Tuesday, December 30, 2008

New Year's resolution

A promise you make to yourself to start doing something good or stop doing something bad on the first day of the year.

It's a commitment to a project or the reforming of a habit, often a lifestyle change.

They go into effect on New Year's Day and could be fulfilled but most often they are abandoned.

A: "Have you made any New Year's resolutions?"
B: "Yes, I'm going to eat more healthily and give up smoking."

Most popular New Year's resolutions:

  • Lose Weight
  • Gain Weight
  • Pay Off Debt/s
  • Save Money
  • Get a Better Job
  • Get Fit
  • Eat Right
  • Get a Better Education
  • Drink less Alcohol
  • Quit Smoking
  • Reduce Stress
  • Take a Trip
  • Volunteer to Help Others
  • Be Less Grumpy

Monday, December 29, 2008

no strings attached


Unconditional. A relationship with no special demands.
Can friends with benefits-- or bed buddies -- really benefit both parties, or is there usually unexpected emotional fallout?

During Julia's junior year in college, she met a great guy. But she didn't want to date him. "I was at the end of another relationship that had been really good. So I don't think I was psychologically ready to get involved again and at the same time, I was pretty horny," she recalls.
So after a halfhearted attempt at a romantic relationship, Julia and Steve decided that what they really wanted was "friendship with a little sex thrown in." For years after that, whenever both of them were single at the same time, they would sleep together. "Friends of mine always used to hope that we would get together, but I always knew there was nothing but friendship," Julia says.
Having regular, no-strings-attached sex with someone you're not romantically involved with has become such a cultural phenomenon that it's acquired a name --"friends with benefits." (Others call it "bed buddies," or use more explicit terms.) For Julia and Steve, it worked out well -- the "benefits" part of their friendship ended when she met the man who is now her husband, but they're still close, and get together for dinner when he's in town. But are they the rule or the exception? Can "friends with benefits" really benefit both parties, or is there usually unexpected emotional fallout?

give me a break!

"Give me a break" is something you say when you suspect that someone is pulling your leg or joking with you. It is also used when you don't believe what someone is telling you.

A: "My father makes 100 dollars an hour working at the sausage factory"
B: "Give me a break. Sausage makers don't make that much money"

A: "U2 is the best rock band in the world"
B: "Give me a break. Just because they're the most popular doesn't mean they're the best"

A: "If you don't do a good job on this report, the boss is going to fire you"
B: "Give me a break. The boss would never fire me"

trial period

Period of time during which someone or something is tested.

Most employers will employ a person with a trial period. If the trial period is for three months, at the end of this time (or during), the employer can ask the employee to leave without notice and without the employee being able to claim unfair dismissal.

The idea of a trial period is to test whether or not a person is suitable for the position.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

rain or shine

No matter what happens. When you say 'rain or shine', it implies that an activity will be carried out, no matter what.

I'll see you on Thursday, rain or shine.
Rain or shine, I'll be there, I promise.
We will meet up and go dancing, rain or shine.
We're moving to our new apartment tomorrow, rain or shine.
We promised we would finish the project tomorrow, rain or shine.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

look forward to

You look forward to something when you feel excited about something that is going to happen in the near future.

look forward + to + noun: I'm really looking forward to my trip.
look forward + to + verb(ing): She was looking forward to seeing the grandchildren again.

I'm not looking forward to Christmas this year.

At the end of a letter or email, to say you hope to hear from or see someone soon, or that you expect something from them.

I look forward to hearing from you.
I look forward to meeting with you soon.


beggars can't be choosers


You say that when you can't have exactly what you want so you must accept whatever you can get.

People who depend on the generosity of others can't dictate what others give them.

I would have preferred a house of my own rather than sharing but I suppose beggars can't be choosers.

‘I'm already 38 so at this point of my life I would marry any man with a good character and a fine estate...beggars can't be choosers.'

sugar daddy

(noun) (slang) A rich and usually older man who buys presents for or gives money to a young person, especially a woman, usually in order to spend time with her or have a sexual relationship with her.



A wealthy, usually older man who gives expensive gifts to a young person in return for sexual favors or companionship.




The aspiring young actress and the sugar daddy are a classic combination in Hollywood.

My Sugar Daddy

by Melissa Beech, from http://www.thedailybeast.com/ published November 30, 2008


Some might call it prostitution. I call it a "mutually beneficial arrangement" that pays for my killer wardrobe.

