单选题Sometime soon, according to animal-rights activists, a great ape will testify in an American courtroom. Speaking through a voice synthesizer, or perhaps in sign language, the lucky ape will argue that it has a fundamental right to liberty. "This is going to be a very important case." Duke University law Prof. William ReppyJr. told the New York Times. Reppy concedes that apes can talk only at the level of a human 4-year-old, so they may not be ready to discuss abstractions like oppression and freedom. Just last month, one ape did manage to say through a synthesizer, "Please buy me a hamburger." That may not sound like crucial testimony, but lawyers think that the spectacle of an ape saying anything at all in court may change a lot of minds about the status of animals as property. One problem is that apes probably won"t be able to convince judges that they know right from wrong, or that they intend to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Since they are not persons, they don"t even have legal standing to sue. No problem, says Steven Wise, who taught animal law for 10 years at Vermont Law School and is now teaching Harvard Law School"s first course in the subject. He says lawyers should be able to use slavery-era statues that authorized legal nonpersons (slaves) to bring lawsuits. Gary Francione, who teaches animal law at Rutgers University, says that gorillas "should be declared to be persons under the constitution. " Unlike mainstream animal-welfare activists, radical animal-rights activists think that all animals are morally equal and have rights, though not necessarily the same rights as humans. So the law"s denial of rights to animals is simply a matter of bias-speciesism. It"s even an expression of bias to talk about protecting wildlife, since this assumes that human control and domination of other species is acceptable. These are surely far-out ideas. "Would even bacteria have rights ?" asks one exasperated law professor, Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School. For the moment, the radicals want to confine the rights discussion to apes and chimps, mostly to avoid the obvious mockery about litigious lemmings, cockroach liberation, and the issue of whether a hyena eating an antelope is committing a fights violation that should be brought before the world court in the Hague. One wag wrote a poem containing the line, "Every beast within his paws/Will clutch an order to show cause. " The news is that law schools are increasingly involved in animal issues. Any radical notion that vastly inflates the concept of rights and requires a lot more litigation is apt to take root in the law schools. ("Some lawyers say they are in the field to advance their ideology, but some note that it is an area of legal practice that could be profitable," reports the New York Times.) A dozen law schools now feature courses on animal law, and in some cases, at least, the teaching seems to be a simple extension of radical activism. The course description of next spring"s "Animal Law Seminar" at Georgetown University Law Center, for instance, makes clear to students which opinions are the correct ones to have. It talks about the plight of "rightless plaintiffs" and promises to examine how and why laws "purporting to protect" animals have failed. Ideas about humane treatment of animals are indeed changing. Many of us have changed our minds about furs, zoos, slaughterhouse techniques, and at least some forms of animal experimentation. The debate about greater concern for the animal world continues. But the alliance between the radicals and the lawyers means that, once again, an issue that ought to be taken to the people and resolved by democratic means will most likely be pre-empted by judges and lawyers. Steven Wise talks of using the courts to knock down the wall between humans and apes. Once apes have rights, he says, the status of other animals can be decided by other courts and other litigation. The advantage of the litigation strategy is that there"s no need to sell radical ideas to the American people. There are almost no takers for the concept of "nonhuman personhood," the view of pets as slaves, or the notion that meat eating is part of "a specter of oppression" that equally afflicts minorities, women, and animals in America. You can supersede open debate by convincing a few judges to detect a "fights" issue that functions as a political trump card. The rhetoric is high-minded, but the strategy is to force change without gaining the consent of the public. Converting every controversy into a "rights" issue is by now a knee-jerk response. Harvard Law Prof. Mary Ann Glendon, author of Rights Talk, writes about our legal culture"s "lost language of obligation." Instead of casting arguments in terms of human responsibility for the natural world, rights talkers automatically spin out tortured arguments about "rights" of animals and even about the "rights" of trees and mountains. This is how "rights talk" becomes a parody of itself. Let"s hope the lawyers and the law schools eventually get the joke.

