轉貼：美15年來最大國土改革計畫 新設81萬公頃保護區

President Obama shakes hands with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just before the signing of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009. NY times

本報2009年4月2日綜合外電報導，薛郁欣、Torrent編譯，莫聞、蔡麗伶審校
美國環保人士取得了一項重大勝利。歐巴馬上（3）月30日簽署一項影響深遠的土地改革法案，將指定200萬英畝（約81萬公頃）土地為公有保留地，將可保護橫跨 9 個州的荒野區域，包括總長1600多公里的河川，一舉增加50%的原始景觀河川系統。

此案也為國家景觀保留區系統（National Landscape Conservation System）取得法源，得以保護美國部份最狀麗的風景。其中新設多個國家步道、10個國家級遺址、調整數座國家公園邊界、擴大授權美國開墾局的水資源方案，新設21處新荒野保留區並擴大10個國家級森林內的19個現存荒野保留區。

這項15年來最大規模的公有保留地劃設案，可說美國聯邦對荒野地區的最高層級保護，使其免於伐木等商業利用與開發的威脅。歐巴馬在白宮簽署法案時指出：「這是個所有美國人都會支持的事情。」

加州一處面積高達38萬英畝的原始區域將因為這個法令得以休養。其中包含內華達、加州San Gabriel山脈及Riverside郡附近的沙漠。太平洋岸西北地區也將有13.6萬畝土地指定為保護區，其中包括了俄勒岡州胡德山、Copper Salmon水源地。

這次土地保護改革基於公有地管理綜合法案（Omnibus Public Lands Management Act），總共整合164條法案，工程繁浩，立法過程幾經波折，如3月11日在眾議院以兩票之差未達2/3門檻而飲恨；直至25日再度闖關，這次以285：140過半通過。天眾議院議長裴洛西（ Nancy Pelosi ）說出：「對重視、喜愛自然環境與文化遺產的人們來說，這是一個值得紀念日子！」

該法案包含諸多水資源相關條款，將協助地方尤其是西岸地區因應乾旱、改善老舊設施、挹注地下水資源、並推廣水回收與再利用。

此法案也贏得麻州參議員大力支持。因為它保護了通頓河（Taunton River）自然環境與文化遺址，該河川是新英格蘭區最長的無水壩河流，為無數魚類與野生動物棲息的天堂。社區組織與協會成員為此已花上多年的心血。

部分共和黨員反對此項措施，部份理由是阻礙了公有地上的能源開發，並使政府控制更多土地，不利私有財產權發展。

美 國荒野協會（Wilderness Society）、國家歷史保存信託（ National Trust for Historic Preservation）等環保、文化組織均對此表示歡迎。荒野主席麥道斯（William Meadows）表示這是美國保育史的重要里程碑。

影星愛德華諾頓（Edward Norton）對此更是大力推崇，他表示：「我是國家公園與野生動物保留區的熱情支持者和常客，但我卻不知道以往有那麼多荒野生態與重要史蹟沒有獲得妥善的管理，仍遭受威脅。」

這項綜合性法案還包含了海洋保育工作，例如海洋探勘、海底研究、海洋海岸製圖、海洋酸化研究與監測計畫等，預計可增進對五大湖區、海岸與海洋區的管理、利用與保育之科學研究進展。

【參考資料】
　CNN報導 ENS報導
http://e-info.org.tw/node/42214
------------
按：這真是令人振奮的好消息呀
美國有一個好總統真是讓人羨慕

轉貼： 誰是朱棣文 （關於綠色能源）

Steven Chu
The New York Times
February 17, 2009
翻譯轉自http://www.socialforce.net/phpBB/post_755417.html#755417
【外電】誰是史蒂芬．朱﹖
紐約時報
2009年2月17日

史蒂芬．朱（朱棣文），一個諾貝爾獎得主的實驗物理學家，他也是歐巴馬政府的能源部長。朱博士在1997年獲得了諾貝爾物理學獎，他也同時具有無懈可擊的科學管理方面的資格。

他曾經是史丹佛（Stanford）大學物理系的系主任，並負責貝爾實驗室（Bell Labs）的電子研究實驗室。與貝爾實驗室工作團隊的研究，他用了6個激光束創造了所謂的光學焦糖，利用磁光陷阱同時冷卻及捕捉原子。這就是他和其他人分享得到的諾貝爾獎的研究。
650) {this.width=650; this.className='clickable'; }" onclick="if(this.width >= 650) { window.open('http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/11/timestopics/topics_stevenchu_190.jpg', '_blank'); return false; }" alt="點選可看原始圖檔" border="0">
史蒂芬．朱博士（圖片來源/美聯社）

