5/31/09

Speaking_film, music band _Mamma Mia

The ever so-beloved West End musical Mamma Mia! has finally been taken from the stage to the silver screen.

The film is based on the songs of legendary Swedish pop band ABBA and is an adaptation of the musical of the same name.

Mamma Mia! uses the music of ABBA to tell the story of Sophie Sheridan, a 21-year-old American bride-to-be, trying to find out the identity of her real father so that he can give her away at the wedding.

Since the premiere of the musical in London in 1999, over 30 million people have seen Mamma Mia! around the world and the theatre production has grossed $2bn in earnings.

Although the title of the musical is taken from ABBA's 1975 chart-topper Mamma Mia, neither the musical's nor the film's plot has anything to do with the story of the group itself.

The band ABBA was the winner of the 1974 Eurovision Song Contest and following that success their songs topped the charts worldwide until the early 1980s.

After a week of exclusive showing in the Leicester Square Odeon, one of London's most famous cinemas, the film was screened in cinemas across the country from 10th July.

Some people say maybe it is the mature A-list cast that makes the film work so well. Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgard star as the three potential fathers with the Oscar winner Meryl Streep starring as the mum of the bride-to-be.

A film critic said the film is truly wonderful. It is sharp, hilarious and very beautifully shot.

If you are a fan of ABBA, a fan of the musical, or simply just a fan of Pierce Brosnan, then the film Mamma Mia! is a must.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vocabulary

Listen to the words
Download the words (421 K mp3)

ever so beloved
very popular
the silver screen
the cinema
legendary
very famous
bride-to-be
woman who is going to get married
give her away
the formal act in a wedding ceremony when the bride is presented to the groom, traditionally by her father, is known as 'giving away'
has grossed
has taken an amount of money before tax and other expenses
chart-topper
song which reached the top of the music charts
topped the charts
reached the number one position in the music charts
A-list cast
the actors in the film are from the top group of respected performers
shot
filmed
is a must
is something that should not be missed

Speaking_what to wear

There is an audio file for this text too.
Go to the link (title) and listen. A bit fast but you may have a look at the text while listening.
===============

One of the biggest shocks when you arrive in a new country can be the clothes people are wearing. You may look fashionable at home, but you suddenly find you are behind the times or simply someone to laugh at when you arrive abroad. With this in mind, let's take a look at teenage fashion in the UK for girls.

One of the things that may shock an outsider most is piercings. These days it is not enough to simply wear rings in your ears. You will see many teenagers with rings in their navel, or belly button, nose, lip, or even their eyebrow. Ouch!

Some girls go for a 'glam' look. They wear T-shirts; trousers are usually preferred, blue or black, and the look is finished off with metallic bags and shoes and arms full of bracelets. Another alternative is the 'rocker' look. You start with a T-shirt of your favourite band and tight jeans or a long skirt. On top of this you can wear a denim jacket. Jewellery tends to be large and metallic, and to add colour, wear a scarf.

If neither of these is for you, why not go 'sporty'? T-shirts are usually tie-dyed in hot colours. Wear long shorts, short jeans or a denim skirt. And on your feet? Beach sandals, of course! If you prefer something more feminine, there's the 'girly' look. Skirts are long, to the floor. Wear a top with butterflies or flowers printed on it!

Finally, how about the 'Tom Boy' look? Wear flared jeans and a T-shirt with a logo. Don't forget your waistcoat, of course!

Follow the fashion tips above, and you shouldn't feel out of place. However, it's important to remember to wear clothes and choose a look that you feel comfortable with. Don't just be one of the crowd - be yourself!




Vocabulary

behind the times
out-of-date, unfashionable, not modern


piercings
holes made in the body for wearing jewellery, such as rings or studs

glam
short for 'glamorous', i.e. dressed and/or made up to be extremely good-looking and very fashionable

finished off
completed, given final touches

rocker
someone who really likes rock music (and dresses like a rock music fan)

denim
a thick strong cotton cloth, often blue in colour, used especially for making jeans

scarf
a piece of cloth worn around the neck

tie-dyed
designs on cloth dyed by tightly tying portions of it with waxed thread so the dye only affects the exposed areas

sandals
light open shoes with straps

flared
(trousers or skirts) that widen significantly below the knee (popular in the late 1960s - early 1970s)

waistcoat
a sleeveless garment worn on the upper body over a shirt and usually having buttons down the front

out of place
strange, as if you don't belong

Keep working 'to avoid dementia'

Pls listen to the report here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/language/wordsinthenews/2009/05/090525_witn_dementia.shtml

Or simply click to the title link to listen.

==================
The study looked at nearly 400 men who developed Alzheimer's disease. It assessed the time they spent in full-time education, the type of work they did and the point at which they retired.

The researchers detected no link between the onset of dementia and education or occupation. But they found that every extra year at work was associated with a six week delay in Alzheimer's. They say this points to the value of keeping the brain active by working.

They also acknowledge that the nature of retirement is changing, and for some people it may be as intellectually stimulating as working. The Alzheimer's Research Trust, which funded the study, says more people than ever retire later in life to avert financial hardship, but there may be a silver lining: lower dementia risk. However it says much more research is needed in order to understand how to delay or prevent dementia.

Adam Brimelow, BBC News


==============

Keeping mentally active is key
Keeping the brain active by working later in life may be an effective way to ward off Alzheimer's disease, research suggests.

Researchers analysed data from 1,320 dementia patients, including 382 men.

They found that for the men, continuing to work late in life helped keep the brain sharp enough to delay dementia taking hold.

The study was carried out by the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London.

It features in the International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.


More people than ever retire later in life to avert financial hardship, but there may be a silver lining - lower dementia risk

Rebecca Wood
Alzheimer's Research Trust
Around 700,000 people in the UK currently have dementia and experts have estimated that by 2051, the number could stand at 1.7m.

It is estimated that the condition already costs the UK economy £17bn a year.

Brain connections

Dementia is caused by the mass loss of cells in the brain, and experts believe one way to guard against it is to build up as many connections between cells as possible by being mentally active throughout life. This is known as a "cognitive reserve".

There is evidence to suggest a good education is associated with a reduced dementia risk.


FROM THE BBC WORLD SERVICE


More from BBC World Service
And the latest study suggests there can also be a positive effect of mental stimulation continued into our later years.

Those people who retired late developed Alzheimer's at a later stage than those who opted not to work on.

Each additional year of employment was associated with around a six week later age of onset.

Researcher Dr John Powell said: "The possibility that a person's cognitive reserve could still be modified later in life adds weight to the "use it or lose it" concept where keeping active later in life has important health benefits, including reducing dementia risk."
The researchers also admit that the nature of retirement is changing, and that for some people it may now be as intellectually stimulating as work.

Key threshold

Researcher Professor Simon Lovestone said: "The intellectual stimulation that older people gain from the workplace may prevent a decline in mental abilities, thus keeping people above the threshold for dementia for longer."

However, he added: "Much more research is needed if we are to understand how to effectively delay, or even prevent, dementia."

Rebecca Wood, chief executive of the Alzheimer's Research Trust, which funded the study, said: "More people than ever retire later in life to avert financial hardship, but there may be a silver lining - lower dementia risk."

However, Dr Susanne Sorensen, head of research at the Alzheimer's Society, said the small sample size of the study made it difficult to draw firm conclusions.

She said: "There could be a number of reasons why later retirement in men is linked with later onset of dementia.

"Men who retire early often do so because of health conditions, such as hypertension or diabetes, which increase your risk of dementia.

"It could also be that working helps keep your mind and body active, which we know reduces risk of dementia."

A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions said it had carried out work showing that working beyond pension age had many positive effects.

"Not only can it mean more income, but also social networking and increased activity.

"We also find that many of today's older workers are choosing rejecting the cliff edge between work and retirement in favour of a gradual step down. And employers should help them to do this."

5/29/09

Carbon capture technology tested

Read the article, also pay attention to compound words in bold.
================

The 30-tonne test unit could pave the way for a much larger plant


New carbon capture technology is being tested for the first time in the UK on a working coal-fired power station.

A 30-tonne test unit will process 1,000 cubic metres of exhaust gas per hour from Longannet power station in Fife.

Carbon dioxide will be removed using chemicals and turned into a liquid, ready for storage underground.

Energy company ScottishPower wants to test technology which could lead to a full scale carbon capture plant becoming operational by 2014.

The UK government recently gave the go-ahead for a new generation of coal-fired power stations provided they were able to limit their CO2 emissions.

The scientists have focussed on the post-combustion method of carbon capture and storage (CCS) which aims to trap greenhouse emissions after fossil fuels have been burnt.

We believe that the UK can lead the world with CCS technology, creating new skills, jobs and opportunities for growth

Ignacio Galan
Chairman, Iberdrola
The plant, developed by Aker Clean Carbon, will enable them to assess the effectiveness of chemicals, known as amines, at removing CO2.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh will join the project, testing three different types of amine solution over the next three months.

ScottishPower chief executive Nick Horler said: "This is the first time that CCS technology has been switched on and working at an operational coal-fired power station in the UK.

"It's a major step forward in delivering the reality of carbon-free fossil fuel electricity generation."