单选题

单选题 The Microsoft antitrust trial inched close to a final ruling from U. S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Tuesday, as the software vendor fried a brief refuting his contention that the company has a monopoly in PC operating systems. Microsoft also claimed that U. S. government prosecutors have not satisfied the burden of proof for any of their antitrust claims. Microsoft made the arguments in its proposed conclusions of law—a document of more than 100 pages—fried with the court Tuesday stating the company's interpretation of how antitrust law should be applied to Jackson's findings of fact. The software giant said having an extremely popular product—Windows—does not make it a monopolist. In his findings of fact issued November 5, 1999, Jackson said Microsoft "enjoys a monopoly" in the personal computer market. A month later the government and 19 U. S. states alleged in their proposed conclusions of law that Microsoft engaged in illegal "monopoly maintenance" to protect and extend Windows' dominance and then tried to monopolize the Internet browser market. Microsoft refuted all those claims in its brief Tuesday, citing numerous cases and court findings over the past 30 years. The company said the case law demonstrates that it did not engage in anticompetitive conduct that contributed significantly to the maintenance of a monopoly. Microsoft also cited the June 1998 Appeals Court ruling that called the union of Windows and Internet Explorer "a genuine integration" The brief comes one week after reports began circulating that the government is preparing to propose the breakup of Microsoft into two or three parts. It restates many of Microsoft's defenses, claiming that the integration of Web browsing software into Windows benefited millions of consumers and that the software vendor did not prevent users from obtaining Netscape Navigator. Jackson's findings of fact expressly found that "many—if not most—consumers can be said to benefit from Microsoft's provisions of Web browsing functionality with its Windows operating system at no additional charge," the document says. The brief further states that the findings of fact did not say that Microsoft acted with a specific intent to obtain monopoly power in the market for Web browsers. "The Court instead found that Microsoft attempted to increase Internet Explorer's usage share to such a level as would prevent Netscape Navigator… from becoming the 'standard' Web browsing software," the Microsoft brief said. While the government argues that Microsoft's actions may have made it more difficult for Netscape to use certain channels of distribution, Microsoft's filing cites numerous cases that demonstrate that its actions were within the bounds of competition defined by the law. Microsoft also rejects the government's claim that its licensing agreements illegally prevent computer manufacturers from modifying the first screen that a user sees when Windows launches, saying the license merely restate rights that Microsoft enjoys under federal copyright law. The two sides in the trial, which began in October 1998, can now submit rebuttals to each other's conclusions of law. Oral arguments are scheduled for February 22, and a ruling is expected in the spring.

单选题I dislike going to the dentist as he uses the ______on my teeth. A. pick B. probe C. bore D. drill

单选题According to the passage, which of the following research will Republican Senator Sam Brownback support?