從2004年開始，他是勞倫斯柏克萊國家實驗室（Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory）的署長﹔這個實驗室有4000名雇員，一年預算大約是6.5億美元。該實驗室隸屬與美國國家能源部，但由加州大學來運作﹔朱博士是 被加州大學遴選而經能源部批准而擔任此職位。他把實驗室的研究方向積極地轉到高等生物燃料，人工光合作用和其他太陽能的研究。他一直是地球溫室效應的氣體 排放控制的熱心提倡者。

朱博士對華盛頓和能源部的主要業務沒有很多經驗，也就是製造和維持核能武器的部門。他對於能源部一個得到國會支持的計劃–要在靠近拉斯維加斯的亞卡山（Yucca Mountain），建立一個核廢料的存放站–相當不樂觀，歐巴馬先生也對此計劃提出了疑慮。

在參議院的聽證會上，他稍微放棄他之前所做的聲明–也就是汽油應該要高價位，而且煤碳是他的「噩夢」 。

朱博士對參議院能源和自然資源委員會針對他的立場回答了一系列的問題：新的核能反應爐（是的，至少再幾個核能場） ，海外鑽井（只是能源計劃的一部份）和新的燃煤焚燒發電廠（一些，直到我們找出一種更好的方式） 。他告訴國會議員說， 「去年石油和汽油價格的快速上漲不僅促成了我們正在經歷的經濟衰退，也構成全美國各地家庭預算上的巨大壓力。 」

然而在2008年9月，他告訴華爾街日報， 「我們必須想辦法把汽油價格提高到歐洲的水平。 」在聽證會上，被問到他所作過的這個聲明，他回答： 「美國的家庭不希望能源預算提高而必須多花他們的寶貴美元，無論是在交通運輸上和保持自己的房子溫暖以及照明。 」

所以答案是使用的效率，要能省油電，因此即使價格上漲，賬單不會上揚，他說。

他還表示，煤炭是很多國家都喜歡用的也將繼續被使用的能源，所以策略就是讓煤炭可以很乾淨的轉化成電力。

在2009年2月11日接受時紐約時報採訪時， 朱博士說，解決世界能源和環境的問題將需要在以下三個領域內有諾貝爾級的突破：電力電池，太陽能發電和開發可以變成燃料的新的農作物。他說，假如我們的世 界期待可以減少對石油的依賴，和控制二氧化碳以及其他跟全球暖化有關的溫室氣體的排放，在科學和技術上的「革命」是必要的。

他說，太陽能技術必需要五倍優於現在的水準，科學家們將需要找到新類型的植物，需要很少的能源就可以種植，並可以轉換為乾淨和廉價能源以替代石油。

朱博士出生於1948年2月28日在聖路易斯市（St. Louis），他在紐約的Garden市長大，他在Rochester大學獲得數學和物理學的雙學士學位，以及加州大學柏克萊分校的物理學博士學位。他的 嗜好包括騎自行車，游泳和做菜。他太太是Jean Chu，她是牛津大學受訓過的物理學家。他有兩位來自以前的婚姻的成年兒子。



〔譯者註〕﹕之 所以翻譯這篇外電，主要是因為個人覺得所謂的「乾淨能源」或是「Green Energy」會是將來許多國家科學研究的集中點。朱博士在他2009年2月11日的時紐約時報採訪中指出可再生的能源如太陽能和風力發電將是非常重要的 領域。台灣與其空談「節能減碳」，不如專注在這方面的研究與發展﹔也許當這一波全球金融危機過去之後，台灣在「可再生能源」方面的競爭力可以對我們國家的 經濟有很大的幫助。

台灣的報導一般把朱博士的名字翻譯成為朱棣文，但是在這篇紐約時報採訪中，當他被訊問到寧願選擇被稱呼為「朱博士」或者是「部長先生」的時候，他的回答是﹕「叫我史蒂芬就好了。」

這篇採訪的連結在此﹕
Big Science Role Is Seen in Global Warming Cure
解決全球暖化必需靠諾貝爾級科學的突破
The New York Times
February 11, 2009

Conflict Hurts Kenya's Middle Class (NY Times)

高爾跟布希見面

大家知道高爾和布希在2000選舉後
就是死對頭
高爾雖然總得票數高 但是選舉人票輸給布希
所以含恨敗北
他們之後互動甚少
今天也是高爾在七年後首次再進白宮
因為高爾得諾貝爾和平獎
而照慣例美國總統會接見諾貝爾獎得主
據報導布希親自打電話邀請高爾
也因為高爾的行程而改變接見的時間
還破例和高爾會談半小時
算是還算有誠意
我要說的是
雖然選舉選得你死我活 人家還是維持基本的格調
該怎麼做就怎麼做
對照台灣 不管是2000、2004總統大選
選贏的驕傲 沒品羞辱對方 （陳水扁和連戰會面的同時 院長宣布核四停建）
選輸的不認輸
甚至不肯承認對方是合法總統
(高雄市也是）