Research centre

ScottishPower's parent company Iberdrola said the UK would be its global centre of excellence for CCS development, bringing together academics, industry experts and engineers.

A professorship of CCS will be based at Edinburgh University, but other academic institutions will also be involved including Imperial College, London.

Iberdrola Chairman Ignacio Galan said: "We believe that the UK can lead the world with CCS technology, creating new skills, jobs and opportunities for growth.

"There is the potential to create an industry on the same scale as North Sea Oil, and we will invest in Scotland and the UK to help to realise this potential."

The Longannet power station opened in 1969 and is the second largest in the UK.

The station chimney is 183m tall, the second highest free-standing structure in Scotland.

5/28/09

Speaking_ A restaurant in Hanoi_Wild Lotus

The Wild Lotus restaurant is one of the best options for Vietnamese cuisine outside the high-end hotel in Hanoi. This is a room decorated in the style "art deco" in the residential area of town where the main hotels are located. It has 2 distinct plants: a lower offering essentially bar service, with different tables and sofas in the middle of sources and a more distended; prepared for a top restaurant, not very big but spacious enough to enjoy a dinner quiet and without much noise.

We opted for dinner at the top where we were treated very well from the start. The kitchen could be defined as a fusion of Vietnamese cuisine, with many modern dyes that distinguish it from traditional cuisine that is found in other restaurants in town.

For a start we opted for some entrants based Vietnamese rolls that unlike the Chinese have a stronger flavor, partly because of the flavor of its mass (not fried like the Chinese). Additionally, a spinach salad with fruit and shrimp after several dishes made from beef and chicken and especially pork with mushrooms. Finally, a dessert consisting of sticky rice - rice paste - with vanilla ice cream.

Due to the limited depth of the wine list we opted for beer as a companion to our meal.

The cost of the dinner was about $ 25 - $ 35 per person, possibly in the range of higher prices in the city, in line with the quality of the dinner.

Conclusion:

Wild Lotus is a restaurant for a proper European standard but perhaps the most recommended under Vietnamese standards. It is a relaxed, well decorated and with a good service. Vietnamese cuisine is different to other Orientals, in part because it marked its flavor, so it might not satisfy all palates, but to appreciate the Wild Lotus is a good option.

==========

I had been in Wild lotus restaurant in my journey to Hanoi in 2006 and 2007 and it had been nice experiences, the environment was relaxing and comfortable ,the food and staff was nice also. But last May 9 aprox, I had recommended the place to my company group and their comment about the food and service was really regretful, they said that the food was bad and even they serve pork instead of beef, what they didn't ask for. I wish there were an explanation from the restaurant to clearify what really happened there. best regards.

===========

I went to this restaurant with a couple of friends in my recent trip to Hanoi in April 2009. The food, ambiance and service rival WolfGang Puck’s “Cut” steakhouse in Vegas. I guess that sums it up. Try it and you won’t regret…

================


Shiny silver fairy floss light shades project batik snowflake patterns on the ceiling. Striking pink lotus float in clean calm ponds. Austere, confident bronze figures both recline and stand to attention.

"Good evening and welcome to Wild Lotus."

Wild Lotus is a sublime aesthetic and gastronomic trip, art-deco architecture outside, intricately curated gallery inside. Lotus adorn candlesticks, are shown on canvas in abstract decay, embossed in gold on hand-carved doors and delicately painted on ethereal silk curtain. This floral motif is tastefully everywhere at this rather recent addition to high-end dining in Hanoi.

A half sibling to the retreat restaurant, Moon River, this establishment's divine setting is contained on two floors, each distinct in shape and character. The upper storey is a recumbent splendour of cushions and couches, lending itself to aperitifs, coffee after a meal or a simple nightcap. On this floor, the dining transpires in a large recess featuring an ornately carved and curtained bay window. Downstairs offers a warm ambience of white coffee walls and soft chocolate brown chairs, the acoustics allowing intimate conversations to remain private.

This sophisticated blend of contemporary design and orientalia augurs well for the experience to follow. Fortunately, we are not disappointed. Having been unveiled only in March this year, it is inherently obvious that any early glitches have been resolved. As the menu says, the 'culinary journey' at Wild Lotus is themed around the 'old spice routes'. Influences from China, Thailand, India, and Japan, as well as Italy and France, combine to make the cuisine not international, but modern Vietnamese fusion.



Our soups and appetizers are palate pleasers. The creamy sweet corn and leek soup surprises with its crab and coriander dumplings. The five spice salad of pork, prawn, red cabbage and lotus root has an added triple crunch of cucumber, sesame seeds and peanuts and the tangy dressing is enhanced with the addition of shredded starfruit. We experience Japan's influence in the fresh salmon rolls, dipped in a punchy green sauce of ginger, chili and wasabi!

In the interim between courses, a flipped and propelled chopstick is attended to like lightning by our ao dai attired waitress. Before long, she delivers our main courses. The pan fried Nha Trang sea bass is filleted, succulent heaven with its accompanying salad of mango, cherry tomatoes and glass noodles - a real highlight! Sweet pickled shallots are the secret to the grilled beef with herbs and spices, enveloped in tender rolls of meat. Our vegetable dish is luscious, silky purple-skinned eggplant doused in a pork and prawn sauce.

For dessert, our unanimous recommendation is the Vietnamese black sticky rice with Thai custard and vanilla ice cream. It defies superlatives.



The wine list is informed and many marriages can be made with this fine cuisine. Cocktails, beers and other beverages are mixed and presented with precision and beauty. Wild Lotus is sure to become a dining institution in Hanoi and, without wanting to sully our exquisite evening with talk of money, the prices compare remarkably well to other high-end restaurants in the capital.

Wild Lotus Restaurant and Lounge
55A Nguyen Du, Hanoi

5/27/09

Speaking_ a famous person_Oprah Winfrey

For further information on Oprah Winfrey, pls visit the site by clicking to the link.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Oprah" redirects here. For her talk show, see The Oprah Winfrey Show.
Oprah Winfrey


Winfrey at her 50th birthday party at Hotel Bel-Air, Los Angeles, in 2004.
Born Orpah Gail Winfrey
January 29, 1954 (1954-01-29) (age 55)
Kosciusko, Mississippi, United States
Residence Chicago, Illinois, United States
Occupation Talk show host, media mogul
Salary $385 million (2008)[1]
Net worth over US$2.7 billion ▲
(Sept. 2008)
Partner Stedman Graham
Website
www.oprah.com
Oprah Gail Winfrey (born January 29, 1954) is an American media personality, Academy Award nominated actress, producer, literary critic and magazine publisher, best known for her self-titled, multi-award winning talk show, which has become the highest-rated program of its kind in history.[2] She has been ranked the richest African American of the 20th century,[3] the most philanthropic African American of all time,[4] and was once the world's only black billionaire.[5][6][7][8][9] She is also, according to some assessments, the most influential woman in the world.[10][11][12]

Winfrey was born into poverty in rural Mississippi to a teenage single mother and later raised in an inner city Milwaukee neighborhood. She experienced considerable hardship during her childhood, including being raped at age 9 and becoming pregnant at age 14. Tragedy followed as her son died in infancy.[13] Sent to live with the man she calls her father, a barber in Tennessee, Winfrey landed a job in radio while still in high school and began co-anchoring the local evening news at the age of 19.[14] Her emotional ad-lib delivery eventually got her transferred to the daytime talk show arena, and after boosting a third-rated local Chicago talk show to first place,[6] she launched her own production company and became internationally syndicated.

Credited with creating a more intimate confessional form of media communication,[15] she is thought to have popularized and revolutionized[15][16][17][18] the tabloid talk show genre pioneered by Phil Donahue,[15] which a Yale study claimed broke 20th century taboos and allowed LGBT people to enter the mainstream.[19] By the mid 1990s she had reinvented her show with a focus on literature, self-improvement, and spirituality. Though criticized for unleashing confession culture[18] and promoting controversial self-help fads, she is generally admired for overcoming adversity to become a benefactor to others.[20] In 2006 she became an early supporter of Barack Obama and one analysis estimates she delivered over a million votes in the close 2008 Democratic primary race,[21] an achievement for which the governor of Illinois considered offering her a seat in the U.S. senate.[22]

5/26/09

Lectures: marker phrases

Part 5 - Lectures: marker phrases

This programme was first broadcast in 2001.
This is not an accurate word-for-word transcript of the programme.
ANNOUNCER:
It’s time for Academic Listening - a series for students at English-speaking universities. For
more on the structure of a lecture, join Susan Fearn and members of the World Service class of
2001.

Susan: During the series we’re entering the world of further education to focus on
some of the linguistic problems experienced there and in today's programme we
visit University College London. Today we look at “marker phrases” - essential
vocabulary that will help you predict and understand the gradual development
of the lecturer's argument.

