您的当前位置：首页正文

报纸

来源：尚佳旅游分享网

BEIJING - The Ministry of Health on Saturday called on health authorities nationwide to step up supervision of the country's medical cosmetology industry following the death of two people during cosmetic procedures.

Related readings:

Moutai raises a glass to exports

Moutai chairman earns 20 times more than Wuliangye's Suspended death penalty for Moutai ex-boss upheld Moutai moves to double output

The quality of the Chishui River water was declining due to overuse of water, overexploitation of land and mineral resources, deforestation and soil erosion, said a statement from the legislature, the Guizhou Provincial People's Congress.

Lawmakers were also seeking to control pollutants discharged into the river and to gradually put in place water pollutant trading.

Zhou Zhongliang, secretary general of the Standing Committee of the Provincial People's Congress, said the regulation was vital in protecting the environment of the Chishui River and safeguard the production environment for leading liquor makers, particularly Kweichow Moutai.

China Kweichow Moutai Distillery Co, the producer of Kweichou Moutai, is an important taxpayer for the Guizhou provincial government, which has spent more than 3 billion yuan ($450 million) to protect the Chishui River.

Other measures the provincial government has taken to protect the environment in Moutai Town, Renhuai city, where the liquor producer is located, include the relocation of 15,000 residents and closure of 400 small liquor workshops.

Do Legacy Admissions Really Boost College Coffers?

New research shows that granting alumni offspring preferential treatment doesn‘t necessarily lead to more donations. And, the policy may also face legal challenges. (Page 1 of 3)

Minnesota Historical Society-Corbis Photos: 100 Years of Life on College Campuses

Homecoming Nostalgia: 100 years of life on college campuses George W. Bush had mediocre prep-school grades and middle-of-the road SAT scores for a student applying to Yale University. But thanks to his Ivy League lineage—both his father and grandfather went to Yale—an acceptance letter to the storied school was all but written in the cards. Today, three quarters of selective private and public universities give admission preferences to so-called legacies, kids who have a parent, grandparent, or sometimes even a sibling who graduated from the school. By granting blood relations a spot on the same campus, the reasoning goes, that family will feel a sense of loyalty and generosity (read: will write more checks.) And what institution doesn‘t want a quick and easy boost to fundraising efforts?

But new research finds this fundraising boon far from certain. Sure,

legacy preferences give well-connected students a leg up—they‘re two to three times more likely to gain admittance to an elite university than kids who apply with no family ties, say admissions offices like the one at Middlebury College—but the corollary idea that they also boost college coffers doesn‘t always follow. A study reported in a new book, Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions, finds no evidence that legacy preferences actually raise more money for schools. What‘s more, lawyers are increasingly questioning the legality of the practice altogether, especially when some state institutions have succeeded in banning affirmative action. ―It reinforces and duplicates class stratification,‖ says Steve Shadowen, a Pennsylvania lawyer who has written law-review articles on the topic and contributed a chapter to Affirmative Action for the Rich. Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, edited the book, which is a collaboration of essays from various experts including educators, lawyers, and a judge writing about legacy admissions. ―[Some state schools] have no affirmative action for minorities—but they have it for people with the right ancestry,‖ says Shadowen.

Priority Check

As recently as 2004, when evangelicals were credited with reelecting George W. Bush, sexual mores defined the culture wars. But as the economy has become the political priority for liberals and conservatives alike, traditional culture-war issues—abortion, gay marriage—have been blunted as weapons in the political theater. What motivates religious conservatives now, says Tony Campolo, who prayed with Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky affair, is a vision of America as God‘s own special country and a belief that free-market capitalism is crucial to its flourishing. ―The marriage between evangelicalism and patriotic nationalism is so strong,‖ says Campolo, ―that anybody who is raising questions about loyalty to the old laissez-faire capitalist system‖—by, say, supporting bailouts‖—―is unpatriotic, un-American, and, by association, non-Christian.‖

Even moderate conservatives agree that the old-guard religious right and their social priorities don‘t hold much sway in Washington, D.C. If the economy does not recover, ―social issues may not be ‗wedge‘ issues as in the past,‖ John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron, emails. ―However, patriotism could be a classic wedge issue in 2012, creating Republican votes among groups with liberal or moderate economic views.‖ Christian conservatives, of course, still care about

abortion. But in August, when the Barna Group asked evangelicals what their top concerns were (without prompting), 52 percent said the economy—almost the same percentage as the larger population. Only 1 percent said gay marriage; abortion didn‘t make the list.