Mutually Beneficial Arrangement. That is the polite term that popular culture has coined for the type of relationship I’m in. Had one asked me if this was the sort of relationship I could see myself being involved in a few years ago, the answer would have been absolutely not.
I am a college student in suburban Pennsylvania. I grew up here, in an area called the Main Line. For those of you who have seen the movie The Philadelphia Story, you’re familiar with this nook of the country, where the blood is as blue as the sky, and the wealth as abundant. My family is composed of traditional Irish Catholic Republicans, a family in which sex and money are taboo topics that need not be discussed. But one thing my background has provided me is an invaluable tool for success: I was blessed to have been raised with class, sent to the best schools, and taught to be well-read, well-spoken, and well-traveled.
From the outside, a mutually beneficial, or sugar daddy, relationship seems immoral. Maybe even the distant cousin of—dare I say it?—prostitution.
But when I got to college, I spent the first two years straining for financial independence. I tried working, but in retail, surrounded by temptation all day, I spent more than I made. Waiting tables was exhausting. I went on several job interviews, but all of the internships were unpaid. As my years in college wore on, it was evident that the job market was sliding into decline. When the economic climate grew worse, my friends panicked that their resumes and high GPAs wouldn’t be enough to give them a leg up on the competition, and my goal became getting my foot in the door before everyone else.
And then, just such an opportunity presented itself. During my job hunt, I met a potential employer. He was in his early 30s, single, and successful. He didn’t hire me, but he did suggest a position that seemed perfectly suited to my attributes and skills: He proposed that he become my benefactor.
From the outside, a mutually beneficial, or sugar daddy, relationship seems immoral. Maybe even the distant cousin of—dare I say it?—prostitution. But truth be told, women have used their wiles and charms to get ahead for years.
There’s even a social networking website that connects sugar daddies and their beneficiaries. This man told me about it: SeekingArrangement.com. He had been referred to it by a close friend who was a hedge fund manager. At his urging, I logged onto the site and looked at his profile. It didn’t have a picture, for privacy reasons. But it did contain information: his marital status (single), the industry he worked in (media and communications), and—a key element—his salary (seven figures). I was encouraged by the fact that the website vets its clients and offers only Certified Sugar Daddies, whose tax returns have been carefully examined so you know what you’re getting. I also learned that he was attracted to bright, smart women—he wasn’t in the market for the dumb bombshell. His profile said he wanted more of “a Jackie Kennedy than a Marilyn Monroe.” I fit the type.
It presented me with an opportunity I never would have thought to consider. Being in a relationship that was like a business arrangement? Where was the romance in that? I toyed with the idea for a few weeks, mulling over the possible repercussions. The pros were evident: This man was a successful professional in the media community who could provide me with excellent connections. But there was the social stigma to consider. And did I even like this guy? I wasn’t sure. So I agreed to meet him for dinner to discuss how this should go, if it were to happen. I also had several questions I wanted answered.
So we had dinner, and I was surprised to find that he had questions for me. He wanted to know what newspapers I read, what my favorite book is and why, where I stood on the political spectrum, and how I liked to spend my Saturdays. I was intrigued when many of our answers were similar.
He was a likable person, and by the end of the evening I found myself very attracted to him. I laid out my ground rules and he laid out his. He was looking for this type of a relationship because his past girlfriends hadn’t understood that his work would always come first. He valued their place in his life but ended up resenting them because of the stress and pressure they placed on his already hectic lifestyle. Then, much as I could imagine him doing while standing at the head of a conference table in a boardroom, he presented what I’ll call his financial package.
He offered me a monthly allowance, guaranteed a steady stream of desirable gifts, and promised regular vacations. He offered to send my friends and me on girls’ weekend getaways to spas and resorts. Other trips, he said, could be working vacations for the both of us, some fun mixed with some hands-on learning for me. And yet others could be just the two of us seeing the most amazing and beautiful places in the world. We discussed places we had both been and would like to share with each other. When he learned I had never been to London he was dying to have that experience with me.
My stipulations were that I wanted to wait until I knew him better before we had sex, and I needed distance between him and my family—they know I have a relationship with an older, well-established man, but they don’t know about the financial arrangement. I never felt it was necessary. For safety reasons in the beginning, I told my very best friend about him, and that was it. I told her I was going out with an older man I had met while interviewing for a job and where I would be. I also gave her his business card and cell number in case something should happen. Also, our relationship could never interfere with my schoolwork.
We started out on a trial basis, but in the first month I was already swept off my feet. He was very busy with work so we only saw each other in person a few times, but he put effort into the relationship nonetheless. We went to Atlantic City for a weekend and stayed at the Borgata, the poshest hotel in town. We spent the day on the beach, and even took a nighttime tour of the city by helicopter. When we finally had sex, it was at the right time—I waited three months before I felt ready to make a physical commitment to him. This was no different from any of my other relationships. We’ve now been seeing each other for a year.
As for the allowance, he doesn’t just cut me a check. He simply ensures that I need never worry about expenses. I rent a $1,600 apartment in the city, for which he pays the rent in full. I carry an AmEx Black card in both our names, and use it for things like shopping, spa trips, manicures, and tanning; the bill goes to him. And the company car I drive costs him around $700 a month for the lease and the insurance. I’ve even managed to build up a little nest egg over the past year—at his insistence—putting away around $12,000. All in all, he probably spends in the ballpark of $5,000 a month on my lifestyle.
He didn’t hire me for the internship position, but because of him I have had several internships at well-known PR companies, and have plenty of networking opportunities, shoring up my future prospects for when I graduate this spring. Besides career advancements, he’s given me a chance to live the type of life I never would have experienced on my own. We went to London and Paris last spring, where we saw the sights and shopped at stores like Chanel and Dior. How many other college students are wearing Christian Louboutins to class?
Probably very few. And I’m well aware that this is the kind of relationship where there are no guarantees for your heart, but it’s helped me prepare for the future and thrive in the present. And when our time together is through, I will part with a lifelong friend, a great career, and a killer wardrobe.
Melissa Beech is a college senior in Philadelphia majoring in journalism and economics, and is an intern at a public relations firm specializing in crisis communications and media relations. She hopes to work in broadcast journalism after completing a graduate degree. Melissa Beech is a pseudonym.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Graham Greene: A Life in Letters (Edited by Richard Greene)