And we’ve sent our reporter to University College London, where she joins
students in a lecture about the Roots of English. She’ll be setting them - and
you - a comprehension task to help develop listening skills.
As we’ve said before, it’s a good idea to try and predict the content of a lecture
from its title. Our reporter Julia Adamson asked some of the students at
University College to do just that before their lecture began. She spoke to Sara,
Talk about English © BBC Learning English

Page 2 of 5
bbclearningenglish.com
who's from Sweden, Denis, a student from Belarus and first, Rabia Bourkiza.
CLIP: Julia interviewing students
I'm Rabia Bourkiza I'm from Algeria. At the moment I'm waiting for the lecture and the lecture
will be about the Roots of English. I think this will be about where English language comes
from, and what we are speaking come from.
Can you tell me about the lecture you're about to go into, Sara?
Of course. It's about 'Roots of English' I think it's about linguistics and where language is
coming from and also about certain words the meaning of the words and how the English
language has developed during the centuries.
Do you know what the subject of the lecture is?
It's going to be, I think, about how the language… where the language came from, about
linguistics maybe, and just maybe some grammar use - how it came and how it was born.
Susan: The title of the lecture helped those students to make predictions about the
content. All three expect to hear lecturer Don Hill describe the origins of the
English language - where it’s come from and how it has developed.
CLIP: Lecturer
Well today's talk is about English. I'll start by describing the roots of English, the people …

Susan: Before we return to the lecture theatre, here's a chance for you to do some
listening practice. You'll hear the text of the introduction to Don Hill's lecture
and I'd like you to try to identify the key content of the talk. What are the two
main subjects that Don Hill is going to discuss ? If you’ve got a pen, why not
write these down as headings so you can start making some notes.
Talk about English © BBC Learning English

Page 3 of 5
bbclearningenglish.com
CLIP: Lecturer
Well today's talk is about English. I'll start by describing the roots of English, the people who
spoke the various languages or dialects from which English has come. Then go onto the
registers - that is the styles of English. I'll simplify that very much and talk about two registers
or styles in particular. I'll then raise the question whether one register is better than the other
and give reasons for thinking that there's no simple answer to that question and then I'll sum up
and that will be it.
OK - so the roots of English to start with. Now, why has English become a world language?
Susan: Well, you can compare your answers with Sara, one of the students Julia spoke
to after the lecture.
CLIP: Julia interviewing students
Sara, can you tell me what the lecture was about ?
Of course. The lecture was about roots of English and also about the registers of English, and
that means the roots were mostly about the historical perspective - about how England was
invaded about different people - so mostly about the historical. And also the register is about
the higher & lower level of English; how people use the English language.
Susan: Sara explains that the main subjects of the lecture were the roots of English, its
historical origins, and the registers of English - a higher and a lower register.
Don Hill told us more. As you listen you could add more details to your notes.
CLIP: Lecturer
Well today's talk is about English. I'll start by describing the roots of English, the people who
spoke the various languages or dialects from which English has come. Then go onto the
Talk about English © BBC Learning English
Page 4 of 5
bbclearningenglish.com
registers - that is the styles of English. I'll simplify that very much and talk about two registers
or styles in particular. I'll then raise the question whether one register is better than the other
and give reasons for thinking that there's no simple answer to that question and then I'll sum up
and that will be it.
OK - so the roots of English to start with. Now, why has English become a world language?
Susan: Lecturers use linking words and phrases, sometimes described as marker
phrases, or semantic markers.
CLIP: Christine Reeves
By semantic markers I mean using words which express the relationship between sentences. It
could be a word like 'because' which indicates to you that what is going to follow is a reason.
Susan: Chris Reeves teaches at Bell Norwich, a language school in Eastern England.
CLIP: Christine Reeves
If he says 'so' then you know that you're going to expect the result. It could be a contrast, so if
you're listening for contrasting words it would be a word like 'although', 'nevertheless' or
'however'. If he uses semantic markers like 'moreover', 'in addition', then you know he's going
to make another point and it could be another main point - so it's very important to listen for
those kind of words when you're listening to a lecture.
Susan: Chris Reeves believes that awareness of semantic markers can help you to
follow a lecture. Speakers use marker phrases to introduce contrasting ideas,
additional points, cause and effect or result. You might be used to seeing these
Talk about English © BBC Learning English
Page 5 of 5
bbclearningenglish.com
phrases in books, but recognising them in a spoken lecture can be tricky -
especially if the lecturer speaks very quickly. Awareness of marker phrases like
these can be helpful for understanding lectures, as one of the Language Centre
students explained to our reporter.
CLIP: Julia interviewing student Denis
Some of the phrases we hear are 'on the one hand, on the other hand ' , 'in conclusion', this kind
of stuff.
And why is that useful, knowing those phrases ?
Because this is how you make your speech brighter and more understandable for the students.
It makes more sense for them - it's not just the text, academic text, it makes it more general for
them; more understandable.
ANNOUNCER:
And that brings us to the end of this programme, in which we’ve focused on marker phrases
and suggested that an awareness of a wide range of these linking phrases can help you.

5/25/09

Speaking_ family

Questions
Vocabulary
=================
1. Do you live in a big or small family?

2. Would you like to live in a big family?

3. What do your family do?

4. Do you live with your parents?

5. Would you like to spend more time with your family?

6. What family members do you live with?

7. What does your family usually do at weekends?

8. Do you like going out with your family? Why?

9. Who would you most like to go on holiday with?

10. Can you tell me about your family?

11. Now are you enjoying family life?

12. Where are your parents from?

13. Why anti when did they come here?

14. Do you live in a one-parent / single-parent family?

15. What kind of jobs get very high salaries in your country?

16. Who's the breadwinner in your family?

17. Do you usually have a family get-together?

18. Do you often see your family at weekends?

19. Do you have strict parents?

20. Are your grandparents alive??

21. Do you think your parents are proud of you?

22. Who do you like in your family more? Why?

23. Can you get along with your parents / brothers and sisters?

24. Have you got any step-brothers or sisters?

25. Who does your brother / sister take after?

26. What's your brother like?

27. Do you know the family next door?

28. What's the relationship between you and Mr. Watson?

29. Where does your mum work?

30. Do you live by yourself or with your family?

31. Is your family with you?

32. What do your parents do for a living?

33. is the generation gap between you and your parents a big problem for you?

34. Are your grandparents still alive? Can you tell me about them?

35. Are you married? What does your husband ! wife do?

36. Are you happy with the life you have with your husband wife?

37. Can you get along with your in-law?

38. Do you agree with arranged marriages?

39. What do you think of polygamy?

40. Where and when did you get married Do you remember how you felt at that time?

41. How would you describe your lifestyle?

42. Do you have any English speaking friends?

43. Do you live close to your family? Can you tell me about your fame members?


===============
1. I live in a one-parent family / single-parent family.
(a family where the children live with only one parent)

2. I really enjoy my family life.
(the way a familiy lives)

3. I come from a big family of eight children.
(the group of people who are related to you)

4. I grew up on a farm.
(develop from being a child to being an adult)

5. I grew up knowing that my elder brother would take over the family business one day.
(the job your parents and probably your grandparents used to do)

6. Nuclear family
(a family consisting of mother, father and their children)

7. Extended family
(all the people in a family including aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.)

8. Family background
(the sort of family you come from)

9. She's / he's family (infml)
(used to say that someone is related to you)

10. A large household
(all the people who live in one house)

11. My domestic life isn't very happy.
(connected with the private family home)

12. I live on my own. I haven't got any family.
(the group of people who are related to one another)

13. We've got the same name but are not related.
(the way you are connected)

14. He lives with us, but he's not related / unrelated.
(a person who is not a member of your family)

15. He is a close / distant relative of mine.
(near or not in a family relationship)

16. I really take after my mother.
(to look like or be like a parent or older member of your family)

17. All the men in our family are bald. I support it's hereditary.
(a quality which is passed from parents to children)

18. All her children are very artistic. It must run in the family.
(something which is passed from parents to children and their childrens' children / a common feature in a family)

19. Bringing up / raising children is never easy.
(to look after children in a family until they are adults and to teach them how to behave)

20. My parents really tried to give me a good upbringing.
(the way somebody is brought up)

21. My father recently lost his job, so my mother's the main breadwinner now.
(a person who earns all or most of the money in family)

22. I need a job, so I can support my family.
(to have enough money to be able to look after a family)

23. I am getting married next year and hope to start a family straight away.
(have children)

24. My father is really a family man.
(a man who enjoys being at home with his wife and children)

25. He's got some fatherly concern and duties.
(behaving like a father)

26. Motherhood really suits her.
(the state of being a mother)

27. She is a motherly sort of person.
(behaving like a mother)

28. Danny is my foster brother.
(having different parents, but being brought up in the same family)

29. My step father is a nice man.
(the man who is married to your mother but is not your father)

30. Paul is my big brother / older / elder brother.
(older than you)

31. Anna is my little sister / younger sister.
(younger than you)

32. We're identical twins.
(twins who look exactly the same)

33. My twin sister is a dentist.
(either of the children who have the same parents and are born at the same time)

34. She doesn't get on well with her in-laws.
(the parents of your husband or wife)

35. Next of kin
(your closest relative, who should be told if you are injured or killed)

36. I closely resemble my father.
(to be closely similar to, or look like someone)

37. You can see the resemblance between Susan and her sister.
(a similarity between two things, especially in the way they look)