单选题 {{B}}Questions 15—18{{/B}}

单选题The farmers and bad debts have become synonymous. Little wonder then that a bank that carries a third of all loans to America"s farmers is in trouble. But when that bank"s total debt is $ 60 billion, more than half the size of Brazil"s, and its losses over the past two years, at $ 4.8 billion, exceed anything in American banking history, the problem becomes political as well as financial. Congress began this week to discuss a bill to rescue the Farm Credit System. The Farm Credit System is not strictly a bank. It is a peculiar animal, a federation of 37 banks (three in each of 12 regions and one to sell bonds to Wall Street) containing 387 lending associations, owned by the farmers who borrow from them. It was set up by the federal government in the early years of the century to give farmers an alternative source of credit to the banks, but has long ago paid off any federal debts and so, in theory, is now independent. The system got into trouble by lending too readily in farming"s good times, the 1970s, as land prices rose and farm profits grew. Total farm debt quadrupled between 1970 and 1984. Farmers flocked to the Farm Credit System because its interest rates, based on a moving average, lagged behind those of the market. But the falling profits and falling land prices of the early 1980s coincided with raising interest rates, putting many farmers in difficulty. When interest rates began to fall, the moving average responded slowly, so many farmers found themselves paying well above market rates for their loans. They promptly refinanced them with other banks. Even as its bad debts grew (they are now $ 7 billion), the Farm Credit System"s loans shrank, from over $ 80 billion to about $ 50 billion today. In May the system went to Congress and asked for $ 6 billion to see it through its present crisis. Although the worst losses are past, at least two of the banks in the system will have run out of capital altogether by the end of the year. Congress has reacted some impatience, for this was the third request for help in three years, though admittedly the first two had not been for money. In 1985 the Farm Credit System was allowed to share a capital between its banks, so that its rich members could bail out its poor ones. In 1986 it asked to be allowed to fiddle its accounts so as to defer losses. Congress, to its shame, agreed. The first measure helped little, because the shareholders of the richer banks sued to stop their money being used to help the poorer. The second measure simply stored up trouble for the future. Now the system needs dollars soon. This time, however, Congress has demanded changes in the way the system is run. Mr. Charles Stenholm, a Democrat from Texas, wants to fuse the 37 banks into seven and devolve the lending and rate-setting powers to the 387 local lending associations, thus cutting out some of the bureaucratic overlaps (accounts are audited three times, for example). The shareholders would almost certainly sue. But the threat has concentrated the minds of the system"s directors, who have produced a plan for cutting the system"s 12 districts to six with one bank in each. The bill before the House of Representatives (the Senate is still working on its version) would, in return for such changes, put in place a federally controlled organization that would seek money to stave off bankruptcy, as necessary. It would also throw commercial banks a present by creating a secondary market in farm mortgages, nicknamed Farmer Mac; this would, in effect, pass on some of the benefits of a bail-out to the private banks. Representative John Dingell of Michigan threatened to fight this on the floor of the House and rolled out some big guns, including the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Mr. Alan Greenspan, and his predecessor, Mr. Paul Volcker, to try to stop it. The secondary market would enable the banks to take away the system"s best loans, they said, leaving it shakier than before. To avoid a fight, House leaders postponed a discussion of this clause until October 6th. In fact, it is farm creditors rather than farmers who are more in trouble. Net farm income has risen from $12. 7 billion in 1983 to over $ 44 billion this year; farm debt has fallen from $ 202 billion to $163 billion. Land values have steadied, as has the suicide rate among farmers. Subsidies are flowing strongly, at a rate of $ 26 billion a year.

