English in a Minute: Churn Out

from Voice of America http://ift.tt/2COKxPP
via IFTTT

'To Build a Fire,' by Jack London

Our story today is called "To Build a Fire."  It was written by Jack London and adapted by Dona de Sanctis. Here is Harry Monroe with the story. The man walked down the trail on a cold, gray day. Pure white snow and ice covered the Earth for as far as he could see.  This was his first winter in Alaska.  He was wearing heavy clothes and fur boots.  But he still felt cold and uncomfortable. The man was on his way to a camp near Henderson Creek. His friends were already there. He expected to reach Henderson Creek by six o'clock that evening. It would be dark by then. His friends would have a fire and hot food ready for him. A dog walked behind the man.  It was a big gray animal, half dog and half wolf. The dog did not like the extreme cold.  It knew the weather was too cold to travel. The man continued to walk down the trail.  He came to a frozen stream called Indian Creek.  He began to walk on the snow-covered ice.  It was a trail that would lead him straight to Henderson Creek and his friends. As he walked, he looked carefully at the ice in front of him.  Once, he stopped suddenly, and then walked around a part of the frozen stream.  He saw that an underground spring flowed under the ice at that spot.  It made the ice thin.  If he stepped there, he might break through the ice into a pool of water.  To get his boots wet in such cold weather might kill him. His feet would turn to ice quickly. He could freeze to death. At about twelve o'clock, the man decided to stop to eat his lunch. He took off the glove on his right hand. He opened his jacket and shirt, and pulled out his bread and meat. This took less than twenty seconds. Yet, his fingers began to freeze. He hit his hand against his leg several times until he felt a sharp pain.  Then he quickly put his glove on his hand. He made a fire, beginning with small pieces of wood and adding larger ones. He sat on a snow-covered log and ate his lunch. He enjoyed the warm fire for a few minutes. Then he stood up and started walking on the frozen stream again. A half hour later, it happened. At a place where the snow seemed very solid, the ice broke. The man's feet sank into the water. It was not deep, but his legs got wet to the knees. The man was angry. The accident would delay his arrival at the camp. He would have to build a fire now to dry his clothes and boots. He walked over to some small trees. They were covered with snow. In their branches were pieces of dry grass and wood left by flood waters earlier in the year. He put several large pieces of wood on the snow, under one of the trees. On top of the wood, he put some grass and dry branches. He pulled off his gloves, took out his matches, and lighted the fire. He fed the young flame with more wood. As the fire grew stronger, he gave it larger pieces of wood. He worked slowly and carefully. At sixty degrees below zero, a man with wet feet must not fail in his first attempt to build a fire. While he was walking, his blood had kept all parts of his body warm. Now that he had stopped, cold was forcing his blood to withdraw deeper into his body. His wet feet had frozen. He could not feel his fingers. His nose was frozen, too. The skin all over his body felt cold. Now, however, his fire was beginning to burn more strongly. He was safe. He sat under the tree and thought of the old men in Fairbanks. The old men had told him that no man should travel alone in the Yukon when the temperature is sixty degrees below zero.  Yet here he was. He had had an accident. He was alone. And he had saved himself. He had built a fire. Those old men were weak, he thought. A real man could travel alone. If a man stayed calm, he would be all right. The man's boots were covered with ice. The strings on his boots were as hard as steel. He would have to cut them with his knife. He leaned back against the tree to take out his knife. Suddenly, without warning, a heavy mass of snow dropped down. His movement had shaken the young tree only a tiny bit. But it was enough to cause the branches of the tree to drop their heavy load. The man was shocked. He sat and looked at the place where the fire had been. The old men had been right, he thought. If he had another man with him, he would not be in any danger now. The other man could build the fire. Well, it was up to him to build the fire again. This time, he must not fail. The man collected more wood. He reached into his pocket for the matches. But his fingers were frozen. He could not hold them. He began to hit his hands with all his force against his legs. After a while, feeling came back to his fingers. The man reached again into his pocket for the matches. But the tremendous cold quickly drove the life out of his fingers. All the matches fell onto the snow. He tried to pick one up, but failed. The man pulled on his glove and again beat his hand against his leg. Then he took the gloves off both hands and picked up all the matches. He gathered them together. Holding them with both hands, he scratched the matches along his leg. They immediately caught fire. He held the blazing matches to a piece of wood. After a while, he became aware that he could smell his hands burning. Then he began to feel the pain. He opened his hands, and the blazing matches fell on to the snow. The flame went out in a puff of gray smoke. The man looked up. The dog was still watching him. The man got an idea. He would kill the dog and bury his hands inside its warm body. When the feeling came back to his fingers, he could build another fire. He called to the dog. The dog heard danger in the man's voice. It backed away. The man called again. This time the dog came closer. The man reached for his knife. But he had forgotten that he could not bend his fingers. He could not kill the dog, because he could not hold his knife. The fear of death came over the man. He jumped up and began to run. The running began to make him feel better. Maybe running would make his feet warm. If he ran far enough, he would reach his friends at Henderson Creek. They would take care of him. It felt strange to run and not feel his feet when they hit the ground. He fell several times.  He decided to rest a while. As he lay in the snow, he noticed that he was not shaking. He could not feel his nose or fingers or feet. Yet, he was feeling quite warm and comfortable.  He realized he was going to die. Well, he decided, he might as well take it like a man. There were worse ways to die. The man closed his eyes and floated into the most comfortable sleep he had ever known. The dog sat facing him, waiting. Finally, the dog moved closer to the man and caught the smell of death. The animal threw back its head. It let out a long, soft cry to the cold stars in the black sky. And then it tuned and ran toward Henderson Creek…where it knew there was food and a fire. Download activities to help you understand this story here. We want to hear from you. Have you ever been in a dangerous situation in nature? How were you able to survive? Let us know in the comments section or on our Facebook page. _________________________________________________________________ QUIZ ______________________________________________________________ Words in This Story creek - n. a place where a small amount of water flows glove - n. a covering for the hand that has separate parts for each finger withdraw - v. to take something back, away or out tremendous - adj. very large or great blazing - adj. very hot, fast, or powerful aware - adj. feeling, experiencing, or noticing something