相較美國2000年選舉 票數差距甚至只有數百票 （佛州）
也是有許多選舉瑕疵
但是 法院判決了 大家就是接受
看看高爾的敗選感言

「晚安。我稍早與小布希聯絡過，恭賀他成為第四十三任美國總統，也向他保證這次不會再收回敗選聲明。我表示希望能盡快與他會面，以彌合我們剛經歷過因競選和抗辯所造成的分裂。在將近一個半世紀前，參議員道格拉斯告訴剛剛在總統大選中擊敗他的對手林肯：「國家重於黨派意識。我支持你，總統先生，願上帝保佑你。」

基於同樣的精神，我在此要向總統當選人小布希表示，政黨之間的積怨必須擺在一邊，願上帝保佑他的領導。

我們兩人都未曾料到這場選戰會如此漫長艱辛，我們當然也不願意見到這樣的情況發生。然而這還是發生了，透過我們尊敬的民主體制，現在已經解決，結束了，也必須結束了。

國內有一所傑出法學院的圖書館內，刻著「非臣服於人，而是臣服於上帝與法律之下」的格言，這是美國自由精神的準則，也是美國民主自由的來源。在這次的選票爭議中，我努力以此作為自己的行事原則，而這句話也指引美國在過去五週仔細重議複雜議題。

現在，美國最高法院已經做出判決，一切爭議就到此為止。我對最高法院的判決極不認同，但我接受這項裁決，接受下週一選舉人團所將確認的結果。今晚，為了人民的團結以及美國民主的健全，我在此承認敗選。

我同時接受責任，無條件遵從新的總統當選人，並盡一切力量協助他促進人民的團結，以實現我國獨立宣言所規劃、憲法所保障捍衛的願景。

我在此對支持本人及支持我們奮鬥目標的民眾表示感激。內人和我均十分感謝李伯曼夫婦，他們為我們的合作關係帶來熱誠與崇高的目標，並為我們的競選活動以及國家開啟了新的一扇門。

這是一場非比尋常的大選。但正如上帝其他不可預期的安排，這場好不容易打破的僵局，帶領我們走向新共識，因為選舉結果的難分軒輊，反而提醒我們，我們是擁有相同歷史與命運的同胞。

的確，歷史上有多次大選也因為其結果與多數民意相左，而引起同樣的激烈爭辯和抗爭。

其他的爭議在得到結果之前也曾延宕數週之久，每一次勝選者及敗選者都能抱著和解的精神，心平氣和地接受結果。

讓我們這次也如此吧。

我知道許多我的支持者心裡很失望，我也是一樣。但我們必須以對國家的熱愛來取代我們的失望。

我還要告訴世界上的其他人，不要把這次選票爭議看作是美國衰弱的象徵。從美國所克服的困難中，正好淋漓展現了美國民主的力量。

有些人擔心這次特別的選舉，會對下屆總統推行政務造成不利的影響。我並不認為定會如此。

總統當選人布希所接掌的國家，是一個舉國上下均準備好協助他執行重責大任的國家。

我個人將聽其差遣，而且我要呼籲所有的美國人—尤其是支持我的民眾，團結一致力挺下屆總統。這就是美國：輸贏難分時我們全力以赴；但競選結束後我們捐棄前嫌、團結一致。

儘管仍有足夠的時間就我們彼此的差異繼續爭論下去，但此刻我們必須承認：在這些差異中，將我們團結在一起的，遠比會分化我們的重要。

雖然我們仍抱持著不同的理念，並未放棄；但在遵從政黨之外有更崇高的職責，這兒是美國，我們將國家放置於政黨之上，我們將一起支持新總統。

至於我日後的動向，我目前還沒有答案。就像各位一樣，我期待和家人、老朋友一起共度佳節。我想我會回田納西州修修籬笆（喻為改善關係）。

有人問我是否會有任何遺憾，我的確有個遺憾，那就是我失去在未來四年為美國人民奮鬥的機會，尤其是那些面臨困難及障礙，需要幫助的人、那些覺得自己的聲音被忽略的人；我聽見了你們的心聲，而我永誌難忘。

我在這場選戰中看見了美國，而我樂見我所見。它值得我們奮鬥，而我會一直奮鬥下去。

就今晚結束的選戰而言，我相信家父所言，無論敗得多慘，失敗與勝利一樣，淬練我們的靈魂，使它綻放出光芒。

對我而言，這場選戰的結束一如開始時：有著蒂波和我的家人給予我的愛、對上帝的信念、對國家—這個從我參加越戰到擔任副總統以來一直引以為榮的國家—的信念、以及對努力不懈的競選工作人員和義工的感激，包括過去卅六天來所有在佛羅里達州賣力工作的人們。

現在，政爭已經告一段落，我們必須再次為美國人民爭取利益，並為世界上寄望我們領導爭取自由的廣大人民而努力不懈。

「美麗的美國」這首偉大的讚美詩中有一句名言：「讓我們以同胞愛加冕汝之善行，從此岸到彼岸。」
現在，我的朋友們，套用一句我曾向別人說過的話：我離開的時候到了。

謝謝各位，晚安，願上帝保佑美國。」
-------------------------------------------------
什麼時候 我們的政治人物 也能至少裝出一些格調呢
不好意思 岔題很遠 下面是原文

November 27, 2007
Gore and Bush Chat About Global Warming
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 — Al Gore has traveled the world to spread his message that climate change is creating a “planetary emergency.”