From http://www.nytimes.com/

By DWIGHT GARNER
Published: December 9, 2008

“Don’t make your books any shorter, please,” Graham Greene implored his friend Muriel Spark in a 1974 letter, “or you’ll disappear like Beckett.”
Greene himself didn’t want to disappear, even briefly, from anyone’s radar screen; throughout his long life he was determinedly prolific. He published more than 25 novels, among them near-masterpieces like “The Power and the Glory” (1940) and “The End of the Affair” (1951). He wrote four books of autobiography, three travel books, a book of verse and nearly 20 plays and screenplays. Greene also issued, as if he kept a Mini-Me in his attaché case, a relentless stream of other material: essays, newspaper reportage, short stories, film and book reviews. The jobbing writer and the artist in him were sometimes at war with each other (Greene wrote a lot of guff), but just as often they effortlessly intertwined.
On top of all this, it turns out, Greene (1904-1991) was committed to yet another genre: he was among the 20th century’s most obsessive letter writers. He dashed off or dictated some 2,000 letters or postcards each year, posting them to family, friends, lovers, editors, agents and a galaxy of fellow writers, including Evelyn Waugh, Elizabeth Bowen, Anthony Powell, John Betjeman, R. K. Narayan, Vaclav Havel, Kurt Vonnegut and Shirley Hazzard. The to-and-fro of these letters, a kind of intellectual tennis, seemed to keep his color and spirits high.
In “Graham Greene: A Life in Letters,” tens of thousands of his letters have been pared down to a tidy 400 or so by Richard Greene (not related), an associate professor at the University of Toronto. As good as these letters can be — Graham Greene is, by turns, fond, cranky, depressive, mischievous — one trusts this book’s editor when he suggests that a complete edition of them would be overkill, “valuable for scholars but otherwise forbidding and essentially unreadable.”
Like the best books of literary letters, this volume reads like brisk, epistolary biography. We follow Greene from when he leaves home (he grew up near London, the son of a public-school headmaster) to attend Balliol College, Oxford, where he read history. We watch him woo and wed Vivienne Dayrell-Browning, and try to settle into family life and a writing career.
The family life aspect never took hold. Greene had, in every sense, a wandering eye. He needed constant travel (there are letters here from Cuba, Vietnam, Chile, the Congo and every place in between) and constant sexual companionship, whether from long-term lovers, transient female admirers or prostitutes. Many other letters deal with politics — Greene’s were leftist but unpredictable — and his tortured Roman Catholicism.
This epistolary biography has a not subtle agenda. Richard Greene is no admirer of previous biographies of Graham Greene, especially Norman Sherry’s three-part, 2,251-page monster, the final volume of which appeared in 1994. Many critics felt Sherry dwelled in too much queasy-making detail on Greene’s wayward sex life. (I am sympathetic to, yet remain agnostic about, this argument, especially given that Greene wrote a coded appraisal of 47 prostitutes with whom he’d had sex. The real tragedy about Sherry’s book is its numbing length.)
Richard Greene hopes these letters balance the scales. His introduction speaks for Greene’s better angels: “Graham Greene was a man of decency and courage,” he writes. “He chronicled the suffering of the world’s most oppressed people and devoted his life to writing books that enriched the lives of millions.”
There is much evidence here of Greene’s big-hearted side. To give just a few examples: at his memorial service Muriel Spark recalled how, when she was poor, ill and unknown, Greene sent her a check for 20 pounds each month, along with a few bottles of red wine, an added gesture, she said, “which took the edge off cold charity.” There is another moving letter in which Greene begs his French agent (“I’m scared of your reaction”) to allow him to buy her a new car for Christmas. And what the hey, he seemed to enjoy smoking pot with his adult son.
But it’s Greene’s thornier side that makes this collection sing. His literary table talk pricks up your ears. He calls Iris Murdoch and Kingsley Amis “two of the worst novelists” of his time. “Ulysses,” he writes, is “a big bore” and “really one of the most overrated classics.” He calls John Kenneth Galbraith his favorite American writer.
Here is his elegant put-down of Ian Fleming: “He offered to let me have it” — a house in Jamaica — “rent free if I would write an Introduction to an omnibus volume of his novels for America, and I had rather tactfully to explain that I would prefer to pay rent.”
And here, from 1977, is Greene’s cool appraisal of “Dispatches,” Michael Herr’s classic of Vietnam reportage: “I was rather put off by the opening part which seemed to me too excitable, but Herr calmed down a bit later. I think when one is dealing with horrors one should write very coldly. Otherwise it reads like hidden boasting — ‘just see what a brave chap I am to have voluntarily put myself in the way of such experiences.’ ”
In other letters Greene could be effortlessly epigrammatic. “Nature doesn’t really interest me — except in so far as it may contain an ambush — that is, something human,” he wrote in 1950. When Viking Press in 1969 urged him to change the title of his book “Travels With My Aunt” to something more saleable, Greene sent the following cable: “Would rather change publisher than title.”
As Greene grew increasingly well known, these letters fill with plummy celebrity cameos: he spends time on a boat with Laurence Olivier (Greene calls him “Larry”) and Vivien Leigh; there are late nights in Havana with Fidel Castro in the 1960s; he has his fortune told by Truman Capote; he visits with Alfred Hitchcock, Vaclav Havel and Evelyn Waugh.
Fame had its bothers too. From the Congo, Greene wrote: “My siesta interrupted yesterday by a schoolmaster who had also written a novel. I think if I found myself washed up on a desert island with one inhabitant he would have a novel he wanted published.”
In a melancholy letter to his wife, Vivienne, after their divorce, Greene confesses that he has been a rotten husband and father. His character, he observes, is “profoundly antagonistic to ordinary domestic life.” These letters make it plain: what was painful for the people around Greene was vital to his art.
“I’ve had an odd life when I come to think of it,” Greene wrote his mother in 1942, in two sentences that just about sum up these letters. “Useless and sometimes miserable, but bizarre and on the whole not boring.”

