" approach B:decisions open to question C:the hour code among CEOs D:board oversight and self-regulation
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 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. |
A:"law enforcement" approach B:decisions open to question C:the hour code among CEOs D:board oversight and self-regulation
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.
A:"law enforcement" approach B:decisions open to question C:the hour code among CEOs D:board oversight and self-regulation
Text 4 On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution,the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states。 In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ”and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial . Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones。 Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held the congress had deliberately “occupied the field” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers。 However,the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement.That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues。 Two of the three objecting Justice-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute.The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia,who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the alien and Sedition Acts。 The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion assertion of federal executive power”.The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities,even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter.In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with 。 Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim。 On which of the following did the Justices agree,according to Paragraph4
A:Federal officers’ duty to withhold immigrants’information。 B:States’ independence from federal immigration law。 C:States’ legitimate role in immigration enforcement。 D:Congress’s intervention in immigration enforcement。
{{B}}第二篇{{/B}}
|
Valuing Childhood ? ?The value of childhood is easily hturred (变得模糊不清) in today’s world. Consider some recent developments: The child-murderers in the Jonesboro, Ark. ?schoolyard shooting case were convicted and sentenced. Two boys, 7 and 8, were charged in the murder of an 11-year-old girl in Chicago. ? ?Children who commit horrible crimes appear to act of their own will. Yet, as legal proceedings in Jonesboro showed, the one boy who was able to address the court couldn’t begin to explain his acts, though he tried to apologize. There may have been a motive-youthful jealousy(妒忌) and resentment. But a deeper question remains. Why did these boys and others in similar trouble apparently lack any inner, moral restraint? ? ?That question echoes for the accused in Chicago, young as they are. They wanted the girl’s bicycle, a selfish impulse common enough among kids. ? ?Redemption (拯救) is a practical necessity. How can value be restored to young lives distorted by acts of violence? The boys in Jonesboro and in Chicago will be confined in institutions for a relatively short time. Despite horror at what was done, children are not-cannot be-dealt with as adults, not if a people wants to consider itself civilized. ?That’s why politicians’ cries for adult treatment of youthful criminals ultimately miss the point. ? ?But the moral void(真空)that invites violence has many sources. Family instability con-tributes. So does economic stress. That void, however, can be filled. The work starts with parents, who have to ask themselves whether they’re doing enough to give their children a firm sense of right and wrong. Are they really monitoring their activities and their developing processes of thought? ? ?Schools, too, have a role in building character. So do youth organizations. So do law enforcement agencies, which can do more to inform the young about laws, their meaning, and their observance (遵守). ? ?The goal, ultimately, is to allow all children a normal passage from childhood to adulthood (成 年), so that tragic gaps in moral judgement are less likely to occur. The relative few who fill such gaps with acts of violence hint at many others who don’t go that far, but who lack the moral foundations childhood should provide-and which progressive human society relies on. |
A:Youth organizations play no role in building character. B:Schools should help create a moral sense in children. C:Law enforcement agencies should do more to help children understand laws. D:Parents should strengthen moral instruction.
{{B}}第二篇{{/B}}
| {{B}}? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ?Valuing Childhood{{/B}} ? ?The value of childhood is easily blurred (变得模糊不清) in today’s world. Consider some recent developments: The child-murderers in the Jonesboro, Ark. schoolyard shooting case were convicted and sentenced. Two boys, 7 and 8, were charged in the murder of an 11-yearold girl in Chicago. ? ?Children who commit horrible crimes appear to act of their own will. Yet, as legal proceedings in Jonesboro showed, the one boy who was able to address the court couldn’t begin to explain his acts, though he tried to apologize. There may have been a motive—youthful jealousy(妒忌) and resentment. But a deeper question remains: Why did these boys and others in similar trouble apparently lack any inner, moral restraint? ? ?That question echoes for the accused in Chicago, young as they are. They wanted the girl’s bicycle, a selfish impulse common enough among kids. ? ?Redemption (拯救) is a practical necessity. How can value be restored to young lives distorted by acts of violence? The boys in Jonesboro and in Chicago will be confined in institutions for a relatively short time. Despite horror at what was done, children are not—cannot be—dealt with as adults, not if a people wants to consider itself civilized. That’s why politicians’ cries for adult treatment of youthful criminals ultimately miss the point. ? ?But the moral void(真空)that invites violence has many sources. Family instability contributes. So does economic stress. That void, however, can be filled. The work starts with parents, who have to ask themselves whether they’re doing enough to give their children a firm sense of right and wrong. Are they really monitoring their activities and their developing processes of thought? ? ?Schools, too, have a role in building character. So do youth organizations. So do law enforcement agencies, which can do more to inform the young about laws, their meaning, and their observance (遵守). ? ?The goal, ultimately, is to allow all children a normal passage from childhood to adulthood (成年), so that tragic gaps in moral judgement are less likely to occur. The relative few who fill such gaps with acts of violence hint at many others who don’t go that far, but who lack the moral foundations childhood should provide — and which progressive human society relies on. |
A:Youth organizations play no role in building character. B:Schools should help create a moral sense in children. C:Law enforcement agencies should do more to help children understand laws. D:Parents should strengthen moral instruction.
{{B}}第二篇{{/B}}
| Valuing Childhood ? ?The value of childhood is easily blurred (变得模糊不清) in today’s world. Consider some recent developments: The child-murderers in the Jonesboro, Ark. ?schoolyard shooting case were convicted and sentenced. Two boys, 7 and 8, were charged in the murder of an 11 year old girl in Chicago. ? ?Children who commit horrible crimes appear to act of their own will. Yet, as legal proceedings in Jonesboro showed, the one boy who was able to address the court couldn’t begin to explain his acts, though he tried to apologize. There may have been a motive-youthful jealousy(妒忌) and resentment. But a deeper question remains:Why did these boys and others in similar trouble apparently lack any inner, moral restraint? ? ?That question echoes for the accused in Chicago, young as they are. They wanted the girl’s bicycle, a selfish impulse common enough among kids. ? ?Redemption (拯救) is a practical necessity. How can value be restored to young lives distorted by acts of violence? The boys in Jonesboro and in Chicago will be confined in institutions for a relatively short time. Despite horror at what was done, children are not-cannot be-dealt with as adults, not if a people wants to consider itself civilized. ?That’s why politicians’ cries for adult treatment of youthful criminals ultimately miss the point. ? ?But the moral void(真空)that invites violence has many sources. Family instability contributes. So does economic stress. That void, however, can be filled. The work starts with parents, who have to ask themselves whether they’re doing enough to give their children a firm sense of right and wrong. Are they really monitoring their activities and their developing processes of thought? ? ?Schools, too, have a role in building character. So do youth organizations. So do law enforcement agencies, which can do more to inform the young about laws, their meaning, and their observance (遵守). ? ?The goal, ultimately, is to allow all children a normal passage from childhood to adulthood (成年), so that tragic gaps in moral judgement are less likely to occur. The relative few who fill such gaps with acts of violence hint at many others who don’t go that far, but who lack the moral foundations childhood should provide-and which progressive human society relies on. |
A:Youth organizations play no role in building character. B:Schools should help create a moral sense in children. C:Law enforcement agencies should do more to help children understand laws. D:Parents should strengthen moral instruction.