But there was one place Mr. Gore could not take his crusade: the White House.

That changed today when, in a curious twist, President Bush invited his former political rival to the Oval Office. The occasion was an annual tradition, the presidential photo opportunity with Nobel Prize winners. But Mr. Gore, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the environment, was granted special treatment: a private tete-a-tete with the president, which lasted more than 30 minutes, provoking intense speculation about just what the two talked about.

“Of course, we talked about global warming – the whole time,” Mr. Gore said afterward, as he and his wife, Tipper, emerged onto Pennsylvania Avenue, where they were mobbed by reporters and photographers.

No surprise there; Mr. Gore, whose documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” won an Academy Award, is a staunch critic of the Bush administration’s environmental policy. “He’s constantly looking for opportunities to make an impact on this issue,” said Michael Feldman, a Gore adviser, “so being invited to the political center of the universes is a great thing for him.”

Mr. Gore, however, was unwilling to say how great a thing it was — or wasn’t. As he and Mrs. Gore walked, like ordinary mortals, a block and a half from the White House to a garage where their car was parked, the former vice president struggled to fend off the inevitable questions about whether he missed the old place or was happy to be back.

“It was a private meeting and I’m not going to say anything about it other than that it was very nice, very cordial,” Mr. Gore said. “He was very gracious in setting up the meeting, and it was a very good and very substantive conversation. That’s all.”

Monday was the first time the two had met privately since December 2000 when Mr. Bush, having been declared the winner of the 2000 election by the Supreme Court, visited Mr. Gore at the official vice president’s residence at the Naval Observatory. Then, as now, Mr. Gore declared it a private discussion.

Aides say the two have had little contact in the years since, meeting only occasionally, at public events like Mr. Bush’s first inaugural and the dedication of President Clinton’s presidential library. Mr. Bush made no comment when the Nobel was announced, and today, the two stood silently, and a bit awkwardly, during the photo opportunity.

But the president did personally telephone Mr. Gore to extend the invitation, and the White House changed the date of the event so Mr. Gore could attend. Mr. Bush’s press secretary, Dana Perino, told reporters the president is willing to let bygones be bygones.

“This president does not harbor any resentments,” she said. “He never has.”

賞鳥的人殺了一隻貓

在美國一個愛鳥人士

為了保護瀕臨絕種的Piping plovers（全球僅存不到二千隻）
用來福槍射殺了一隻想要吃鳥的貓
被告上法庭
違反類似台灣動物保護法的法律
面臨最高坐兩年牢與一萬美金的罰款
---------------------
其實 我也很討厭野貓在我的研究樣區出現
因為貓的殺傷力很強 很會抓東西吃
鳥的巢 小型動物等
曾經目睹 一隻貓活生生的 折磨一隻麗紋石龍子
在關鍵時刻 我把貓趕走了 所以石龍子當時沒死
結果 離開不到一小時 後來還是看到貓叼著一隻石龍子
不過我沒有討厭人家家裡養的貓啦

這個案子的關鍵也是在那隻貓 是不是野貓
因為根據該州法律 不能射殺別人的貓 （現在已經改成不能射殺任何貓）
但那隻被射殺的貓是有人餵的野貓 所以算是灰色地帶

我是覺得貓不應該出現在野外 應該好好養在家裡
不然實在是生態殺手
但是 用槍射殺也是太殘忍就是了
-----------------------------------
November 14, 2007
Birder Admits Killing Cat, but Was It Animal Cruelty?

By KATE MURPHY

(picture Piping plovers:Richard Kuzminski, cat:NY times)

GALVESTON, Tex., Nov. 13 — Jurors heard opening arguments on Tuesday in the trial of a bird-watching enthusiast who fatally shot a cat that he said was stalking endangered shorebirds.

The defendant, James M. Stevenson, is the founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society and leads bird-watching tours on this Gulf Coast island 60 miles southeast of Houston. If convicted on animal cruelty charges in the shooting last November, he faces up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine.

Mr. Stevenson, 54, does not deny using a .22-caliber rifle fitted with a scope to kill the cat, which lived under the San Luis Pass toll bridge, linking Galveston to the mainland. He also admits killing many other cats on his own property, where he operates a bed and breakfast for some of the estimated 500,000 birders who come to the island every year.