Thursday, December 4, 2008

The 10 Best Books of 2008



The editors of the Book Review have selected these titles from the list of 100 Notable Books of 2008.
FICTION
  1. DANGEROUS LAUGHTERThirteen StoriesBy Steven Millhauser.Alfred A. Knopf, $24.
    In his first collection in five years, a master fabulist in the tradition of Poe and Nabo­kov invents spookily plausible parallel universes in which the deepest human emotions and yearnings are transformed into their monstrous opposites. Millhauser is especially attuned to the purgatory of adolescence. In the title story, teenagers attend sinister “laugh parties”; in another, a mysteriously afflicted girl hides in the darkness of her attic bedroom. Time and again these parables revive the possibility that “under this world there is another, waiting to be born.” (Excerpt)
  2. A MERCYBy Toni Morrison.Alfred A. Knopf, $23.95.
    The fate of a slave child abandoned by her mother animates this allusive novel — part Faulknerian puzzle, part dream-song — about orphaned women who form an eccentric household in late-17th-century America. Morrison’s farmers and rum traders, masters and slaves, indentured whites and captive Native Americans live side by side, often in violent conflict, in a lawless, ripe American Eden that is both a haven and a prison — an emerging nation whose identity is rooted equally in Old World superstitions and New World appetites and fears. (First Chapter)
  3. NETHERLANDBy Joseph O’Neill.Pantheon Books, $23.95.
    O’Neill’s seductive ode to New York — a city that even in bad times stubbornly clings to its belief “in its salvific worth” — is narrated by a Dutch financier whose privileged Manhattan existence is upended by the events of Sept. 11, 2001. When his wife departs for London with their small son, he stays behind, finding camaraderie in the unexpectedly buoyant world of immigrant cricket players, most of them West Indians and South Asians, including an entrepreneur with Gatsby-size aspirations. (First Chapter)
  4. 2666By Roberto Bolaño. Translated by Natasha Wimmer.Farrar, Straus & Giroux, cloth and paper, $30.
    Bolaño, the prodigious Chilean writer who died at age 50 in 2003, has posthumously risen, like a figure in one of his own splendid creations, to the summit of modern fiction. This latest work, first published in Spanish in 2004, is a mega- and meta-detective novel with strong hints of apocalyptic foreboding. It contains five separate narratives, each pursuing a different story with a cast of beguiling characters — European literary scholars, an African-American journalist and more — whose lives converge in a Mexican border town where hundreds of young women have been brutally murdered. (Excerpt)
  5. UNACCUSTOMED EARTH By Jhumpa Lahiri.Alfred A. Knopf, $25.
    There is much cultural news in these precisely observed studies of modern-day Bengali-Americans — many of them Ivy-league strivers ensconced in prosperous suburbs who can’t quite overcome the tug of traditions nurtured in Calcutta..With quiet artistry and tender sympathy, Lahiri creates an impressive range of vivid characters — young and old, male and female, self-knowing and self-deluding — in engrossing stories that replenish the classic themes of domestic realism: loneliness, estrangement and family discord. (Excerpt)
    NONFICTION
  6. THE DARK SIDEThe Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American IdealsBy Jane Mayer.Doubleday, $27.50.
    Mayer’s meticulously reported descent into the depths of President Bush’s anti­terrorist policies peels away the layers of legal and bureaucratic maneuvering that gave us Guantánamo Bay, “extraordinary rendition,” “enhanced” interrogation methods, “black sites,” warrantless domestic surveillance and all the rest. But Mayer also describes the efforts ofunsung heroes, tucked deep inside the administration, who risked their careers in the struggle to balance the rule of law against the need to meet a threat unlike any other in the nation’s history.
  7. THE FOREVER WARBy Dexter Filkins.Alfred A. Knopf, $25.
    The New York Times correspondent, whose tours of duty have taken him from Afghanistan in 1998 to Iraq during the American intervention, captures a decade of armed struggle in harrowingly detailed vignettes. Whether interviewing jihadists in Kabul, accompanying marines on risky patrols in Falluja or visiting grieving families in Baghdad, Filkins makes us see, with almost hallucinogenic immediacy, the true human meaning and consequences of the “war on terror.” (First Chapter)
  8. NOTHING TO BE FRIGHTENED OFBy Julian Barnes.Alfred A. Knopf, $24.95.
    This absorbing memoir traces Barnes’s progress from atheism (at age 20) to agnosticism (at 60) and examines the problem of religion not by rehashing the familiar quarrel between science and mystery, but rather by weighing the timeless questions of mortality and aging. Barnes distills his own experiences — and those of his parents and brother — in polished and wise sentences that recall the writing of Montaigne, Flaubert and the other French masters he includes in his discussion. (First Chapter)
  9. THIS REPUBLIC OF SUFFERINGDeath and the American Civil WarBy Drew Gilpin Faust.Alfred A. Knopf, $27.95.
    In this powerful book, Faust, the president of Harvard, explores the legacy, or legacies, of the “harvest of death” sown and reaped by the Civil War. In the space of four years, 620,000 Americans died in uniform, roughly the same number as those lost in all the nation’s combined wars from the Revolution through Korea. This doesn’t include the thousands of civilians killed in epidemics, guerrilla raids and draft riots. The collective trauma created “a newly centralized nation-state,” Faust writes, but it also established “sacrifice and its memorialization as the ground on which North and South would ultimately reunite.” (First Chapter)
  10. THE WORLD IS WHAT IT ISThe Authorized Biography of V. S. NaipaulBy Patrick French.Alfred A. Knopf, $30.
    The most surprising word in this biography is “authorized.” Naipaul, the greatest of all postcolonial authors, cooperated fully with French, opening up a huge cache of private letters and diaries and supplementing the revelations they disclosed with remarkably candid interviews. It was a brave, and wise, decision. French, a first-rate biographer, has a novelist’s command of story and character, and he patiently connects his subject’s brilliant oeuvre with the disturbing facts of an unruly life. (First Chapter)

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

when it rains, it pours

When something good or bad occurs, it usually occurs more than once and often within a short period of time.

  • It hadn't rained for over two months. Now it has started raining and it has been raining for a week nontstop. When it rains, it pours.
When it rains, it pours means that when something happens after a long time, it happens in large amounts.
  • It looks like everyone in our department is sick again, and all at the same time. When it rains, it pours.
  • Sometimes we have no customers for two or three hours, then suddenly we get 20 people all at once. When it rains, it pours.

Friday, November 21, 2008

For crying out loud!

Something you say when you're annoyed or upset, angry. Used to express annoyance or astonishment. It is a euphemism for "For Christ's sake".

Oh, for crying out loud, why won't you listen to me!

For crying out loud, can't you do anything right?

No, I haven't bought her a present yet. Her birthday is a month away, for crying out loud.

Let's get going, for crying out loud!

For crying out loud! Can't you leave me alone even for a minute!

Thursday, November 20, 2008

worse comes to worst


If the worst possible thing happens; if a situation develops in the most serious or unpleasant way. If the worst possible outcome occurs. This expression is often followed by a solution.

We should be home when you arrive, but worse comes to worst, the neighbours have a spare key and will let you into the house.

If worse comes to worst and Mr. Jones loses the house, he will send his family to his mother's farm.

If worse comes to worst, we shall close the school for a few days.