from Voice of America http://ift.tt/2Ec7skh
via IFTTT

Disputed Book About Trump, 'Fire and Fury,' Becomes Bestseller

  A new and sharply critical book about Donald Trump’s first year in office went on sale Friday, four days earlier than planned. Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” describes a chaotic White House, a president who was not prepared to win in 2016, and Trump aides who question his intelligence and ability to lead. Trump has dismissed the book, saying it is full of lies. On Thursday, lawyers representing the president called on the book’s publishers to stop the book’s release. They also sent a “cease and desist” letter to Stephen Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist. The book includes critical comments Bannon reportedly said about Trump and Trump’s family. ​ “Fire and Fury” had been set to be released January 9. Instead, it began sales early. It is now the top-selling book on Amazon.com. In Washington, D.C., people waited outside bookstores in extremely cold weather to buy the book. One popular bookstore, KramerBooks, began selling “Fire and Fury” at midnight Friday. It and another local bookstore reportedly sold out by 10 in the morning. Wolff spent 18 months reporting on both the Trump campaign and the Trump White House. He reported from inside Trump Tower in New York City and later from inside the White House. On Twitter Thursday, Trump said the book is “full of lies, misrepresentations and sources that don’t exist.” He also said he never spoke with Wolff for the book, and turned down his request for an interview many times. However, Wolff said Friday on NBC’s “Today” show that he had talked to the president for the book. “I absolutely spoke to the president. Whether he realized it was an interview or not, I don’t know, but it was certainly not off the record,” he said. He said he spent about three total hours talking with the president. Wolff says the book is mostly based on talks with people who have worked closely with the president. He said he has records and notes from about 200 interviews with people connected to the Trump campaign or Trump White House. Wolff has confirmed he has audio recordings of some of those talks. Wolff also said on the “Today” show that, “100 percent of the people around him [Trump]…they all say he is like a child.” Some parts of “Fire and Fury” were released earlier this week. They led to a vicious public flight between Trump and Bannon. In one passage, Bannon describes a meeting between a Russian lawyer and top Trump campaign aides -- including Trump's own son and son-in-law -- as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic.” After the passage was published, Trump said in a statement, “Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.” Who is Michael Wolff? Michael Wolff is a longtime writer and reporter based in New York City. He has been a media critic and columnist for USA Today, The Hollywood Reporter, New York Magazine and Vanity Fair. In 2009, Wolff published “The Man Who Owns the News,” a book about media business leader Rupert Murdoch. Just before its publication, Murdoch publicly questioned some of Wolff’s reporting in that book.   Reuters reported this story. Ashley Thompson adapted it for Learning English, with additional materials from VOA News and the Associated Press. Caty Weaver was the editor.  _______________________________________________________________ Words in This Story   chaotic - adj.  in a state of complete confusion or disorder aides - n. a person whose job is to assist someone  cease and desist - (legal term). an official order to stop doing something immediately midnight - n. the middle of the night : 12 o'clock at night interview - n. a meeting at which people talk to each other in order to ask questions and get information absolutely - adv. in an absolute way -- often used to make a statement more forceful certainly - adv. without doubt fire - v. to dismiss (someone) from a job