In her opening statement, Paige L. Santell, a Galveston County assistant district attorney, told the jury of eight women and four men that Mr. Stevenson “shot that animal in cold blood” and that the cat died a slow and painful death “gurgling on its own blood.”

She said that the cat had a name, Mama Cat, and that though the cat lived under a toll bridge, she was fed and cared for by a toll collector, John Newland. He is expected to testify.

Whether the cat was feral is the crucial point in this case. Mr. Stevenson was indicted under a state law that prohibited killing a cat “belonging to another.” Prompted by this case, the law was changed on Sept. 1 to include all cats, regardless of ownership.

Ms. Santell argued that because Mr. Newland had named, fed and given the cat bedding and toys, the cat belonged to him and was not feral.

Mr. Stevenson’s lawyer, Tad Nelson, admitted in his opening statement that his client went to the San Luis Pass toll bridge with “an intent to kill.” but that he had planned to kill a wild animal that was preying on endangered piping plovers. “This man has dedicated his whole life to birds,” Mr. Nelson said, pointing at Mr. Stevenson.

The case has prompted emotional commentary on the Internet. Cat enthusiast blogs have called Mr. Stevenson a “murderous fascist” and a “diabolical monster.” Birding blogs have defended his right to dispense with a “terrible menace” and have set up funds to help pay for his defense.

In an interview in a courthouse elevator during a break in the trial, Mr. Stevenson said heatedly that cat fanciers who have condemned him and sent him hateful correspondence “think birds are nothing but sticks.” “This is about wild species disappearing from your planet,” he said, adding, “I did what I had to do.”

Testimony followed from police officers and the veterinarian who performed the autopsy on Mama Cat, a white and gray tabby mix. The jurors were shown several photographs of the bloodied cat, reminiscent of an episode of “CSI: Miami.”

Pictures of the crime scene showed trays of cat food, blankets and cat toys hanging from strings under the bridge. The .22-caliber rifle Mr. Stevenson used to kill the cat along with his magazine full of Remington hollow-point bullets were also on display.

The prosecution and defense wrangled repeatedly about whether witnesses could accurately assess the cat’s state of mind.

“He’s not qualified to know what the cat was feeling,” said Mr. Nelson, when a police officer, John P. Bertolino Sr., testified that the cat was in terrible pain when he arrived at the crime scene. The cat died en route to a Humane Society facility.

The trial, which is expected to take a week, had few spectators save a handful of bird lovers and cat lovers who sat on opposite sides of the courtroom. One side nodded emphatically at Ms. Santell’s arguments, and the other nodded whenever Mr. Nelson objected.

“How people feel about the trial depends on who you talk to,” said Victor Lang, a local historian, adding that bird-watchers and cat fanciers obviously had the strongest views.

Though others may argue passionately about whether Mr. Stevenson should be punished, Mr. Lang said he did not have strong feelings about the case.

“But you see, I’m a dog person,” he said. “If he had shot a dog, then I’d be more upset.”

家人一起吃飯的重要-不管電視開著或關著

相信可能多數人都有經歷過類似的問題
吃飯的時候 要不要（可不可以）看電視
最近的研究
在分析四萬個青少年的樣本後發現
從健康的角度來說
有沒有和家人一起吃飯是對健康最重要的影響因子
有沒有一邊看電視一邊吃倒是影響不大
主要的原因是因為
青少年和家人一起吃飯的時候
飲食會比較均衡 會吃比較多 蔬菜水果等
此研究同時測試一個可能就是 會一起吃飯的家庭可能感情比較好
所以 才比較健康
但是 研究發現即使控制了家庭感情因子的影響
有和家人一起吃飯的青少年 還是比較健康
---------------------------------------------------------------------
原文如下
NY Times October 16, 2007
The Family Meal Is What Counts, TV On or Off
By TARA PARKER-POPE

Television viewing has long been linked with poor eating habits. So when University of Minnesota researchers embarked on a study of family meals, they fully expected that having the TV on at dinner would take a toll on children’s diets.

But to their surprise, it didn’t make much difference. Families who watched TV at dinner ate just about as healthfully as families who dined without it. The biggest factor wasn’t whether the TV was on or off, but whether the family was eating the meal together.

“Obviously, we want people eating family meals, and we want them to turn the TV off,” said Shira Feldman, public health specialist at the university’s School of Public Health and lead author of the research. “But just the act of eating together is on some level very beneficial, even if the TV is on.”

The research, published this month in The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, is the latest testament to the power of the family meal. While many parents worry about what their kids are eating — vegetables versus junk — a voluminous body of research suggests that the best strategy for improving a child’s diet is simply putting food on the table and sitting down together to eat it.