If worse comes to worst and the budget is not approved, the government will shut down.

Go ahead and go to school with a cold; worse comes to worst the teacher will send you home.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Unfair dismissal: Alvarez Rodrich fired from El Comercio Group

Augusto Alvarez Rodrich has been fired from Peru 21, one of the most successful newspapers in Peru. It is unfortunate that one of the most independent journalists in Peru has stopped being Peru 21 editor. Alvarez Rodrich has mentioned that there have been some editorial discrepancies with El Comercio newspaper stockholders.
I'm hearing through the grapevine that he has being fired because Alvarez was a pain in the neck for Peruvian President Alan Garcia. As a result, his dismissal has been part of a negotiation between the newspaper and the government.
This along with Fernando Ampuero has been the second dismissal from El Comercio Group in a very short time.
Alvarez Rodrich was able to put together a great team of columnists and writers and this made his newspaper a very interesting medium to display a great array of opinions.
This blog (My English Times) and hundreds of thousands of Peruvian newspaper readers are going to miss him a lot. Let's hope there's a brave investor who can give Alvarez Rodrich the opportunity to be in charge of a newspaper soon!
Perublogs Tags:

Friday, November 14, 2008

New English File Listening 1C: Personality adjectives

LISTENING EXERCISE

  • Listen to a man talking about how position in the family has affected his and his family's personality. Which positions does he talk about?

1. oldest child 2. middle child 3. youngest child 4. only child

  • Listen again. Which adjectives does he use describe each person?

himself: not spoilt, not s______, not i______, r_______, o______

his father: r______, b______

  • Listen again reading the transcript. Try to guess the meaning of any words you don't know. Verify with dictionary.

Transcript

I'm an only child. I don't think I was spoilt, but maybe I was. I don't consider myself to be selfish, but I'm probably not very good at seeing things from other people's point of view. Maybe that's because I'm not very imaginative. I am quite responsible and organized though, so probably most of what the psychologist says is true for me.

Er- other people in my family- well my wife is a youngest child. I think she's quite affectionate, that's true, but she certainly isn't lazy -she's one of the most hardworking people I know, and I say she's charming but she's not manipulative.

My dad is and oldest child and I think it's true that he is much more responsible than his brother and sister, and I know they think he was always quite bossy. Actually they still think he is.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Harvard Business IdeaCast: The Science of Human Capital



From Harvard Business School Publishing, 2007.
The Science of Human Capital. Julie Devoll of the Harvard Business School Press, talks with John Budreau, author of Beyond HR: The Science of Human Capital.


JD: This is Julie Devoll from Harvard Business School Press. I’m here today with John Budreau, Research Director at the Center for effective organizations and Professor of Management and Organization in the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California. John is coauthor of a new book Beyond HR: The New Science of Human Capital. John, thank you for joining us today.

JB: Thanks for the opportunity Julie.

JD: So your book talks about perhaps the most crucial resource in today’s companies and that is …their people whether is called labor, human capital, talent or some other term. The resource that lies within employees and how they organize this increasingly recognized as critical strategic success and competitive advantage, but while executives know that their talent is important and they build a strategy around their talent that would give them a unique competitive advantage.
One of the problems that you say in the book is that companies traditionally use what you call “a peanut butter approach” in terms of the human resource strategies. Can you talk about what this means and why it’s not working?

JB: You bet, the peanut butter approach metaphor actually came from some of the leaders of companies we were working with and what it means is that very well meaning organizations have adopted principles like “to be fair we need to be equal” and so they approach their talent with the idea that if some people have certain incentives others should have the same incentives. If we’re going to get people engaged we should get everybody engaged and we call that the peanut butter approach because it’s like applying a very good thing equally across the population.
What struck Peter Ramstad and me on the book was…we don’t behave that way with customers, for example, every customer isn’t the subject of maximum advertising; every machine isn’t run at maximum capacity so there’s a different answer in other disciplines rather than just doing the same thing for everyone or maximizing everything.

JD: And one of the things you also say is that the future of talent management would go beyond today’s HR programs, programs like benefits and payroll and training practices and even beyond segmenting talent according to performance or personality, and that seems pretty controversial in terms of how we generally think about HR. Can you talk a little bit about what’s driving this change in Human Resource practices?

JB: Well, first of all, let me say that the attention to great HR practices is a good thing. The metaphor we like to use is that just because we have a discipline of finance and we start to differentiate why we make investments doesn’t mean that fundamental practices like accounting go away, just because we have a discipline like marketing that help us differentiate customer segments doesn’t mean that important practices like sales and advertising go away, so the first thing is to say that those programs and practices in HR going to remain fundamentally important but what it’s going to happen is that they’re going to be embedded within a decision focus approach, as we call it. And the idea is that not only that we understand differences between people’s performance or whether certain individuals have different personalities or whether some people are high potential and others aren’t. The world in front of us suggests that we can differentiate talent pools into talent segments like customer segments. The fundamental question would be "where do improvements and talent performance make the biggest difference to our strategic success?", just like we ask "which customer segments make the biggest difference to our strategic success?"

JD: So as part of having the strategic approach to talent management, one of the first things you recommend that executive make decision around is what you say is the pivotal talent in the organization or the pivot points. Can you talk about these pivot points within the organization and why they matter in terms of talent strategy?

JB: You bet. The question of pivot point is something that comes out in every other discipline so as other disciplines like finance, marketing, operations, research, etc. as they mature they start to begin to focus on optimizing not just maximizing. Like I said, we don’t run every machine at full capacity, we have a particular optimized level of capacity across an assembly line, and the way we find out where changes in any process will make a difference is something like a constraint or a bottle neck or a pivot point. So if you have all your machines running well but there’s one process or machine that doesn’t, fixing that machine so all the others can work well is the critical thing. It’s like a bottle neck in a hose or a bottle neck in a pipe. So what we suggest is that in organizations their strategic pivot points, places where improving the delivery or something makes the biggest difference to your success, and once you find those there are often talent pivot points where improving the performance of talent will make a big difference to those strategic pivot points.
JD: So what I found interesting is what you say that the pivot points in an organization are not the usual suspects so they may not be the leaders or even the top sales people or even technical professionals.