from Voice of America http://ift.tt/2CvX4mF
via IFTTT

African Environmentalists Praise China's Ivory Ban

  China has made the sale of ivory in the country illegal. Conservationists have welcomed the decision. They say any legal ivory trade in the world hurts efforts to stop the killing of elephants. Max Graham is the Chief Executive of the group Space For Giants which works to protect elephants. He said, “There’s a new conservation superpower in the world that is taking its responsibilities seriously.” He said that the ban on the ivory trade will support a larger struggle against all kinds of illegal trade in wildlife. The traditional use of wildlife parts in Asia, and especially in China, he said, has been responsible for the loss of “rare species around the world.” China announced the ban at the end of 2016. The measure went into effect in December 2017. Conservationists are pleased about China’s decision, but they worry about its enforcement. Frank Pope is the chief of another environmental group, Save the Elephants. He believes the ban could greatly improve the future for elephants. But there is one problem, he says. “You’re going to see secondary markets,” he notes. Pope adds that these markets are “…in Vietnam, in Laos, in Myanmar and in Hong Kong. All of these places have markets that have boomed” when China announced its ban. Philip Muruthi is an official with the African Wildlife foundation. He also welcomes the ban but notes the importance of keeping new markets from growing. “About 35,000 elephants…are lost each year. There are 415,000 on this continent (Africa). That means that in 20 years…we will not have any elephants,” he said. He added that the loss of the elephant population would destroy Africa’s wildlife tourism and the jobs that it creates in countries like Kenya and South Africa. “It’s about the African peoples’ well-being. It’s about our heritage,” he said. Conservationists say that stopping the illegal killing of elephants for their ivory tusks is important, but so is managing their living areas. They urge African governments to do more to reduce threats to wildlife. I’m Susan Shand. ________________________________________________________________ Words in This Story   ivory – n. a hard white substance that forms the tusks of elephants and other animals with tusks conservationist –n. a person who works to protect animals, plants and natural resources to prevent their loss species – n. a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants tourism –n. the industry of providing hotels, restaurants and entertainment for people who travel for pleasure heritage –n. the traditions, history, art and knowledge of a group or nation tusk – n. a very long, large tooth that sticks out of the mouth of an animal such as an elephant