单选题Americans have become addicted to superlatives. We seem to need our regular "hyperbole fixes" as if to validate our own existence. This national syndrome becomes most egregious during the run- up to the "Super Bowl," a football game that more often than not turns out to be the "ho-hum" bowl. But to the attuned ear, this pumped-up hype routinely infects most of our conversations. This exaggeration is not the exclusive province of the magpies of sports talk. In a broader sense, some of these embellishments carry with them a subtle but undeniable element of dishonesty. The news media is perhaps most culpable in promoting our obsession with overstatement. Consider last November's midterm elections. Television's political pundits portrayed the results as a "landslide victory" for Republicans and a rejection of President Obama. While it's true that the GOP picked up 63 seats, the "massive win" becomes a slim plurality when you crunch the numbers. Michael McDonald, a professor of politics at Virginia's George Mason University, found that only 41 percent of eligible voters even bothered to vote in the so-called GOP landslide. And within that 41 percent, the margin of victory for House Republicans in the national popular vote was about 7 percent. Still, the media acted as though America had become a tea party nation. In reality, more Americans identify as Democrats (31 percent) than Republicans (29 percent), according to a recent Gallup survey. Distortions like this tend to be at their most shameful during triumphs and tragedies, precisely when facts and events should be able to stand on their own without being propped up by the banalities of those paid to read a TV teleprompter. I recall during CNN's live coverage of Pope John Paul Ⅱ's funeral in 2005, one of my colleagues gushed in her impromptu on-air eulogy that the late pontiff was "the pope of the whole world!" Such silly media pronouncements are so common that few of us even notice them as they float off into the ether. Yet such hyperbole is not just pompous; it also reveals considerable ignorance. My former colleague' s remark marginalized not just the billion or so Protestants and Eastern Orthodox adherents who don' t follow orders from Rome but also the 4 billion Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and others who don't consider the pontiff worthy of such adulation and veneration. Perhaps just as embarrassing amid this verbal extravagance was the failure to note the significant Catholic dissent over his legacy. Many Roman Catholic clerics, including Jesuits, had been quite critical of John Paul Ⅱ; some were privately relieved his time at the helm was up. "Great" and "awesome" are other examples of overused words that have become almost meaningless. Earthquakes, tsunamis, and tornados bearing down on you are awesome. Bone- crunching NFL football tackles and films like "Avatar" are not. "Awesome" is so overused it can now be rendered to mean "rather ordinary. " "Tragedy" has become another nearly meaningless word. It used to be reserved for events of mass casualties and deep suffering. Now it's applied to stories ranging from lost puppies to quarterly earnings reports. The adage (attributed to Stalin) comes to mind: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic. " The real tragedy is the demise of intelligent self-expression, a consequence of our shriveling vocabularies. Well may we cringe listening to contemporary blather, especially superlatives like "unbelievable," which should properly be used to describe politicians. Sometimes this national obsession with superlatives does a genuine disservice. Wherever did we get the idea that everyone who serves in the military is a hero? Heroism demands an act of valor. A retired US Navy captain I know put it best: "Heroes are selfless warriors who risk their lives and often give their lives so others may live. There are plenty of warriors and wannabes, but very few genuine heroes. " If Americans insist on anointing themselves with superlatives, they should at least strive to imitate the British, who are the true masters of exaggeration. The late historian Barbara Tuchman was spot on: "No nation has ever produced a military history of such verbal nobility as the British'". There is no shrinking from superlatives.... Everyone is splendid: soldiers are staunch, commanders cool, the fighting magnificent. " Years later Ms. Tuchman told me nothing she ever wrote received such an overwhelmingly favorable response as that passage. But rather than imitating British hyperbole, Americans would do well to master the art of understatement and dry wit, the other speaking technique at which the British excel. In the film "A Hard Day's Night," John Lennon was asked by an inquiring reporter about his impressions of the United States. "How did you find America?" Lennon was asked. "Turn left at Greenland," he replied.

单选题You really have to get very old before you realize you're old. I'm in my middle fifties and I don't feel out {{U}}(34) {{/U}}. However, sometimes I look back at my childhood and {{U}}(35) {{/U}} things to the way life is {{U}}(36) {{/U}} today's kids. Some things have certainly changed. One {{U}}(37) {{/U}} of change is television. Some changes have been {{U}}(38) {{/U}}. Some changes, on the other {{U}}(39) {{/U}}, have been setbacks. {{U}} (40) {{/U}} I started school, most people didn't have a television; TV was just beginning to get {{U}}(41) {{/U}}. My father decided to go all {{U}}(42) {{/U}} and buy a 16-inch black and white Motorola {{U}}(43) {{/U}}. I still remember {{U}}(44) {{/U}} the Lone Ranger save people from the {{U}}(45) {{/U}} guys on that awesome electronic {{U}}(46) {{/U}}. That was exciting! Now, televisions have {{U}}(47) {{/U}} pictures in full color. The pictures are {{U}}(48) {{/U}} and the sound is much more {{U}}(49) {{/U}}. The variety and {{U}}(50) {{/U}} of programming has increased greatly. There are hundreds of {{U}}(51) {{/U}} and more shows than one person could ever watch. There's also a lot of {{U}}(52) {{/U}}, stuff that most parents don't want their kids {{U}}(53) {{/U}} to. Overall, we have more choices, and that is good.

单选题Questions 11 to 15 are based on the following interview.