38. He bears a remarkable resemblance to my father.
(to be or look somebody / something else)

39. My parents live apart from each other.
(if married people decide to separate, then they live apart)

Speaking _jobs

What do you do?
Questions about jobs
Vocabulary
===================

1. What do you do?

2. What's your job?

3. What do you do for a living?

4. What are your main responsibilities?

5. What do you do every day?

6. What are your duties?

7. What is your daily routine?

8. What does your job involve?

9. How many people does your firm employ at present?

10. Can you have some time off whenever you want?

12. Why don't you apply for another job?

13. Have you filled in the application form?

14. If they offer you a well-paid job. will you take it?

15. How much holiday do you get / How many weeks holiday do you get?

16. What are normal working hours for most office jobs in your country?

17. What kind of jobs get very high salaries in your country?

18. What is the minimum amount of income tax you have to pay?

19. What jobs often involve shiftwork? Would you like to do one?

20. Is flexi-time common in your company?

21. What are your working hours?

22. Do you do / work any overtime?

23. Teachers don't earn very much, do they? Why (not)?

24. When were you last promoted?

25. Why / When did you apply for this job?

26. Why did you take an early retirement?

27. Why did you resign?

28. Did they give you a lot of training before getting the job from the company?

29. Did you do / go on any training courses for this job?

30. Have you been promoted since you started in the comply?

31. Do you normally get a good pay rise at the end of each year?

32. How do you feel about your future prospects in the company?

33. Are you happy in the job or do you feel is time for a fresh challenge in another company?

34. What exactly are your duties as a nurse?

35. Who do you work for?

36. Are you usually busy at work?

37. What do you find difficult about working there?

38. Can you describe your place of work?

39. What do you like about your job?

40. Do you usually cover for a colleague when he is on leave?

41. How do you find visiting a lot of people / clients?

42. Who will take your place when you leave? How do you feel about this?

43. What kind of jobs are you good at?

44. Can you tell me about your boss? What kind of a person is he / she?

45. Have you ever had any serious problems at work?

46. Do you work at the moment? Tell me about the work you do.

47. Have you ever had any other jobs?

48. Would you like to do the same job as your mother / father?

=====================



1. I'm a / an (+ job).
e.g. a nurse / an accountant / a builder

2. I work in (+ place or general area).
e.g. a hospital / an office marketing / social

3. I work for (+ name / place of the company).
e.g. Union Bank / IBM / Fiat / an international bank

What your job involves

4. I'm in charge of
e.g. a big company

5. I'm responsible for
e.g. some workers in that department

6. I have to deal with
e.g. any complaints / overseas clients, mainly

7. I run
e.g. the company / a restaurant

8. I manage
e.g. a shop in downtown

Daily duties / routines

9. I have to go / attend (fml)
e.g. (to) a lot of meetings / conferences

10. I visit / see / meet
e.g. patients / clients

11. I advise
e.g. people / clients and give them help...

12. It involves
e.g. writing letters / filling in forms / doing a lot of paperwork / using computers a lot of the time

Getting a jop

13. It's not easy to get / find work
e.g. in big cities / round these parts

14. I'd love to do
e.g. marketing / this kind of work

15. It's difficult to make a living as a / an
e.g. freelance writer

16. I've been offered a job
e.g. in that company / in London

17. I've applied for a job
e.g. in a local company / in the accounts department

Working hours

18. I have a nine-to-five job / I work nine-to-five
(regular working hours in Britain)

19. I do / work shift work.
(nights one week, days next)

20. I am on flexi-time.
(flexible working hours)

21. I have to do / work overtime.
(work extra hours)

22. I only work part-time / take a part-time job.
(part of a day or a few days a week)

23. I am a workaholic. I work full-time.
(work too much)

24. I took early retirement.
(retire at 55 in Britain)

25. I am on / take sick leave.
(a period spent away from work, etc. because of illness)

26. I am on / take maternity leave.
(expecting a baby)

27. I gave up work
e.g. in order to study

28. I was laid off (infml)
e.g. when the factory went bust

29. I was made redundant.
(no longer needed and therefore out of work)

30. I was dismissed (fml)
e.g. for refusing to obey orders

31. I was fired (infml)
e.g. for always being late

32. I am on / off duty.
(to be working / not working)

Other useful phrases

33. We usually take a break
e.g. for lunch / for ten minutes

34. We normally knock off work (infml)
e.g. about 5:30 p.m. and go off to a resataurant nearby

35. I get some rest.
(a period of time when you relax after working)

36. I was rather inexperienced
e.g. for that kind of work

37. I have a lot of experience
e.g. in this area / of this kind of problem

38. I am sufficiently qualified
e.g. for this position

39. This is a job requiring
(a period of time when you relax after working)

40. I try to be hardworking.
(work hard)

41. I'm quite competent
e.g. at my job

42. I try to work efficiently.
(work quickly without making mistakes and wasting time)

43. Efficiency is very important
e.g. in my job

44. A lot of people do voluntary work.
(you want to do it and you're not paid)

45. I was promoted.
(get a higher position)

46. It is a demanding job.
(needing a lot of effort, care, skill)

47. I fill in for / stand in for / cover for
e.g. her while she is off sick

48. I am acting
e.g. as a manager for the next couple of months

49. I will take the place of
e.g. our manager when he leaves

50. Ithis morning shift takes over from
e.g. the night shift t 9 a.m.

51. It is greate teamwork
e.g. that helps get the job done on time

52. We teamed up
e.g. with another group to finish our project

53. We cooperate
e.g. with a German firm on this project

54. I was employed
e.g. as a secretary for a couple of months

55. I do casual work.
(not regular, usually paid hourly)

56. I'v got a temporary job
e.g. working in a newspaper office

57. This factory has 200 employees.
(a person who is employed)

58. The staff
e.g. are so polite and friendly

59. They promoted
e.g. me to office manager

60. I'm on leave
e.g. at the moment because...

61. The post has been vacant
e.g. for some time

62. I turned it down.
(to refuse one's offer)

Payment

63. I am paid
e.g. every months and this pay goes directly into my bank account monthly

64. My salary
e.g. is 20.000$ a year

65. I earn
e.g. 200$ a week as a hairdresser

66. With many jobs you get holiday pay and sick pay.
(when you're off duty or ill)

67. I'm going to a pay rise.
(my pay goes up)

68. My average income
e.g. has risen 2% this year

69. I'm poorely paid / badly paid / don't earn much.
(I'm paid very little money)

70. I have a high income / earn a lot / am well-paid.
(I'm paid a lot of money)

71. My take-home pay / net income is 150$.
(money left after deductions)

72. My gross income is more than that.
(before deductions)

Speaking _ Favourite news channel

Part One
Good morning. My name is … could you tell me your name please?
Please show me your identification/ passport? Thats fine thanks you.
Do you work or are you a student?
What subject are you a studying?
Why did you choose that subject?
Are there things you dont like about it?

Now Id like to ask you a few questions about transport systems in your hometown
What is the most popular transport system in use? Talk about its reliability, frequency and fare.
Do you have any problems using the public transport?

Part Two
Your topic

I'd like you to tell me about your favorite news channel


You should say
What is it
How often do you use it?

And explain why you like it.

Part Two B
What do you think for ordinary people the most effective media to get news is?
Whether all people will be interested in national or international news in your country.

Part 3:

Compare the people's attitude to media between now and the past 20 years?
Should we trust the journalists?
What do you think what a good journalist should be?

Speaking _ Learning English

Part One

Good morning. My name is … could you tell me your name please?
Please show me your identification/ passport? That’s fine thanks you.
Where are your from?
Do you have a large family or a small family?
Can you tell me something about them

Now I'd like to ask you a few questions about your family
How much time do you manage to spend with members of your family?
What sorts of things do you like to do together?
Do you get on well with your family? Why?

Part Two A

I'd like you to tell me about your learning English
All right? Remember, you have only 1 or 2 minutes for this so doesn't worry if I stop you. I'll tell you when. Can you start speaking now, please?

You should say
When and where you study English
What English course do you like best?
And explain why it is important for you.

Part two B
Why are you study English?
Do you think learning English will benefit to your first language study?

Part 3:

We've been talking about household equipments and I'd like to discuss with you one or two question related to this. let's consider:


What do you think is the best way to study English?
What is the most difficulties do you think of teaching of English in you country?
How this can be solved in the future?

Speaking_ a household equipment

Part One

What is your hometowns shape? Can you describe it for me
What is your hometowns history?
Do you prefer going out or staying at home? Why?
What will do if you go out?

Part Two A

I'd like you to tell me about an equipment of your household (such as computer, television, refrigerator, Mobile Phone and so on).

You should say
What it is?
What do you do with it?

And explain why it is important for you.

Part Two B
Will you always keep it?
Is it worth much?

Part 3

Could you please explain with some examples about the changes of technology which are used by people in our daily life between now and the past 20 years?

Whether those equipment you've ever mentioned in your examples is used in you home?

How about other Indian families?

Do you think the technology will have what development in the future?
Do you think it is important?
How often do you access internet?
Do you have a computer?