JB: Well I think that’s right. What we see a lot in organizations is a great deal of attention to the same talent pools that everybody else is working on, so if we need more sales it seems logical to invest in our sales people and to train them and select them and reward them. Virtually every leadership group believes that they’re pivotal and so we end up working hard on it improving leadership and building better leaders. There’s nothing wrong with that and those are definitely important. But very often what we find is that in the places no one is looking there may be pivot point that no one‘s found. For example, we might say that pilots in an airline are very very important but the difference between average and super good pilot performance in an airlines is by design not very much. It’s different from the navy where the difference between average and super pilot performance is very very large so the pivot points require that we think about "how does a given role make a difference to our strategy?", and that helps us understand where improving the performance of talent will make the biggest difference, not just where talent is very very important.

JD: One of the company examples you use is Disney and you say that their pivotal positions are actually not the ones we normally think of, and I know I wouldn’t think of Mickey Mouse. Can you talk about Disney’s approach to managing their talent?

JB: Well, that’s exactly right. When I do this exercise and I’ve been doing for about fifteen years, when you think about the Disney Theme Park and you think about "what is the vital critical talent there?", almost everybody answers characters first and they’re absolutely right. Again the idea is to differentiate what’s vital or important from what’s pivotal. Your most vital customer segment may be the people who’ve been purchasing your products for a long time but your most pivotal customer segment may be consumers in China or India or some other place that have great opportunity and potential for sales increases but may not your biggest customers at all.
While at Disney, characters are very important but the difference in performance between Mickey Mouse at the C level and the A level is by design very very small, it’s just too important. On the other hand, there are other positions I'd like to use the metaphor of Sweepers and my favorite story is: a sweeper who stops sweeping, notices that your child is a little sunburned and helps you find a shady spot up the hill where you can watch the parade: that is a critical strategic element that creates great surprise and delight and that sweeper makes much bigger difference if they know how to do that, than the character might make. Now the characters are important but they’re so important that they actually don’t differ very much in performance where as sweepers are pivotal because their difference in performance make a big difference to customers' surprise and delight...

JD: So John what you’re saying is that there seems to have implications for the rest of the people in the organization: the people who aren’t necessarily the sweepers. So how do you recommend managers deal with this? How do they tell their Mickey Mouses of their organizations that they’re not just as pivotal as the sweepers?

JB: That’s a great question and I like the way that you phrased that, because very often what I hear from organizations that are used to a policy that says “to be fair we must be equal” or a word in which they really don’t have a logic for these hard conversations ah is...how can we ever do this?...We just have to treat everybody the same or we wouldn’t want to talk about Mickey Mouse and the Sweeper this way. The answer of course is that fairness doesn’t equal equality but rather Mickey Mouse is very important but important to maintain performance at a very specific level. We can’t have Mickey Mouse innovating because we have to have too many of them in the park. Sweepers, on the other hand, have the freedom to innovate with regard of customer service because of the position they’re in and because of what we need from them.
So the conversation should really be: "If you are in the Mickey Mouse custom you are unbelievable important to us and we are going to reward you and we are going to manage you so that you deliver a very consistent performance", very much like pilots in an aircraft. If you want to have lots of discretion and if you want to have lots of interaction with our guests then you should think about becoming a Sweeper and I know it seems kind of intuitive to say that but it’s not that Mickey Mouse isn’t important but it has an important role with a very specific definition. The sweeper has a different role and once people understand that and once we can have these conversations, I think we start to have a world in which it’s much more like customers. For example, with me, when I buy certain products from certain people I’m not a frequent buyer and so I get a certain level of service and when I fly a certain airline, on other airlines or with other products I get a very high level of service. We all understand that. It may not feel great when were purchasing a product we don’t purchase that often we don’t quite get the service level we get elsewhere, but we understand that businesses have to optimize their "customer resource" and that we’re part of that. I think we can reach a place where employers can understand that too and we give leaders that power to have logical, principal conversations so that everyone understands that fairness and equality don’t have to be the same.

JD: So in turning around a little bit let’s talk about what this means for the individual worker. What are some tactics that you think the individual workers can do to improve their own visibility within a company and become that pivotal person and how do they start to have those conversations with their managers?

JB: Well that’s a great question. One of the…right now…a lot of the recognition of the importance of these ideas is happening among business leaders and among HR leaders and one of the tasks we have is to help business leaders think more clearly about their strategies and how talent is pivotal to those strategies to identify the difference between a character and a sweeper or a pilot and a gate agent and to understand that "importance" versus "pivoteness" difference but you raise a great point because I think in the future the great power of this idea is when the sweepers know that they’re pivotal when they serve customers or when they help that child find a shady spot up the hill and they understand the difference between the importance of sweeping but the pivoteness of customer service.
So how to become pivotal? Well, I think what we need is for all employees to start asking the question: What is it that I do that makes the biggest difference to the success of this organization? And is that necessarily the thing that’s in my job description?...So if a sweeper discovers that you’re measuring me a lot on how I sweep but I’m finding that customers are more delighted when I can give them great information etcetera, somehow that information needs to get off the channels, managers need to hear it, leaders need to hear it. And in the best organizations we find that this concept of talent pivoteness, this concept of connecting talent with strategy is not just a purview of business leaders, it’s not just a purview of HR, but the whole organization starts to have a language and a logic for seeing these differences including employees who become immensely empowered when they’re allowed to act on their understanding of what’s pivotal and what’s important.
JD: Great John, well thank you for taking the time today to speak with us.