Generally, evangelicals see themselves as a persecuted group whose values are under assault by the mainstream. The enemy is no longer moral relativism. It‘s a kind of ―global relativism‖ that makes no distinction between America and the rest of the world. Glenn Beck, for example, speaks frequently of God‘s special destiny for America. ―We used to strive in this country to be a shining city on the hill,‖ he said at his ―Restoring Honor‖ speech in August.

Beck, Sarah Palin, and others are tapping into a deep place in the American Protestant psyche. When Beck talks about a city on the hill, he‘s referring to a sermon by John Winthrop, the first governor of Massachusetts. Winthrop was referencing Jesus‘s Sermon on the Mount, and he was relating the settlers to God‘s chosen people. This sense of America‘s divine mission grew. In the mid–19th century, legions of Protestant missionaries fanned out across the globe. ―We wouldn‘t be in Afghanistan if it weren‘t for the missionaries,‖ says Grant Wacker, a

professor of Christian history at Duke Divinity School. If America is exceptional, the thinking goes, outside forces will conspire to undermine its exceptionalism. These foes—real, imagined—have included communism, Catholicism, secularism, and Mormonism. Mark Noll, a historian at Notre Dame, says the idea of core values under siege characterizes the discourse today. ―This aggrieved sense of a nation having been stolen is stronger now than it was [when FDR was elected] in 1940, and maybe stronger than it was [when JFK, a Catholic, was elected] in 1960.‖ Islam and big government are today‘s enemies at work against America.

The irony that Beck, a Mormon, would become a leader of the Christian right escapes no one. But his gift, and Palin‘s, is to articulate God‘s special plan for this country in such broad strokes that he tramples no creed or doctrine in moving millions with his message. Jerry Falwell had a similar gift. In 1980 the Moral Majority helped make Jimmy Carter a one-termer.

Lisa Miller is NEWSWEEK's religion editor and the author of Heaven: Our Enduring Fascination With the Afterlife. Become a fan of Lisa on Facebook.

Back in May I met the CEO of a major environmental group for coffee in Washington. This was a few weeks after BP's Deepwater Horizon rig had exploded but before the oil had really made landfall along the coast. The country's attention was focused on the spill, and anything seemed possible. No one knew exactly how much oil was leaking every day — the government said perhaps 5,000 barrels a day, but independent academics reported it could be far more. Models showed that currents might be able to take the oil slick east all the way around Florida, striking the Keys, Miami Beach and eventually much of the East Coast. And fishermen in Louisiana and hotels in Alabama and Mississippi were already panicking over a lost summer.

The environmental CEO was obviously worried about the impact of the spill on the people and the ecology of the Gulf Coast, and he was angry about the nonexistent government regulation that had failed to stop the accident. But he also saw an opportunity. The oil spill would show Americans — in sticky, visceral detail — the true costs of their energy policy. Just as earlier disasters like the 1969 Santa Barbara spill had mobilized the environmental movement, the Gulf spill would motivate support for new legislation to curb carbon emissions. \"When TV cameras show oil hitting Miami by the end of the summer, it's going to change a

lot of minds,\" the CEO said. (See pictures of the Gulf oil spill.)