5/24/09

Speaking_ A newspaper article recently read

Interview
- What is your name
- Do you work or study
- What do you study
- Why did you chose this course
- Do you like swimming
- Are there places where you can go to swim near your home

Cue card
Describe a newspaper article you recently read, you should say:
- What news paper was it in
- What was it about
- Why you remembered this article

Discussion
- Do you think that journalists twist the facts to make the story more interesting?
- Why do you think people buy magazines?
- Do you find the information in magazines relevant to your age group?

Speaking_ A famous Person

Interview

- Tell me your full name.
- Tell me how I should call you.
- Tell me where you live.
- What do you like about your city?
- Does your town have a place where to swim?
- Do people in your town like swimming?
- Do you think swimming is useful and why?
- When people in your country give presents?
- Do you think it is important that present is expensive?
- Have you ever made a gift by yourself?
- Is it hard for you to choose the present?

Cue card

WHO WOULD BE THE FAMOUS PERSON YOU WOULD LIKE TO MEET IN YOUR LIFE.
How did you know about him/her?
What's s/he famous for?
Why you'd like to meet him/her?
What would you do if you met him/her?



Discussion
- Would you like to be famous?
- Why do you think people want to be famous?
- How do you think, do famous persons have privacy? How much of it?
- Do all famous persons have a lot of money?
- What is the difference between famous persons in the past and in nowadays? (this was difficult one for me, because I honestly couldn’t tell it even in my mother tongue)
- What famous person should have to be adored by teenagers?

5/23/09

Computers and Teachers

As computers are being used more and more in education, there will be soon no role for teachers in the classroom.
There have been immense advances in technology in most aspects of people?s lives, especially in the field of education. Nowadays, an increasing number of students rely on computers for research and to produce a perfect paper for school purposes. Others have decided to leave the original way of learning and to get knowledge through online schools. These changes in the learning process have brought a special concern regarding the possible decrease of importance of teachers in the classroom.

Some people believe the role of teachers started to fade because computers have been helping some students to progress in their studies quicker than when compared with an original classroom. For example, in the same classroom, students have different intellectual capacities, thus some would be tied to a slow advance in their studies because of others? incapacity of understanding. In this way, pupils could progress in their acquisition of knowledge at their own pace using computers instead of learning from teachers.

However, the presence of a teacher is essential for students because the human contact influences them in positive ways. Firstly, students realize that they are not dealing with a machine but with a human being who deserves attention and respect. They also learn the importance of studying in group and respect other students, which helps them to improve their social skills.

Moreover, teachers are required in the learning process because they acknowledge some student?s deficiencies and help them to solve their problems by repeating the same explanation, giving extra exercises or even suggesting a private tutor. Hence, students can have a bigger chance not to fail in a subject.

In conclusion, the role for teachers in the learning process is still very important and it will continue to be in the future because no machine can replace the human interaction and its consequences.

This is a great essay. Looks like Band 8 to me. No improvements are necessary, Keep up the good job!

Can computers replace teachers?

Perhaps computers can replace teaching materials such as text books and notebooks, but teachers serve several functions. A teacher is not only teaching but also watching the class and making sure there are no behavioral issues. The classroom is like a small society and the teacher serves as its leader and guide. The teacher also sets an example in this regard.

A computer or robot doesn't have that kind of understanding or intelligence.
teachers are also very helpful to students.and a student can ask a teacher if they dont know any questions.
=============
Computers can be effective tools for helping students learn academic subjects, but young people will always need human teachers to provide moral guidance and foster intellectual growth and social development. Computers provide students with information, but only teachers can teach children to think critically, discriminate among sources of information, and be creative
Never...

For example, computers will never teach students the intuitive critical thinking skills that come from taking liberal arts courses, nor will computers teach students how to be good scientists, journalists, businesspeople, etc. Computers simply allow people who have already developed their job and life skills to access information faster and compute quicker. A good scientist is a good scientist, whether or not she has access to a computer, and likewise with almost all other professions.
Computers will never completely replace teachers, especially not for the younger grades where social interaction cannot be taught through a computer.

However, one argument can be that college students are already taking online classes and in that case computers have already replaced college professors to a certain extent. All the professors have to do is moderate the online sessions.
The Monterey County Herald
OUR VOICE
Monterey County
teens
COMPUTERS CAN'T REPLACE GOOD TEACHING
BY MICHAEL MOEWE
Herald Corespondent

Funding for education is very important to our society as a whole, not just a benefactor for the students in public school. The money we have allotted for public school funding should be used wisely to get the best use out of it.
Bill Clinton has talked about hooking every school to the Internet, as part of his campaign. I think people need to realize what it is that they're getting when they spend money on technology for schools.

The Internet is not a great tool for teaching. The Internet pales in comparison to the hype surrounding it. People think that children can think of any topic and pull up a wealth of information on it, but that is not the case.
The information in a library is what people seem to expect, but nobody has the time to transcribe entire libraries onto computers. There is nothing on the Internet that is incredibly beneficial to education, yet we continue to waste money on it.
I think that the huge amount of money needed to purchase computers could be better used for more traditional forms of education like books and also salaries for better teachers.
Rarely do computers help people learn. I think a good teacher and books really make the difference.

For instance, in my science class we do hands-on experiments that help us to understand the concepts. We also have computers with essentially worthless programs that never get used. I think the computers are just a waste of money that could be better spent on more lab materials. The only use I see for a computer in our class is as a measuring device for speed, temperature and other things in labs. All this can be done on an Apple computer from the 1980s, but we feel the need to get supercomputers just so schools can show off their technology.
I would rather have a huge library at my school than a room full of computers with thousands of dollars worth of programs when the computers are only needed for word processing.

The only thing is that people don't think about the results of spending all the money on the technology and hooking people up to the Internet. We think its the thought that counts, but thought doesn't make a difference if it's a waste of money that does not aid edu- cation.
I'm not saying that we should rid ourselves of technology altogether. Just think about how we need to use computers and buy the computers that schools need, and not go overboard.
People need to understand that computers can't compete with a good teacher. (Michael Moewe recently completed the 10th grade at Carmel High School. High School students interested in contributing to the Our Voice column should contact June Cornea- at 646-4345.)

5/22/09

Can Money Buy Happiness?

By Arthur C. Brooks From the May/June 2008 Issue



Money doesn’t buy happiness, but success does. Capitalism, moored in values of hard work, honesty, and fairness, is key.