单选题

单选题There has been much hullabaloo about corporate accounting scams in America, yet perhaps the biggest accounting oversight of all time remains hidden in governments" own national figures. GDP per head is the most commonly used measure of a country"s success, yet it is badly flawed as a guide to a nation"s economic well-being. A new study in the OECD"s 2006 Going for Growth report considers some alternatives. Economists spend much time discussing how to boost GDP growth. The OECD itself drew attention this week to the widening gap between America"s and Europe"s GDP per head. Yet a nation"s well-being depends on many factors ignored by GDP, such as leisure time, income inequality and the quality of the environment. GDP was developed primarily as a planning tool to guide the huge production effort of the Second World War. It was never intended to be the definitive yardstick of economic welfare. Would another indicator change the ranking of countries or their relative performance over time? GDP is not even the best gauge of the monetary aspects of living standards. It measures the value of goods and services produced by the residents of a country. But some of the income earned in Britain, say, is paid to non-residents, while residents receive income from abroad. Adding net income from abroad to GDP gives us gross national income (GNI, also known as gross national product), which is more relevant for the prosperity of a nation. Most countries" rank by GNI per head is similar to that by GDP. One exception is Ireland: its GDP per head is one of the highest in the OECD, but because of large net outflows of investment income, its GNI per head is merely around the OECD average. Its average GNI growth rate over the past decade has also been about one percentage point less than on a GDP basis. Another flaw is that GDP makes no allowance for the depreciation of the capital stock. Subtracting this from GNI leaves net national income (NNI), which is probably the best national account measure of welfare. Awkwardly, the numbers are harder to come by, making it difficult to compare across countries and over time. But even NNI is an imperfect measure of people"s welfare: it excludes the value of such important things as leisure, inequality and the environment. GDP should ideally be reduced to take account of pollution and the using-up of non-renewable resources, but no standard accounts that can do this are yet available. On the other hand, the OECD has made a brave attempt to adjust GDP for the distribution of income. To most observers, a country where a few families enjoy huge wealth but most live in abject poverty would have a lower level of well-being than one with the same GDP but less poverty. A dollar of income is, in effect, worth more in the hands of the poor, though just how much more depends on attitudes towards inequality. The OECD"s calculations suggest if people strongly dislike inequality, the gap between America and most other rich countries, which have a more equal distribution of income, should be greatly reduced. By this measure, adjusted income per head is higher in France than in America. Inequality has also risen in recent years in most countries. Assuming again a strong aversion to inequality, average adjusted income per head grew by only 0.6% a year in OECD countries between 1985 and 2002, against 1.4% for GDP per head. But such estimates are sensitive to big value judgments. If, instead, people care little about inequality, then the adjustment will be much smaller. Longer holidays and shorter working hours increase an individual"s well-being, yet conventional national accounts completely overlook such benefits. America is one of the world"s richest countries, yet its workers toil longer hours than those elsewhere. As a result, adjusting GDP for leisure also narrows the gap between America and Europe. So far, neither the adjustment for inequality nor that for leisure alone overturns America"s economic superiority. However, if both adjustments were made, then on certain assumptions, the gap between the United States and several European countries could vanish. This does not mean that Europe can afford to abandon economic reforms. Leisure time is valuable, but it will not pay for future pensions. Nevertheless, the OECD is to be congratulated for being the first mainstream organization to challenge the conventional GDP numbers. Its task now is to encourage governments to start producing more relevant statistics.