The importance of the family meal has been shown mainly in studies from the University of Minnesota, Harvard and Rutgers that have looked at family eating habits of nearly 40,000 middle-school students and teenagers. The research has shown that those who regularly have meals with their parents eat more fruits, vegetables and calcium-rich foods, ingest more vitamins and nutrients, and consume less junk food. Some of the research has shown that kids who regularly sit down to a family meal are at lower risk for behaviors like smoking and drug and alcohol use.

But as is the case with all studies that observe people over time, the big question is whether the family meal really leads to healthier habits. Could it be that kids from happier, more health-conscious families are simply more likely to sit down to a family meal?

University of Minnesota researchers have sought to answer that question by looking at “family connectedness,” which essentially measures the psychological health of a family. Children from highly connected families have been shown to eat healthier foods, get better grades and have lower risk for smoking and drug and alcohol use. But in the Minnesota research, whether the family was connected or troubled was less important than whether they regularly dined together. One study, published in The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in 2004, found that even after controlling for family connectedness, kids who had seven or more family meals a week were far less likely to smoke, drink alcohol or use marijuana than those who had just one or none.

In the latest study measuring the effects of television, researchers surveyed the eating habits of about 5,000 middle and high school students in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The data were collected during the 1998-99 school year but analyzed only recently. About two-thirds of the students reported that they ate dinner with their parents at least three times a week. But about half of that group said they also watched television during the family meal.

Over all, the children ate healthier foods if the television was turned off, but the differences weren’t as big as researchers expected.

The biggest effect was seen among the kids who didn’t eat regular family meals at all. Girls who dined alone ate fewer fruits, vegetables and calcium-rich foods and more soft drinks and snack foods than girls who ate with their parents. And girls who ate with their parents ate more calories — up to 14 percent more, suggesting that dining alone puts girls at higher risk for eating disorders. Boys who didn’t eat with their parents had fewer vegetables and calcium-rich foods than family diners.

The lesson for parents, say the study authors, is that being together at dinner is what counts. Having the TV on during the meal, while not desirable, can also serve a purpose if it helps bring sullen teenagers and families to the table.

Why a family meal can make such a difference isn’t entirely clear. It may be that parents simply put better food on the table when everyone gets together. People dining alone tend to eat pizza, for instance, while families who order pizza together tend to put vegetables or a salad on the table, Ms. Feldman noted.

It may also be that dining together allows parents to set a better eating example for their kids. And mealtime is often the only chance parents have to actually look over their busy teenagers, catch up on their lives and visually assess behavioral or physical changes that might signal problems.

Dr. Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, who has led much of the Minnesota research, says that when parents hear the data about the importance of the family meal, they often feel guilty if work schedules and teenagers’ extracurricular activities keep them from dining together.

The key, she said, is togetherness, not timing. A family that is scattered at the dinner hour might be able to meet regularly for breakfast instead. And even adding one or two more family meals to the week is better than nothing. “I would put the emphasis on just looking at where your family is now and seeing what you can do to improve,” Dr. Neumark-Sztainer said. “I think many people just don’t realize how important the family meal really is.”

「專欄」E-Mail Is Easy to Write (and to Misread) 容易誤會的e-mail

前幾天的專欄了
內容主要是說
根據研究發現
e-mail很容易讓讀的人覺得不友善
也常常會造成誤會
可能的原因是因為 相對於電話或著面對面談
有許多言語以外的資訊 (non-verbal expression)
例如你可以知道對方的表情或著是語氣
所以專家建議
有爭議的事情最好不要用e-mail解決
電話或面對面會比較有效

文章引用某教授的話當結語
“social software” like e-mail “is not better than face-to-face contact; it’s only better than nothing.”
-------
感想：
跟個人經驗蠻符合的
這大概也是BBS上
常常莫名其妙就戰起來的原因吧
------------------------------------
E-Mail Is Easy to Write (and to Misread)


By DANIEL GOLEMAN
Published: October 7, 2007

AS I was in the final throes of getting my most recent book into print, an employee at the publishing company sent me an e-mail message that stopped me in my tracks.

I had met her just once, at a meeting. We were having an e-mail exchange about some crucial detail involving publishing rights, which I thought was being worked out well. Then she wrote: “It’s difficult to have this conversation by e-mail. I sound strident and you sound exasperated.”

At first I was surprised to hear I had sounded exasperated. But once she identified this snag in our communications, I realized that something had really been off. So we had a phone call that cleared everything up in a few minutes, ending on a friendly note.

The advantage of a phone call or a drop-by over e-mail is clearly greatest when there is trouble at hand. But there are ways in which e-mail may subtly encourage such trouble in the first place.

This is becoming more apparent with the emergence of social neuroscience, the study of what happens in the brains of people as they interact. New findings have uncovered a design flaw at the interface where the brain encounters a computer screen: there are no online channels for the multiple signals the brain uses to calibrate emotions.