On July 23, 2000, a forty-two-year-old forklift operator in Corbin, Kentucky, named Mack Metcalf was working a 12-hour nightshift. On his last break, he halfheartedly checked the Sunday paper for the winning Kentucky lottery numbers. He didn’t expect to be a winner, of course—but hey, you never know.
Mack Metcalf’s ticket, it turned out, was the winner of the $65 million Powerball jackpot, and it changed his life forever. What did he do first? He quit his job. “I clocked out right then, and I haven’t been back,” he later recounted. In fact, his first impulse was to quit everything, after a life characterized by problem drinking, dysfunctional family life, and poorly paid work. “I’m moving to Australia. I’m going to totally get away. I’m going to buy several houses there, including one on the beach,” he told Kentucky lottery officials.
Metcalf never worked again. But he never moved to Australia. Instead he bought a 43-acre estate with an ostentatious, plantation-style home in southern Kentucky for more than $1 million. There, he spent his days pursuing pastimes like collecting expensive cars and exotic pets, including tarantulas and snakes.
Trouble started for Metcalf as soon as he won the lottery. Seeing him on television, a social worker recognized him as delinquent for child support from a past marriage, resulting in a settlement that cost him half a million dollars. A former girlfriend bilked him out of another half million while he was drunk. He fell deeper and deeper into alcoholism and became paranoid that those around him wanted to kill him. Racked with cirrhosis of the liver and hepatitis, he died in December 2003 at the age of forty-five, only about three years after his lottery dream had finally come true. His tombstone reads, “Loving father and brother, finally at rest.”
Did millions of dollars bring enduring happiness to Mack Metcalf? Obviously not. On the contrary, those who knew him blame the money for his demise. “If he hadn’t won,” Metcalf’s former wife told a New York Times reporter, “he would have worked like regular people and maybe had 20 years left. But when you put that kind of money in the hands of somebody with problems, it just helps them kill themselves.”
So what’s the moral of the story? Is money destined to make us miserable? Of course not. Mack Metcalf’s sad case is surely an aberration. If you hit the lottery, it would be different. You would give philanthropically and do all kinds of fulfilling things. Similarly, if your career suddenly took off in a fantastic way and you earned a great deal of money, you would get much happier. And what is true for the parts must also be true for the whole: When America experiences high rates of economic growth, it gets happier. America is not a nation of Mack Metcalfs, and money is a smart first strategy for attaining a higher gross national happiness.
Right?
You’ve heard the axiom a thousand times: Money doesn’t buy happiness. Your parents told you this, and so did your priest. Still, if you’re like me, you would just as soon see for yourself if money buys happiness. People throughout history have insisted on striving to get ahead in spite of the well-worn axiom. America as a nation has struggled and striven all the way to the top of the world economic pyramid. Are we suffering from some sort of collective delusion, or is it possible that money truly does buy at least a certain amount of happiness?
Americans have on average gotten much richer over the past several decades than they were in previous generations. The inconvenient truth, however, is that there has been no meaningful rise in the average level of happiness.
In 1972, 30 percent of Americans said they were very happy, and the average American enjoyed about $25,000 (in today’s dollars) of our national income. By 2004, the percentage of very happy Americans stayed virtually unchanged at 31 percent, while the share of national income skyrocketed to $38,000 (a 50 percent real increase in average income).
You've heard the axiom a thousand times: Money doesn't buy happiness. Still, if you're like me, you would just as soon see for yourself if money buys happiness.
The story is the same in other developed countries. In Japan, real average income was six times higher in 1991 than it was in 1958. During the post–World War II period, Japan was transformed at unprecedented speed from a poor nation into one of the world’s richest countries. But the average happiness of a Japanese citizen, measured on a scale of 1–4, stayed exactly the same at 2.7.
In some countries, there is even some evidence that economic growth can create unhappiness. This is generally the case for nations experiencing rapid and chaotic development and thus opportunities for great wealth for the first time. Post-Soviet Russia is an example of this phenomenon. In the 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Empire, a few entrepreneurs made vast fortunes in markets for oil and other primary resources. Yet post-Soviet Russia is a miserable place in which only about one in five citizens say they are very happy about their lives. Some development economists believe that cases of a few lucky entrepreneurs suddenly amassing large fortunes raised unreasonable expectations among ordinary Russians, creating a sense of extreme unfairness and leaving them deeply dissatisfied with their meager lot. And in this way, money created unhappiness.
So individual countries don’t seem to get much happier as they get richer. But are rich countries happier than poor countries?
The answer to this question depends on how poor a “poor country” is. People in poor countries where much of the population lives below subsistence level are much unhappier than people in rich countries, on average. International comparative studies of happiness consistently place the poorest nations of the world—especially the countries of sub-Saharan Africa—at the very bottom.
In 2006, one study ranking countries in terms of happiness found that Zimbabwe and Burundi were the unhappiest places on earth. And this makes sense, of course: It is ridiculous to imagine that illiteracy, high child mortality, and the threat of starvation are any more pleasant or bearable to a Burundian than they would be to an American. But once countries get past the prosperity level that solves large-scale health and nutrition problems, income disparity pales in comparison with other factors in predicting happiness, such as culture and faith.
For example, compare Mexico and France. The cost-of-living difference between the two nations is vast, so economists don’t compare raw income; rather, they compare the “purchasing power” of citizens. In Mexico—a nation in which most people live above the level of subsistence but still are much poorer than residents of the United States or Europe—the average purchasing power was about a third what it was in France in 2004. And yet Mexicans, in aggregate, are happier than the French. In Mexico, 63 percent of adults said they were very happy or completely happy. In France, only 35 percent gave one of these responses.
America as a nation has struggled and striven all the way to the top of the world economic pyramid. Are we suffering from some sort of collective delusion, or is it possible that money does buy at least a certain amount of happiness?
It might be tempting to dismiss the happiness of Mexicans as delusional or a reflection of the fact that most Mexicans have no idea what life with material wealth is like. But this would be a mistake: There is simply no evidence that Mexicans lack an understanding of true happiness compared to the French. A more reasonable conclusion is that Mexican happiness—and French unhappiness—are caused in large measure by forces other than money.
American communities are like countries when it comes to happiness. Like happy Mexico and unhappy France, the happiness of American communities—all of which are above the level of subsistence—depends very little on their comparative prosperity. There are abundant examples of unhappy high-income communities and happy low-income communities. Take eastern Tennessee (which includes the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville, but is mostly rural), where people are 25 percent likelier than people living in tony San Francisco to say they are very happy, despite earning a third less money on average. Obviously, it is more expensive to live in San Francisco than it is to live in Tennessee, but San Franciscans still enjoy more than 30 percent more disposable income.
Like nations and communities, as long as they don’t start out dangerously impoverished, individuals get little or no extra happiness as they get richer—even massively richer. In a classic 1978 study, two psychologists interviewed 22 major lottery winners and found that the joy of sudden wealth wore off in a few months. Further, lottery winners have a harder time than the rest of us enjoying life’s prosaic pleasures: watching television, shopping, talking with friends, and so forth. It’s as if the overwhelming experience of winning the lottery dulls the enjoyable flavors of ordinary life.
This story opened with the sad tale of Mack Metcalf. In truth, it doesn’t necessarily destroy your life to win the lottery, as it evidently did his, but it won’t make your life better either.
So it’s true: Money doesn’t bring enduring happiness for countries, communities, or individuals, except perhaps when people start out in abject poverty. Why not? The answer has to do with what psychologists call “adaptation.” Humans tend to adapt psychologically to their circumstances—including their monetary circumstances—and do so very quickly.
Perhaps you’ve walked into a chain-smoker’s home and wondered how on earth he could stand to live with such a stench. The answer, of course, is that he is used to it. For the most part, the same is true of economic gains and losses in our lives: They give us pleasure or pain when they happen, but the effect wears off very quickly. Adaptation makes money unsatisfying per se because we get used to it quickly. Almost immediately, an increased income becomes the new “normal.”
For individuals, communities, and nations, economic growth is like being on a treadmill, and getting richer is like speeding up the treadmill: We never get any closer to bliss.
According to the great economist Adam Smith, an early proponent of the benefits of pursuing personal economic interests for the common good, “the mind of every man, in a longer or shorter time, returns to its natural and usual state of tranquility. In prosperity, after a certain time, it falls back to that state; in adversity, after a certain time, it rises up to it.”
Indeed, economists even refer to our tendency to adapt as the “hedonic treadmill.” They have found ingenious ways to illustrate how it works. In 1978, for example, researchers presented a sample of adults with a list of 24 big-ticket consumer items (a car, a house, international travel, a swimming pool, and so on). They were asked how many of these items they currently possessed; they were also asked, “When you think of the good life—the life you’d like to have—which of the things on this list, if any, are part of the good life as far as you are personally concerned?”
Inevitably, people felt that the “good life” required more things than they currently possessed. Among the people between 30 and 44 years old, the average number of items owned was 2.5, while the ideal number was 4.3. The same people were interviewed 16 years later, in 1994, and presented with the same list. Naturally, most people had more items; the ones formerly in their 30s and early 40s (now in the next age category, 45 to 59 years old) had 3.2 items, on average. They were closer to the good life, right? Wrong. Their requirements for the good life had now shifted, to 5.4 items. In other words, after 16 years and lots of work, the “good life” deficit had stayed almost exactly the same. The more stuff you have, the more you want.
Lottery winners have a harder time than the rest of us enjoying life's prosaic pleasures: watching television, shopping, talking with friends, and so forth.
Money may not buy happiness, but there is one important way in which money and happiness are related: At any given moment, richer individuals within a country tend to be happier than poorer folks. In 2004, Americans earning more than $75,000 per year were more than twice as likely to say they were very happy than those earning less than $25,000. One study found that when happiness was measured on a 1–3 scale (where 3 was happiest), Americans in the bottom 10 percent of earners in the mid-1990s had an average happiness score of 1.94; those in the middle of the income distribution had a score of 2.19; and those in the top 10 percent scored 2.36.
This is strange, because we know that money by itself doesn’t bring much happiness. Many economists look at these facts and conclude that though we really don’t care about having money for its own sake, we do care about having more money than others. In other words, my money only makes me happy when I notice that I am richer than you. Or that you are poorer than I, of course. (Like the old saying goes, “It’s not enough to succeed—your friends have to fail, too.”)
Some studies appear to back up this idea. For example, in one experiment from the early 1990s, human subjects were presented with two job options, both at magazines. At Magazine A, they would earn $35,000 while their colleagues earned $38,000. At Magazine B, they would earn $33,000 while their colleagues earned $30,000. Most of the participants chose the higher-paying job at Magazine A—the rational choice. However, two-thirds said that, notwithstanding their choice, they would be happier at Magazine B.
In another study involving faculty, staff, and students at Harvard University, participants were asked to choose between earning $50,000 per year while everyone else earned $25,000, or earning $100,000 per year while others made $200,000. The researchers stipulated that prices of goods and services would be the same in both cases, so a higher salary really meant being able to own a nicer home, buy a nicer car, or do whatever else they wanted with the extra money. But those materialistic perquisites mattered little to most people: 56 percent chose the first option, hypothetically forgoing $50,000 per year simply to maintain a position of relative affluence.
Could it be that what we care most about is not material comforts, but one-upsmanship? Perhaps out of our primeval past comes the urge to demonstrate that we are better than others. A hundred thousand years ago, it would have given us happiness to have more animal skins than the troglodyte in the next cave; this would help ensure mating prospects, which would keep our genetic lines going. Still programmed in this way, we get unexplainable pleasure from having a better office than our coworkers and a bigger house than the guy next door, even if we don’t “need” the space.
This theory may sound good, and it is quite common to hear, but it is not the explanation best supported by the evidence. Rather, what the data tell us is that richer people are happier than poorer people because their relative prosperity makes them feel successful. Think for a moment about your last big pay raise. Why did you feel such joy over it? Most likely, it was because of what your higher pay represented to you—evidence that you had succeeded, that you had created value. That’s why you enjoyed the raise more when you first were offered it than when you started spending it. It is success (not money) that we really crave.