单选题阅读下面短文，从短文后所给各题的四个选项(A、B、C和D)中，选出可以填入空白处的最佳选项。 From Monday until Friday{{U}} (33) {{/U}}people are busy working or studying, but in the evenings and{{U}} (34) {{/U}}weekends they are free to enjoy themselves. Some watch TV or go to the movies; {{U}}(35) {{/U}}take part in sports. It depends on individual{{U}} (36) {{/U}}. There are many different ways to spend our{{U}} (37) {{/U}}time. {{U}} (38) {{/U}}. everyone has some kind of hobby. It may be{{U}} (39) {{/U}}from collecting stamps to{{U}} (40) {{/U}}model planes. Some hobbies are very{{U}} (41) {{/U}}; others don't cost{{U}} (42) {{/U}}at all. Some collections (收藏品) are{{U}} (43) {{/U}}a lot of money; others are valuable only{{U}} (44) {{/U}}their owners. I know a man who{{U}} (45) {{/U}}a coin collection worth thousands of dollars. A short time ago, he got a{{U}} (46) {{/U}}fifty cent piece by{{U}} (47) {{/U}}$250. He was very happy about his collection and thought the price was{{U}} (48) {{/U}}. On the contrary, my youngest brother{{U}} (49) {{/U}}match boxes. He has almost 6,000 of them. But I{{U}} (50) {{/U}}if they are worth any money. However, for my brother they are very{{U}} (51) {{/U}}. Nothing makes him{{U}} (52) {{/U}}than to find a new match box for his collection.

单选题

单选题Up-Minneapolis, MN—A father was recently arrested by the police for spanking his child, starting a debate among the American public about spanking. Is spanking, or other types of corporal punishment, an acceptable form of discipline for children? Or is it a form of child abuse? The case that everyone has talking is the arrest of Dale Clover, a thirty-six-year-old father of three, at a shopping mall in St. Louis, Missouri. He was arrested after an employee at the mall saw him spanking his five-year-old son, Donny, and called the police. The father was arrested for child abuse. Mr. Clover admits that he hit his son but says that it wasn"t child abuse. He says it was discipline. Across the country, parents disagree on this issue: What is the difference between loving discipline and child abuse? Some parents like Rhonda Moore see a clear difference between spanking and child abuse. Rhonda Moore believes a little bit of pain is necessary to teach a child what is right and wrong. "It"s like burning your hand when you touch a hot stove. Pain is nature"s way of teaching us." Moore believes that spanking is done out of love, but child abuse is done out of anger, when the parent loses control. "When I spank my children, I always talk to them before and afterward, and explain why they are being spanked. I explain what they did wrong, and they remember not to do it again." Moore says that her children respect her as a parent and understand that she is spanking them for their own good. In contrast, Taylor Robinson, father of four, feels that parents should never hit their children for any reason. Robinson wants his children to learn right and wrong, but not because they are afraid of being hit. "Spanking teaches children to fear their parents, not respect them. When a parent spanks a child, what the child learns is that problems should be solved with violence." Robinson believes that children learn that it is acceptable for parents to hurt their children. "None of these are lessons that I want to teach my children. I want my children to learn to talk about their problems and solve them without violence, but spanking doesn"t teach that." Parents are split about corporal punishment, and doctors also disagree about the issue. Dr. John Oparah thinks our child abuse laws sometimes go too far; that is, they make it difficult for parents to discipline their children. Oparah says that today many children do not respect their parents. "Children need strong, loving discipline. Sometimes spanking is the best way to get a child"s attention, to make sure the child listens to the parent." Most doctors, however, say that there are many harmful effects of spanking. Dr. Beverly Lau is opposed to spanking. Lau argues that spanking can lead to more violent behavior in children. She points to research shows that children who are spanked are more violent when they grow up. "A child may stop misbehaving for the moment, but over time, children who are spanked actually misbehave more than children who are not spanked." Lau adds that research shows that, if you want a peaceful family, parents should not spank their children. The issue of spanking and corporal punishment will continue to be debated among parents and in the courts. In the meantime, if he is convicted of child abuse, Dale Clover could get up to five years in prison.

单选题The word "dry" in the sentence "It's hard to imagine a drier subject." (last paragraph) can be replaced by ______.