Fast forward to six months later. The carbon cap-and-trade bill, just being introduced to the Senate back in May, has died without a vote. The Presidential moratorium on new deepwater drilling was lifted early this fall, before the official government report on the causes of the spill even came out. Congress never managed to pass legislation that would have overhauled drilling safety, nor did it make any new laws that would have helped move the country off fossil fuels. After the midterm elections, which swept Republicans into the House and weakened Democrats' hold over the Senate, the chance of tough climate and energy legislation seems remote. And the oil spill itself — so white-hot during much of the summer — seems to have vanished entirely from the media's attention.

What happened? Some lucky breaks helped — or hurt, depending on your perspective. Even though more oil was spilled by the Deepwater Horizon than any other event in U.S. history — 4.9 million barrels, by the government's most recent estimate — it happened more than 40 miles into the Gulf, meaning that much of the oil had evaporated or been digested by bacteria by the time the first patches reached the marshes of southern Louisiana. A spill closer to shore might have left the wetlands

drenched, like the shores of Prince William Sound after the Exxon Valdez spill. The Gulf Coast was also lucky that it was never hit by a major hurricane this season — a storm at the wrong place and the wrong time could have pushed waves of oil up onto the land.

The result was that, while scientists are hesitant to make any conclusions yet, the spill didn't destroy the vulnerable Louisiana wetlands to the degree that environmentalists feared. (My TIME colleague Michael Grunwald deserves credit for making that argument well before anyone else.) The impact of the spill on the Gulf itself, on the aquatic ecosystem and the fish (and fishermen) that depend on it, is much less clear. Some scientists have said there is a great deal of oil still suspended in the depths of the Gulf, or even on the seafloor, but a Coast Guard report released on Dec. 17 found there wasn't enough left to bother recovering. We may not be able to assess the impact on fisheries for years — certain species in Prince William Sound seemed healthy for a couple of years after the Valdez spill, only to eventually collapse — but the early reports are mixed. It's even possible that the effective moratorium on most fishing in the Gulf as a result of the spill may have even given some widely hunted species a chance to bounce back.

(Read \"Oil Spill: The Federal Government Takes BP to Court.\")

But while the economic impact on hundreds of thousands of Gulf Coast residents has been immense, the spill itself began to recede from national attention well before its true scope was known. And the damage — or lack of it — doesn't explain why the spill had so little impact on the politics of energy and climate. That's explained by, well, politics. Unlike 1969 or even 1989, the environment isn't the bipartisan issue it once was. Like so much else it's now split down the aisle, with most Democrats favoring action and nearly all Republicans steadfastly opposing it. Any idea that the oil spill would have somehow changed that probably died the day Republican Representative Joe Barton apologized to then-BP CEO Tony Hayward for the White House's supposed \"shakedown\" in securing a $20 billion fund from the company to pay for the spill damages.

The spill wasn't horrible enough to jolt the country into action on energy and climate, but I'm not sure anything would have been enough — not with the current gridlocked political climate, and not with the headlock oil and gas has over certain parts of the country. When I traveled down to Louisiana to report on the spill, I was shock to find that most locals, as angry as they were over the disaster itself, were angrier with President Obama over the drilling moratorium. But it shouldn't have come as a surprise: a report from the Federal Reserve last February found that oil

and gas accounted for 6.5% of Louisiana's revenue, more than five times the national average. To oppose the oil industry in Louisiana is a political death sentence — which is why Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu and Republican Senator David Vitter were united in their insistence on lifting the moratorium as soon as possible. A 4.9 million barrel oil spill didn't change those calculations. (Comment on this story.)

That's left environmental groups glum this holiday season. If the Gulf spill won't alter our relationship with oil, what will? Perhaps only one thing: cost. The only recent time we seemed close as a country to changing the way we use energy was in 2008, when gas prices skyrocketed past $4 a gallon. Those days may be coming back — gas is nearly $3 a gallon, and oil is creeping towards $100 a barrel as the global economy gets up off the floor. It's almost inevitable that a true recovery will bring back high energy prices, and that might finally be enough to force Democrats and Republicans to enact legislation that can actually make a difference. If we've learned one thing about the American public, it's that an oil spill may be a disaster, but expensive gas is considered a real catastrophe.

因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容

查看全文