JB: You’re very welcome. Thanks for the opportunity.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

The Next President: New York Times Editorial

From www.nytimes.com

This is one of those moments in history when it is worth pausing to reflect on the basic facts:
An American with the name Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a white woman and a black man he barely knew, raised by his grandparents far outside the stream of American power and wealth, has been elected the 44th president of the United States.
Showing extraordinary focus and quiet certainty, Mr. Obama swept away one political presumption after another to defeat first Hillary Clinton, who wanted to be president so badly that she lost her bearings, and then John McCain, who forsook his principles for a campaign built on anger and fear.
His triumph was decisive and sweeping, because he saw what is wrong with this country: the utter failure of government to protect its citizens. He offered a government that does not try to solve every problem but will do those things beyond the power of individual citizens: to regulate the economy fairly, keep the air clean and the food safe, ensure that the sick have access to health care, and educate children to compete in a globalized world.
Mr. Obama spoke candidly of the failure of Republican economic policies that promised to lift all Americans but left so many millions far behind. He committed himself to ending a bloody and pointless war. He promised to restore Americans’ civil liberties and their tattered reputation around the world.
With a message of hope and competence, he drew in legions of voters who had been disengaged and voiceless. The scenes Tuesday night of young men and women, black and white, weeping and cheering in Chicago and New York and in Atlanta’s storied Ebenezer Baptist Church were powerful and deeply moving.
Mr. Obama inherits a terrible legacy. The nation is embroiled in two wars — one of necessity in Afghanistan and one of folly in Iraq. Mr. Obama’s challenge will be to manage an orderly withdrawal from Iraq without igniting new conflicts so the Pentagon can focus its resources on the real front in the war on terror, Afghanistan.
The campaign began with the war as its central focus. By Election Day, Americans were deeply anguished about their futures and the government’s failure to prevent an economic collapse fed by greed and an orgy of deregulation. Mr. Obama will have to move quickly to impose control, coherence, transparency and fairness on the Bush administration’s jumbled bailout plan.
His administration will also have to identify all of the ways that Americans’ basic rights and fundamental values have been violated and rein that dark work back in. Climate change is a global threat, and after years of denial and inaction, this country must take the lead on addressing it. The nation must develop new, cleaner energy technologies, to reduce greenhouse gases and its dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. Obama also will have to rally sensible people to come up with immigration reform consistent with the values of a nation built by immigrants and refugees.
There are many other urgent problems that must be addressed. Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance, including some of the country’s most vulnerable citizens — children of the working poor. Other Americans can barely pay for their insurance or are in danger of losing it along with their jobs. They must be protected.
Mr. Obama will now need the support of all Americans. Mr. McCain made an elegant concession speech Tuesday night in which he called on his followers not just to honor the vote, but to stand behind Mr. Obama. After a nasty, dispiriting campaign, he seemed on that stage to be the senator we long respected for his service to this country and his willingness to compromise.
That is a start. The nation’s many challenges are beyond the reach of any one man, or any one political party.
Published November 4, 2008

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Barack Obama: early life and career

Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., from Kenya, and Ann Dunham, a white American from Wichita, Kansas of mainly English, Scottish and Irish descent.
His parents met in 1960 while attending the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where his father was a foreign student. The couple married on February 2, 1961; they separated when Obama was two years old and subsequently divorced in 1964. Obama's father returned to Kenya and saw his son only once more before dying in an automobile accident in 1982.
After her divorce, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, and the family moved to Soetoro's home country of Indonesia in 1967, where Obama attended local schools in Jakarta until he was ten years old. He then returned to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents while attending Punahou School from the fifth grade in 1971 until his graduation from high school in 1979.
Obama's mother returned to Hawaii in 1972 for several years, and then in 1977 went back to Indonesia, where she worked as an anthropological field worker. She stayed there most of the rest of her life, returning to Hawaii in 1994. She died of ovarian cancer in 1995.
As an adult Obama admitted that during high school he used marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol. After high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles, where he studied at Occidental College for two years. He then transferred to Columbia College in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations. Obama graduated with a B.A. from Columbia in 1983, then the following year worked for a year at the Business International Corporation and then at the New York Public Interest Research Group.
After four years in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago, where he was hired as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side, and worked there for three years from June 1985 to May 1988.
During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from one to thirteen and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens. Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.
In mid-1988, he traveled for the first time to Europe for three weeks and then for five weeks in Kenya, where he met many of his Kenyan relatives for the first time.
Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. At the end of his first year, he was selected, based on his grades and a writing competition, as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. In February 1990, in his second year, he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the Law Review's staff of eighty editors. Obama's election as the first black president of the Law Review was widely reported. During his summers, he returned to Chicago where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley & Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990. After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago.
The publicity from his election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a publishing contract and advance for a book about race relations. In an effort to recruit him to their faculty, the University of Chicago Law School provided Obama with a fellowship and an office to work on his book. He originally planned to finish the book in one year, but it took much longer as the book evolved into a personal memoir. In order to work without interruptions, Obama and his wife, Michelle, traveled to Bali where he wrote for several months. The manuscript was finally published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father.
Obama directed Illinois' Project Vote from April to October 1992, a voter registration drive with a staff of ten and seven hundred volunteers; it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African-Americans in the state, and led to Crain's Chicago Business naming Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.

Beginning in 1992, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, being first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.
He also, in 1993, joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a twelve-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002.
Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife, Michelle, became the founding executive director of Public Allies Chicago in early 1993. He served from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999. He also served on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center.

(From www.wikipedia.org)

Friday, October 31, 2008

Halloween


In the United States, October 31st has become a major celebration for adults and children. Commercially, Halloween has become second after Christmas in the amount of revenue it generates. Originally, Halloween in the United States was almost exclusively a children's event. Trick-or-treating became a widespread activity after World War II. While treats could include apples and homemade sweets, the favored treat was commercially produced candy. In the United States, then, Halloween has always reflected the commercial culture of capitalism.

People host costume parties with representations of death, evil and chaos in general.
November 1st became, in the sixth century, the Feast of All Saints, or All Hallows. Many of the traditions surrounding this occasion continued, and the Eve of All Hallows, Hallow Evening, has become the word "Hallowe'en." In the ninth century, November 2nd was assigned the Feast of All Souls, a day set aside for prayers for all the departed who had died during the previous year.