Face-to-face interaction, by contrast, is information-rich. We interpret what people say to us not only from their tone and facial expressions, but also from their body language and pacing, as well as their synchronization with what we do and say.

Most crucially, the brain’s social circuitry mimics in our neurons what’s happening in the other person’s brain, keeping us on the same wavelength emotionally. This neural dance creates an instant rapport that arises from an enormous number of parallel information processors, all working instantaneously and out of our awareness.

In contrast to a phone call or talking in person, e-mail can be emotionally impoverished when it comes to nonverbal messages that add nuance and valence to our words. The typed words are denuded of the rich emotional context we convey in person or over the phone.

E-mail, of course, has a multitude of virtues: it’s quick and convenient, democratizes access and lets us stay in touch with loads of people we could never see or call. It enables us to accomplish huge amounts of work together.

Still, if we rely solely on e-mail at work, the absence of a channel for the brain’s emotional circuitry carries risks. In an article to be published next year in the Academy of Management Review, Kristin Byron, an assistant professor of management at Syracuse University’s Whitman School of Management, finds that e-mail generally increases the likelihood of conflict and miscommunication.

One reason for this is that we tend to misinterpret positive e-mail messages as more neutral, and neutral ones as more negative, than the sender intended. Even jokes are rated as less funny by recipients than by senders.

We fail to realize this largely because of egocentricity, according to a 2005 article in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Sitting alone in a cubicle or basement writing e-mail, the sender internally “hears” emotional overtones, though none of these cues will be sensed by the recipient.

When we talk, my brain’s social radar picks up that hint of stridency in your voice and automatically lowers my own tone of exasperation, all in the service of working things out. But when we send e-mail, there’s little to nothing by way of emotional valence to pick up. E-mail lacks those channels for the implicit meta-messages that, in a conversation, provide its positive or negative spin.

On the upside, the familiarity that develops between sender and receiver can help to reduce these problems, according to findings by Joseph Walther, a professor of communication and telecommunication at Michigan State University. People who know each other well, it turns out, are less likely to have these misunderstandings online.

These quirks of cyberpsychology are familiar to Clay Shirky, an adjunct professor in New York University’s interactive telecommunications program. His expertise is social computing — software programs through which multiple users interact, ranging from Facebook to Listservs and chat rooms to e-mail. I asked Professor Shirky what all of this might imply for the multitudes of people who work with others by e-mail.

“When you communicate with a group you only know through electronic channels, it’s like having functional Asperger’s Syndrome — you are very logical and rational, but emotionally brittle,” Professor Shirky said.

“I’m part of a far-flung distributed network that at one point was designing a piece of software for sharing medical data; we worked mostly by conference calls and e-mail, and it was going nowhere. So we finally said we’d all fly to Boston and get together for two days, just sit in a room and hash it out.”

During that meeting, the team got an enormous amount of work done. And, Professor Shirky recalls, “because the synchronization by e-mail was so much better after the face-to-face piece, we actually hit the launch date.”

He proposes that work groups whose members are widely dispersed but need to have high levels of coordination — say, a computer security team protecting a global bank — do not have to assemble everyone in one room to reap the same benefit. Instead, he suggests a “banyan model,” after the Asian tree that puts down roots from its branches.

In this approach, he said, “you put down little roots of face-to-face contact everywhere, to strategically augment electronic communications.”

Professor Shirky advised the I.T. head of a global bank to gather together one representative from disparate cities for a day or two and complete tasks. That way, when the security group in Singapore gets e-mail from the security people in London, someone will be more likely to know the sender, and sense how to read the information with less risk of misconstruing or discounting it.

CONSIDER, too, the “e-mail the guy down the hall” effect: as the use of e-mail increases in an organization, the overall volume of other kinds of communication drops — particularly routine friendly greetings. But lacking these seemingly innocuous interactions, people feel more disconnected from co-workers. This was noted in an article in Organizational Science almost a decade ago, just as e-mail was starting to surge. Saying “Hi,” it turns out, really does matter; it’s social glue.

As Professor Shirky puts it, “social software” like e-mail “is not better than face-to-face contact; it’s only better than nothing.”

Daniel Goleman is the author of “Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships” (Bantam). E-mail:
preoccupations@nytimes.com.