单选题 Researchers have known that secondhand smoke can be just as dangerous for nonsmokers as smoking is for smokers, but now there's fresh evidence quantifying just how hazardous the after-burn from cigarettes can be, and how quickly it affects your body. Scientists at the Oregon Department of Health documented for the first time an hourly buildup of a cancer-causing compound from cigarette smoke in the blood of nonsmokers working in bars and restaurants in the state. Reporting in the American Journal of Public Health, the researchers found that waiters and bartenders working a typical night shift gradually accumulated higher levels of NNK, a carcinogen in cigarette smoke, at the rate of 6 % each hour they worked. NNK is known to be involved in inducing lung cancer in both lab rats and smokers. "We were somewhat surprised by the immediacy of the effect and the fact that we could measure the average hourly increase," says Michael Stark, the lead author of the study and a principal investigator at the Mulmomah County Health Department in Oregon. The authors are confident that the increases in NNK in the workers they tested most likely came from their exposure to smoke -- the study included a control group of similar subjects in restaurants where no smoking was allowed. "There is experimental evidence from studies where you put nonsmokers in a room, blow smoke into the room and measure their artery function, that you see the platelets get sticky, which can cause clots and lead to a heart attack, and the ability of the arteries to dilate decreases very rapidly," says Dr. Matthew McKenna, director of the office on smoking and public health for the Centers for Disease Control. All of which could mean more time loitering outside buildings and in alleyways for smokers intent on grabbing a puff. Thirteen states now prohibit smoking in restaurants altogether (most of these include bars as well), and while 11 states still put no restrictions on lighting up, individual cities within those states -- such as Austin in Texas, for example -- have passed legislation banning smoking in eating establishments and other public areas. It's just getting harder to refute the scientific evidence; in a study done in Scotland several months after that nation instituted a ban on smoking in public places, researchers found that following the ban, bar patrons showed stronger lung capacity and reduced levels of inflammation (a red flag for a number of chronic diseases, including heart disease and asthma). "We made it pretty clear that the science on this is pretty irrefutable," says McKenna. And if smokers have fewer places to smoke, that message may finally get heard.

单选题 Questions 11-15 Pop stars today enjoy a style of living which was once the prerogative only of Royalty. Wherever they go, people turn out in their thousands to greet them. The crowds go wild trying to catch a brief glimpse of their smiling, colorfully dressed idols. The stars are transported in their chauffeur driven Rolls-Royces, private helicopters or executive airplanes. They are surrounded by a permanent entourage of managers, press agents and bodyguards. Photographs of them appear regularly in the press and all their comings and goings are reported, for, like Royalty, pop stars are news. If they enjoy many of the privileges of Royalty, they certainly share many of the inconveniences as well. It is dangerous for them to make unscheduled appearances in public. They must be constantly shielded from the adoring crowds which idolize them. They are no longer private individuals, but public property. The financial rewards they receive for this sacrifice cannot be calculated, for their rates of pay are astronomical. And why not? Society has always rewarded its top entertainers lavishly. The great days of Hollywood have become legendary, famous stars enjoyed fame, wealth and adulation on an unprecedented scale. By today's standards, the excesses of Hollywood do not seem quite so spectacular. A single gramophone record nowadays may earn much more in royalties than the films of the past ever did. The competition for the title "Top of the Pops" is fierce, but the rewards are truly colossal. It is only right that the stars should be paid in this way. Don't the top men in industry earn enormous salaries for the services they perform to their companies and their countries? Pop stars earn vast sums in foreign currency--often more than large industrial concerns—and the taxman can only be grateful for their massive annual contributions to the exchequer. So who would begrudge them their rewards? It's all very well for people in humdrum jobs to moan about the successes and rewards of others. People who make envious remarks should remember that the most famous stars represent only the tip of the iceberg. For every famous star, there are hundreds of others struggling to earn a living. A man working in a steady job and looking forward to a pension at the end of it has no right to expect very high rewards. He has chosen security and peace of mind, so there will always be a limit to what he can earn. But a man who attempts to become a star is taking enormous risks. He knows at the outset that only a handful of competitors ever get to the very top. He knows that years of concentrated effort may be rewarded with complete failure. But he knows, too, that the rewards for success are very high indeed: they are the recompense for the huge risks involved and if he achieves them, he has certainly earned them. That's the essence of private enterprise.