Halloween pumpkin

The carved pumpkin , lit by a candle inside, is one of Halloween's most prominent symbols.
The jack-o'-lantern comes from the Irish legend of Stingy Jack: a greedy, gambling, hard-drinking old farmer.

He tricked the devil into climbing a tree and trapped him by carving a cross into the tree trunk. In revenge, the devil placed a curse on Jack, condemning him to forever wander the earth at night. This story has been passed down through generations of Irish families.


The carving of pumpkins is associated with Halloween in North America. Many families celebrate Halloween carving a pumpkin into a frightening or comical face and place it on their home's doorstep after dark.
The tradition of carving vegetable lanterns may come from Scotland or England.

Carved pumpkins were originally associated with harvest time in America and did not become specifically associated with Halloween until the mid-to-late 19th century.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

trick or treat



Trick-or-treating is what children do on Halloween (October 31st) when they go from house to house wearing frightening or strange clothes, asking for treats such as candy with the question: "Trick or treat?", or the phrase: "Happy Halloween!"

Trick-or-treating is a Halloween tradition. If you live in a neighborhood with children then you should buy treats in preparation for trick-or-treaters.

The "trick" part of "trick or treat" is a threat to play a trick on the homeowners if no treat is given.

Do not leave alcohol near your pumpkins!



(from www.livinginperu.com)

Halloween is going to suck this year!!



(from www.livininperu.com)

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

New English File Intermediate-Listening 1B: past tenses




LISTENING EXERCISES

1. Listen to a woman talking about a time when she cheated in an exam. Which of the following is correct:

  • She failed the exam.
  • Her friend failed the exam.
  • She and her friend both failed the exam.

2. Listen again and answer the following questions:

  • Which subject did she hate the most?
  • What was the difference between the chemistry teacher and the physics teacher?
  • Who was she sitting next to in the exam?
  • Where did he put his answers?
  • What did the teacher do when she saw them?

3. Listen again with the script.

I cheated in a chemistry exam when I was at secondary school. I think I was about 16 or 17 years old. I hated all the sciences - chemistry, biology and physics. I just couldn't understand them. I hated physics the most but I never cheated on the physics exam because the teacher was really strict and he always watched us really carefully.

The chemistry teacher was a lot more relaxed. She was reading a book while we were doing the exam. I was sitting next to my best friend -he was very good at chemistry- and he'd written all the answers on a piece of paper. Then he folded the piece of paper, put it in his pencil case, and passed his pencil case to me. But just at that moment, the teacher looked up from her book and saw my friend giving me the pencil case.

She came up to my desk and took the pencil case from me and opened it. When she saw the answers written on the piece of paper she got really angry and sent us out of the room. Luckily she didn't tell our parents but we failed the exam of course.

Friday, October 24, 2008

PAST TENSES DRILL: Rosie Ruiz


PAST TENSES

PAST SIMPLE : Finished actions in the past. (worked, stopped, went, had, etc)
PAST CONTINUOUS: To describe an action in progress in the past. (was/were + ing)
PAST PERFECT: When you’re talking about the past and then you want to talk about an earlier past action. (had + past participle)

GRAMMAR EXERCISE (1)

Complete the gaps with the verbs from the list using past simple, past perfect or past continuous:

1. come 2. win 3. become 4. notice 5. sweat 6. investigate 7. see 8. say 9. see 10. take 11. finish 12. cheat



ROSIE RUIZ


On April 21 1980, 23-year-old Rosie Ruiz _________ first in the Boston Marathon. She ________ the race in the third-fastest time ever recorded for a female runner (two hours, 31 minutes, 56 seconds).
However, the organizers _________ suspicious, because they __________ that when she crossed the finishing line she __________ at all.
When they __________ found out that none of the course officials __________ her passing checkpoints. Other competitors didn’t remember seeing her at all.
Then a few spectators __________ that they ___________
Ruiz join the race just for the final kilometer. She ha simply sprinted from there to the finish line.
The marathon organizers __________ away Ruiz’s medal and gave it to Jacqueline Gareau, who __________ second in the race.
Later they also found out that Ruiz __________ in the New York Marathon, the race she used to qualify for the Boston event, earlier in the same year but in a different way…



GRAMMAR EXERCISE (2)
Read the following report about Rosie Ruiz and highlight the past perfect tenses.

Rosie Ruiz Vivas (born 1953, Havana, Cuba) is a famous Cuban American Marathon runner who on April 21, 1980 came in as the first place female competitor in the 84th Boston Marathon, but who was later stripped of her title when it was found that she had cheated.
Ruiz completed the marathon with a record time of 2:31:56. However, race officials determined that she had not completed the entire 26.2-mile course, but had registered for the race and later jumped in from the crowd and sprinted to the finish.

There was suspicion from the beginning, as no one had seen her running earlier in the race, she did not appear in videotape footage, and some members of the crowd reported witnessing her run into the race in the last mile. In addition, her time of 2:31:56 was an unusual improvement, more than 25 minutes ahead of her reported time in the New York City Marathon six months earlier. When asked by a reporter why she didn't seem fatigued after the grueling race, she said, "I got up with a lot of energy this morning."
Soon, race officials learned that Ruiz had possibly cheated in the New York marathon in order to qualify for the Boston Marathon. Freelance photographer Susan Morrow reported meeting her on the subway during the New York race and accompanying her from the subway to the race. She lost touch with Ruiz after that, but came forward when the news of Ruiz's dubious Boston win broke. According to Morrow, she met Ruiz on the subway and together they walked a distance to the finishing area, where Ruiz identified herself as an injured runner. She was escorted to a first aid station and volunteers marked her down as having completed the marathon, thus qualifying her for the Boston Marathon.

Eventually, race officials decided to strip Ruiz of her Boston Marathon title and named Jacqueline Gareau of Montreal, Canada the women's winner, with a time of 2:34:28. New York Marathon director Fred Lebow had rescinded Ruiz's 1979 finish earlier that week, determining that Ruiz had not completed her first marathon, either.