「新聞」婚姻中的爭吵與健康

按：既然紐約時報線上版最近剛變成完全免費，
所以決定要強迫自己多看點紐約時報，所以決定要在網誌上
，每個禮拜固定「簡短」介紹幾篇文章（希望至少一篇）給大家。
----------------------
這篇很有趣，說的是在婚姻中吵架的方式會對男女的健康有不同的影響，
結論是 如果女方在吵架的過程中常常壓抑自己的意見，在十年的研究期間，會比勇於表達自己意見的女方，有四倍的高風險得心臟疾病。但是對表不表達意見對男生的健康，卻沒有影響。另外，爭吵的詞語越負面，同樣對女方有不良的健康影響，但是對男方卻沒有。文章甚至提到，爭吵的方式，對女方得心臟病的影響，甚至跟膽固醇含量、是否有抽煙等都是重要的危險因子。舉例來說，在爭論錢的問題時，如果先生常常以類似「你小學算數有沒有及格呀？」（Did you pass elementary school math?”)的負面方式罵太太，會比說「幸好你其他的方面比管理錢厲害」 （ “Bless you, you are not so good with the checkbook, but you’re good at other things.）讓太太心臟病的機會提高四倍。有趣的是，對男生來說，怎麼吵不重要，重點是如果吵架牽涉到決定權例如男方需要說，「這件事你應該聽我的」，比較會提高男性的心臟病風險。另外，研究也發現，調查中自我評估的婚姻品質並不會影響得心臟病的機率。

文章原文詳見如下
October 2, 2007
Marital Spats, Taken to Heart
By TARA PARKER-POPE

Arguing is an inevitable part of married life. But now researchers are putting the marital spat under the microscope to see if the way you fight with your spouse can affect your health.

Recent studies show that how often couples fight or what they fight about usually doesn’t matter. Instead, it’s the nuanced interactions between men and women, and how they react to and resolve conflict, that appear to make a meaningful difference in the health of the marriage and the health of the couple.

A study of nearly 4,000 men and women from Framingham, Mass., asked whether they typically vented their feelings or kept quiet in arguments with their spouse. Notably, 32 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women said they typically bottled up their feelings during a marital spat.

In men, keeping quiet during a fight didn’t have any measurable effect on health. But women who didn’t speak their minds in those fights were four times as likely to die during the 10-year study period as women who always told their husbands how they felt, according to the July report in Psychosomatic Medicine. Whether the woman reported being in a happy marriage or an unhappy marriage didn’t change her risk.

The tendency to bottle up feelings during a fight is known as self-silencing. For men, it may simply be a calculated but harmless decision to keep the peace. But when women stay quiet, it takes a surprising physical toll.

“When you’re suppressing communication and feelings during conflict with your husband, it’s doing something very negative to your physiology, and in the long term it will affect your health,” said Elaine Eaker, an epidemiologist in Gaithersburg, Md., who was the study’s lead author. “This doesn’t mean women should start throwing plates at their husbands, but there needs to be a safe environment where both spouses can equally communicate.”

Other studies led by Dana Crowley Jack, a professor of interdisciplinary studies at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash., have linked the self-silencing trait to numerous psychological and physical health risks, including depression, eating disorders and heart disease.

Keeping quiet during a fight with a spouse is something “we all have to do sometimes,” Dr. Jack said. “But we worry about the people who do it in a more extreme fashion.”

The emotional tone that men and women take during arguments with a spouse can also take a toll on their health. Utah researchers have videotaped 150 couples to measure the effect that marital arguing style has on heart risk. The men and women were mostly in their 60s, had been married on average for more than 30 years and had no signs of heart disease. The couples were given stressful topics to discuss, like money or household chores, and the comments made during the ensuing arguments were categorized as warm, hostile, controlling or submissive. The men and women also underwent heart scans to measure coronary artery calcium, an indicator of heart disease risk.

The researchers found that the style of argument detected in the video sessions was a powerful predictor for a man or woman’s risk for underlying heart disease. In fact, the way the couple interacted was as important a heart risk factor as whether they smoked or had high cholesterol, says Timothy W. Smith, a psychology professor at the University of Utah, who presented the study last year to the American Psychosomatic Society.

For women, whether a husband’s arguing style was warm or hostile had the biggest effect on her heart health. Dr. Smith notes that in a fight about money, for instance, one man said, “Did you pass elementary school math?” But another said, “Bless you, you are not so good with the checkbook, but you’re good at other things.” In both exchanges, the husband was criticizing his wife’s money management skills, but the second comment was infused with a level of warmth. In the study, a warm style of arguing by either spouse lowered the wife’s risk of heart disease.

But arguing style affected men and women differently. The level of warmth or hostility had no effect on a man’s heart health. For a man, heart risk increased if disagreements with his wife involved a battle for control. And it didn’t matter whether he or his wife was the one making the controlling comments. An example of a controlling argument style showed up in one video of a man arguing with his wife about money. “You really should just listen to me on this,” he told her.

What’s particularly notable about the study is that the men and women filled out standard questionnaires about the quality of their relationships, but those answers were not a good predictor of cardiovascular risk. The difference in risk showed up only when the quality of the couple’s bickering style was assessed.

“Disagreements in a marriage are inevitable, but it’s how you conduct yourself,” Dr. Smith said. “Can you do it in a way that gets your concerns addressed, but without doing damage at the same time? That’s not an easy mark to hit for some couples.”