Imagine two people who are the same in income as well as in education, age, sex, race, religion, politics, and family status. One feels very successful and the other does not. The one who feels successful is about twice as likely to be very happy about his or her life than the one who does not feel successful. And if they are the same in perceived success but one earns more than the other, there will be no happiness difference at all between the two.
The upshot: If you and I feel equally successful but you make four times as much as I do, we will be equally happy about our lives. Of course, successful people make more money than unsuccessful people, on average. But it is the success—not the money per se—that is giving them the happiness. I have no doubt that some people do get pleasure from lording their higher incomes over others. But the evidence says this is not the biggest reason that having more than others gives us happiness.
Financial status is the way we demonstrate to others (and ourselves) that we are successful—hence the fancy watches, the expensive cars, and the bespoke suits. We use these things to show other people not just that we are prosperous, but that we are prosperous because we create value.
There is nothing strange about measuring our success with money; we measure things indirectly all the time. I require my students to take exams not because I believe their scores have any inherent value, but because I know these scores correlate extremely well with how much they have studied and how well they understand the material. Your doctor draws your blood to check your cholesterol not because blood cholesterol is interesting in and of itself, but because it measures your risk of having a heart attack or a stroke. In the same way, we measure our professional success with green pieces of paper called “dollars.”
What scholars often portray as an ignoble tendency—wanting to have more than others—is really evidence that we are driven to create value. Wanting to create value is a virtue, not a vice. The fact that it also brings us happiness is a tremendous blessing.
Have you ever wondered why rich entrepreneurs continue to work so hard? Perhaps you’ve said, “If I had a billion dollars, I’d retire.” This is what Mack Metcalf actually did when he won the lottery. But if he had earned that money doing something creative and productive, things would almost certainly have gone differently for him. People who succeed at what they do tend to keep doing it. The drive to succeed, as opposed to just having more money than others, explains why the super-rich—who already have so much more than virtually everybody—continue to work.
Americans have on average gotten much richer over the past several decades than they were in previous generations. But there has been no meaningful rise in the average level of happiness.
If there is a downside to success, it is that it appears to set the bar high and keep it there. For a star quarterback who throws twice as many touchdowns each season as the league average, it is a letdown for him and his fans when he has a year that is only a little above average. The more you succeed, the more you need to succeed to feel happy.
Take the case of billionaire Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle. The world’s 14th-richest man, he would need to spend more than $30 million per week, or $183,000 per hour, just to avoid increasing his wealth. Further, he would have to spend it on items with no investment qualities, meaning that, unless he sets his money on fire, or (better yet) gives it away, he simple cannot not be filthy rich. Yet he continues to slave away, earning billion after billion. Being rich, and having more than the average Joe, simply cannot be driving Larry Ellison. It is the will to succeed and create value at greater and greater heights.
Who enjoys the benefits created from the slaving of Bill Gates (worth $58 billion and counting), Warren Buffett ($62 billion), and all of America’s other success-addicted, ultra-rich entrepreneurs? We all do: As long as fortunes are earned—as opposed to stolen, squeezed from governments, or otherwise extorted from citizens—this is good for all of us.
Oracle has not made Larry Ellison a rich man without any benefit to society. The firm currently has tens of thousands of employees, people with well-paying jobs to support their families. The company has introduced technology that has benefited all parts of the economy, and it has paid billions to its shareholders. And we can’t forget that Oracle has rendered generously unto Caesar, year after year: In 2007 alone, it paid $1.2 billion in corporate taxes, totally apart from the personal taxes paid by Ellison and his employees.
Money is a measure of success, and a handy one at that. But there is a dark side to this fact: People tend to forget that money is only a measure. Some people focus on money for its own sake, forgetting what really brings the happiness.
This is not really a shocking idea, to be sure: We often mistake indirect measures for the actual phenomena we care about. Take, for example, standardized tests in public schools. The purpose of administering them, at least originally, was to see whether schools were providing an adequate education to the majority of their students. When the students at a particular school perform poorly, on average, the school faces sanctions—thus the teachers have incentives to “teach to the test,” focusing on preparing students to take the test instead of teaching the content the test is supposed to measure. There is evidence that this is really taking place. Obviously, it is problematic and ironic if, in order to score higher on the measure of success, we degrade true education.
Just as teaching to the test leads to inferior education, working only for the money can lead to an unhappy life. No doubt you have met people who appear to be trapped in an unsatisfying cycle of materialism and unhappiness. These people confuse money for what it is supposed to measure, and thereby maximize the wrong thing. Among other things, they leave out of the equation all of the kinds of success—in our family lives, in our spiritual lives, in our friendships—that money does not measure. And even their work choices reflect the sad mistake of forgoing what they love doing for what brings in the most monetary compensation. The evidence on happiness is clear that we should avoid the measurement error of materialism.
In some countries, there is even some evidence that economic growth can create unhappiness.
So why do so many people fall prey to this error? One explanation—a timeless hit for critics of American-style capitalism—is that our commercial culture fosters it. Relying as it does on an unending stream of cash, it creates a cleavage for us between true value creation and the symbols of it: cash, and the stuff it can buy.
But before singling out the American freemarket system for creating this confusion, note that capitalism is not the only culprit— far from it. Governments encourage this measurement error even more egregiously. Remember Mack Metcalf: There is no doubt that he played the lottery—the government-monopoly-controlled lottery—in the belief that it would enhance his happiness if he won. Almost everyone believes this: How many times in your life have you been asked what you would do if you won the lottery? Have you ever said, “I would start by being exploited by manipulative friends and family, and then maybe go into an alcoholic spiral—and then I’d probably die an untimely and tragic death”? No, you list things you imagine you would like to do: go back to school, take vacations, buy homes in warm places, and so on.
What is going on here? On the one hand, you possess anecdotal evidence about cases like Metcalf’s. On the other hand, you are being told by those who are ethically and constitutionally bound to represent your interests—politicians and bureaucrats—that easy money will give you happiness. The New Jersey State Lottery’s slogan is “Give Your Dreams a Chance.” My own state of New York drew in gamblers for years with, “All you need is a dollar and a dream.” No doubt your state makes a similar claim.
But easy money will not bring you happiness—earned success will (and in many cases that earned success will also bring you money). It is simply inconceivable that your state lottery commissioner does not understand this fact at some level. Yet for the sheer sake of raising money for its own purposes, your government perpetuates this cognitive error. President Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Happiness is not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.” How things have changed! Today, government officials eviscerate the very ideal of achievement while exploiting our citizens.
I am not advocating an end to legal gambling here. While I personally have no use for it, I understand that gambling is an enjoyable diversion for some. Furthermore, I believe there is a lot of benefit to protecting our freedom to make our own decisions about our resources, even including the freedom to confuse money and success. But it is astonishing that the government—for no other reason than monopolistically vacuuming money out of its own citizens—should abet this confusion and lower our happiness.
Mexican happiness—and French unhappiness—are caused in large measure by forces other than money.
How could the government make things better for us instead of worse? Here’s an idea: It could tax away our incomes at very high rates so that money and success were no longer so highly correlated. Then, that money (if we still bothered to earn it) could be spent on public goods and services instead of what we would have spent it on, such as big houses and other ostentatious displays of our success. We would be happier if we were forced out of the consumers’ arms race that we have (literally) bought into. And as a bonus, we could enjoy all the good things the government would buy. According to one prominent economist, “We could spend roughly one-third less on consumption—roughly $2 trillion per year—and suffer no significant reduction in satisfaction. Savings of that magnitude could help pay for restoring our infrastructure, for cleaner air and water, and a variety of other things.” It’s so simple!
Unfortunately, this idea is misguided. Although consumerism does not buy happiness, government spending does not either. On the contrary, more government spending makes us less happy in general. Over the past 30 years, Americans have had increasing levels of money taxed away and spent—at least ostensibly—on them. In 1972, the federal government devoted about $4,300 to each American (in 2002 prices). By 2002, the level of spending had risen to $6,900 per person. Yet we have not gotten any happier. In 1972, 30.3 percent of Americans said they were very happy. In 2002, that percentage was still exactly 30.3 percent.
Even worse, when we correct for changing household income levels and the passage of time, higher government spending turns out to be pushing average happiness down, not up. Consider that, while a $1,000 increase in per-capita income is associated with a 1.24 percent drop in the percentage of Americans saying they are not too happy, a $1,000 increase in federal government revenues per person is associated with a 2.91 percent increase in the percentage saying this.
In other words, private prosperity brings us up, but government spending brings us back down. For every dollar in increased GDP that the government taxes away and spends, there is a higher net unhappiness level among the population than if that money had never been earned at all. Why does government spending diminish our happiness so significantly? There are a number of possible explanations. First, in some cases the spending goes to things that make us miserable, such as the Internal Revenue Service. Second, government spending reminds us of how our economic freedoms are abridged, being paid for as they are with taxes. Third, government spending, for some—the nonworking poor, in particular—creates misery, because the people who are supposed to benefit t become dependent on government programs.
Our market system, which often rewards success with dollars, can create the tendency to confuse success itself with money. But giving more money to the government will not fix this; on the contrary, our government tends to exacerbate the problem with its money-making schemes (like the lottery), and it would only make things worse for us if it tried to adjust our values through taxation and redistributive spending. The moral confusion of materialism is one best left to ourselves, our families, our communities, and our faiths to resolve.
Although consumerism does not buy happiness, government spending does not either. On the contrary, more government spending makes us less happy in general.
This is hardly an original observation on my part. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his 1835 classic Democracy in America about the tendency toward “excessive individualism” in an atomistic American society. Tocqueville noted, however, that the remedy lay not in reordering the American system, but in the institutions of civil society: families, churches, charities, and friendships, which are the connective tissue between people that help us to avoid errors in our values. In other words, markets are not enough—we need morality as well, and the institutions that make it possible to express this morality.
Free markets allow us to live the way we want to live—giving most people maximum buying power, and allowing citizens to find jobs that match their skills and passions.
How we use this power and freedom is up to us, and depends on our values: We can make decisions that lead to happiness, or we can make decisions that make us miserable. But to throw out free markets because capitalism does not bring happiness directly would be senseless: It would be like trashing your computer because it didn’t make your coffee.
What about the losers in a capitalistic economy? Doesn’t a competitive market system make it harder for people unable to participate effectively in the market system to pursue happiness like the rest of us? The answer might be yes, but only if we are bereft of our core values of charity and caring for others. The fact that some sick or handicapped or otherwise-challenged people are miserable because they cannot provide for themselves in a free-market system does not mean there is something wrong with our system—it means there is something wrong with our morals. In a moral society, these people should be aided by the rest of us in a way that preserves dignity and avoids dependence.
The fact that money doesn’t buy happiness is no indictment of capitalism. On the contrary, capitalism is the best system to allow people to succeed on their merits in the economy—and we know that it is success that truly does bring happiness. Capitalism, moored in proper values of honesty and fairness, is a key to our gross national happiness, and we should defend it vigorously.
Arthur C. Brooks is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor at Syracuse University. This is adapted from “Gross National Happiness” (Basic Books).

Happiness conference promises key to inner joy

By Grace Wong

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The state of the economy may be out of people's hands, but their happiness isn't, according to a group of researchers meeting at an international conference on happiness Thursday.

The Happiness and Its Causes conference received a big boost from the Dalai Lama, who attended in 2007.

Experts from fields ranging from neuroscience and philosophy to psychology and theology will gather to discuss the latest insights on living happier lives at the meeting in Sydney, Australia.
Drawn to workshops with titles like The Architecture of Sustainable Happiness and Practical Tools for Positive Relationships, more than 2,000 participants are expected to attend the conference.
The pursuit of happiness has been considered through the ages, but interest has grown in recent years amid a growing number of studies that suggest it is possible to improve your well being, researchers say.
Over the last decade, studies have shown that people who think optimistically and have strong relationships tend to be happier, they say.
With the recession and extra challenges people are facing today, tools for learning how to remain happy or cope with hard economic times may be particularly relevant.
See the world's happiest nations »
"A lot of people want to be happier. They want to know what they can do, and they want to learn scientifically-supported techniques," Sonja Lyubomirsky, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Riverside, tells CNN.
Lyubomirsky, who will lead the workshop on lasting happiness, argues that while genetic and environmental factors play a role in determining happiness, individuals can employ strategies to increase their capacity for happiness.

Vital Signs

Each month CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta brings viewers health stories from around the world.

See more from the show »

The two-day conference which starts Thursday is just a small slice of the flourishing happiness business.
While there are no estimates on its size, the broader U.S. self-help market -- which encompasses wellness programs, books and holistic training -- exceeds $11 billion and is forecast to grow an average 6% annually over the next three years, according to Marketdata Enterprises.
Learning how to be happy doesn't come cheaply. The Happiness and Its Causes conference costs about $680, excluding workshops. Attendance at the event this year is expected to be at close to 2,100, down from 2,500 last year.
But participation has swelled since the first event in 2005, which drew about 300 participants, says Cara Anderson of the non-profit World Happiness Forum, organizer of the conference. The meeting received a particularly big boost after the Dalai Lama participated in 2007.

At the conference, participants will explore a vast range of topics, from the latest scientific findings on brain plasticity and positive thinking to more spiritual endeavors such as cultivating contentment and awakening the spirit. There will also be no shortage of opportunities to buy books, DVDs and other materials.

What do you think is the key to happiness? Tell us in the SoundOff box below or send us an iReport
The meeting tends to attract members of the caring industry, including social workers and mental health professionals, as well as educators and the general public, according to Anderson.
There's also been rising interest among human resource managers and companies looking to boost morale in the workplace, she says.
Don't Miss
Quiz: Depression myths
Happiness is contagious in social networks
Feeling lonely? Genes might be at fault
That echoes the trend seen by Tim Sharp, a clinical psychologist based in Sydney who is the founder of The Happiness Institute, which runs positive coaching and courses for individuals and organizations.
"Rather than just wanting to boost happiness, people want to build resilience to get through difficult times," Sharp, who will lead a panel on happiness at work at the upcoming conference, told CNN.
While anxiety about financial matters may be on the rise, past research suggests overall happiness is not correlated to economic well being, according to Ruut Veenhoven, director of the World Database of Happiness, which documents research findings on the enjoyment of life.

Veenhoven, who is also editor of the Journal of Happiness Studies and professor at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands, studied the impact of the 1980-1982 recession on happiness levels in Western European nations.
He says that while worries about money matters did rise, average levels of happiness were not significantly affected. "The general conclusion was that economic ups and downs don't really affect overall happiness in rich countries," he says

There's been an upsurge in the number of researchers studying happiness since he first started working in the field in the 1960s, says Veenhoven, who isn't involved in the upcoming conference.
The big trend is that people are getting happier, he says. "We know that most people are happy, so people know happiness is possible and more or less in their own hands."

5/21/09

Markets fall as growth hopes fade

The FTSE has fallen and sterling weakened
Markets worldwide have fallen after Federal Reserve minutes showed the central bank has lowered its forecast for US growth.

Japan's Nikkei index ended nearly 1% lower while the FTSE 100 fell 2.1%, Germany's Dax shed 1.5% and France's Cac declined 1.4% in morning trade.

UK shares were also hit after ratings agency Standard & Poor's revised the UK's outlook to negative.

The agency cited rising public debt, which hit a record in April.

Figures on Thursday revealed that public borrowing hit a new high of £8.46bn in April compared to £1.84bn in the same month last year.

Standard & Poor's said UK debt could be close to 100% of gross domestic product, and remain at that level in the medium term.

"There are concerns finally coming through about where the underlying growth is going to come from," said Justin Urquhart Stewart, investment director at Seven Investment Management.

"We need a growing level of demand. There's a certain amount of restocking happening, and unfortunately the market has been taking that as a sign of a recovery, which it is not," he said.

'Downbeat'

Meanwhile there was more pessimism about the US economy.

On Wednesday the Fed said it expected the economy would contract between 1.3% and 2% this year.

Earlier in the year, the bank predicted the economy could contract between 0.5% and 1.3%.

It also warned that US unemployment could reach 10%.

"Minutes of the last meeting painted a downbeat outlook for global economies and the financial sector, suggesting that any feelings among traders that the worst was behind us could prove premature," said David Jones, chief market strategist at IG Index.

"This combination of news over the last 24 hours has resulted in a predictable knee-jerk sell off - the question from here is whether it is the start of a more sustained slide to correct the impressive gains seen since mid-March," he added.

Falling sterling

New data from the UK led to a sharp reversal in the value of pound and dollar, after sterling had reached a new high against the greenback.

Following the downgrade by Standard & Poor's, sterling fell 3 cents to a low of $1.5514, from its highest in more than six months of $1.5817.

The pound also weakened against the euro, which was worth 88.69p.

Earlier sterling had risen after minutes from the Federal Reserve revealed the bank considered adding to money supplies, easing concerns over dollar funding.

"The Fed said exactly what the market wanted to hear so it could sell the dollar, although it's too early to say whether its a decisive trend that will hurt the dollar," one portfolio manager at a Japanese firm said.

Oil prices rise to six-month high

Oil prices have almost doubled since January
Oil prices have hit six-month highs, breaking through $62 a barrel after data showed a fall in US oil supplies for a second straight week.

US light crude rose to $62.04 a barrel, while London Brent climbed to $60.59.

US crude slipped below $60 on Tuesday, dragged lower by official data showing a record fall in the number of new homes built in the US.
Analysts said the fall in US oil inventories could indicate an increase in demand for oil.

Crude stockpiles dropped by 2.1 million barrels for the week ended May
15, according to US Energy Department's Energy Information Administration. Petrol inventories dropped by 4.3 million barrels - a bigger decline than forecast.

"Week over week, the report is very bullish," said Phil Flynn of Alaron trading in Chicago.

Oil prices have risen from $50 a barrel over the last three weeks, as optimism about the state of the world economy has grown.

And it has jumped from $32 levels seen in January, though remains well below the record high of $147 touched last July
.