from Voice of America http://ift.tt/2EdXY8a
via IFTTT

What It Takes - Barry Scheck

00:00:00    ALICE WINKLER: One morning in 1986, a supermarket manager named Michael Morton left for work. By the end of the day he’d been arrested for the murder of his wife, Christine, who was found in their bed, beaten to death in front of their three-year-old son. Michael Morton was sentenced to life, and went to prison, but the thing is, he didn’t kill his wife. Behind his conviction is the sickening story of bad forensic science and an unscrupulous prosecutor who hid evidence from the defense, the judge, and the jury. Meanwhile the real criminal went on to kill another woman.   00:00:43    In 2011, after 25 years in prison, Michael Morton was finally exonerated, thanks to DNA evidence and thanks to the Innocence Project. I’m Alice Winkler, and this is What It Takes, a podcast about passion, vision, and perseverance from the Academy of Achievement. On this episode, co-founder of the Innocence Project, Barry Scheck.    00:01:12    OPRAH WINFREY: "Hattie Mae, this child is gifted," and I heard that enough that I started to believe it.   00:01:17    ROGER BANNISTER: If you have the opportunity, not a perfect opportunity, and you don't take it, you may never have another chance.   00:01:24    LAURYN HILL: It all was so clear. It was just, like, the picture started to form itself.   00:01:28    DESMOND TUTU: There was no way in which a lie could prevail over the truth, darkness over light, death over life.   00:01:36    CAROL BURNETT (quoting CARRIE HAMILTON): “Every day I wake up and decide, today I'm going to love my life. Decide.”   00:01:44    JOHNNY CASH: My advice is, if they're going to break your leg once when you go in that place, stay out of there.   00:01:48    JAMES MICHENER: And then along come these differential experiences that you don't look for, you don't plan for, but boy, you’d better not miss them.   00:02:02    ALICE WINKLER: The Innocence Project has used DNA evidence alone to win the freedom of 337 wrongly convicted men and women, some of them on death row. That’s the number as of April 2016. If you count the cases where DNA was one of several factors, the number is closer to 2,000. Two thousand people who served serious time for serious crimes they did not commit. In 2008, Barry Scheck gave a speech to students at an Academy of Achievement gathering. He began his talk with a poem by Seamus Heaney.   00:02:40    BARRY SCHECK:    "Human beings suffer. They torture one another. They get hurt and get hard. No poem or play or song can fully right a wrong inflicted and endured. The innocent in gaols beat on their bars together. A hunger-striker’s father stands in the graveyard dumb. The police widow in veils faints at the funeral home. History says, ‘Don't hope on this side of the grave.’ But then, once in a lifetime, the longed-for tidal wave of justice can rise up and hope and history rhyme."   00:03:22    That is the sound and feeling of exoneration, a once-in-a-lifetime tidal wave of justice where hope and history rhyme.   00:03:33    ALICE WINKLER: Barry Scheck has dedicated much of his life to unearthing injustice and making it right. He and Peter Neufeld, both law professors at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law in New York City, realized in the late '80s that new scientific discoveries about DNA had the power, if applied to criminal law, to transform our judicial system. By 1992, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld had launched the Innocence Project, and their organization has spawned a network of Innocence Projects in other states and around the world.   00:04:08    That network has gotten a lot of attention over the past two years because of the case of Adnan Syed, made famous by the mega-hit podcast Serial, and the case of Steven Avery, made famous by the mega-hit Netflix documentary Making a Murderer. But day after day, for nearly 25 years, lawyers involved with the Innocence Project and its affiliates have gone about their work tirelessly and without much glory.   00:04:41     The stories of the people who’ve been exonerated by the Innocence Project give you that pit in your stomach. It could actually happen to you, to anyone in the wrong place, at the wrong time, under the wrong circumstances.   00:04:56    BARRY SCHECK:    It’s horrible. I mean here are these people that are just, you know, taken out of society. They go through the nightmare of being convicted of a crime, you know, they didn’t commit, which is a trauma in and of itself. You know, because the innocent — it's very interesting, the innocent ordinarily don’t possibly think they’re going to be convicted, even though, if you looked at the case objectively and you said, "Oh, my God, you’re in big trouble here. They've got all this evidence — all these witnesses testifying against you and supposed corroboration, and you know, your story sounds terrible. You know, the alibi witnesses sound awful. They’re your relatives, you know, and it looks like they’ll say anything in support of your position."   00:05:39    But they still don’t believe they’re going to get convicted in most instances because, well, they’re innocent. They didn’t do it. And then they go to prison, and I find that the first two or three years they get insanely angry, as you would expect, and we probably lose a lot of people at this stage of the process because, you know, I don’t know, maybe they commit suicide or they get involved in fights or they just lose it mentally, completely.   00:06:09     But what you find, which is so fascinating, about almost all of these exonerated individuals, is that at a certain point during the period of wrongful incarceration, they have a kind of spiritual transcendence where they — because they know that the anger and hate will eat them alive. So there’s this phenomenon when they get out of prison. Everybody goes, "Oh, my God, there’s no bitterness here." Now it’s not really true. There’s a lot of resentment, as there ought to be, for the injustices that were dealt to these people, but they have something special about them, a spiritual transcendence.   00:06:47     No matter what their walk of life or, you know, level of education, they achieve that, and so that’s a remarkable quality that they share. And they all want to change the system. They all feel all this pain must have had a purpose, so each in their own way wants to make it better. But when they get out, you know, everybody has moved on, even those who are lucky enough to have family that stick with them.   00:07:18     You know, many just shut the family out because, you know, it’s a terrible burden on people when you’re incarcerated for two decades to, you know, continue this connection. But even those who still have close families — when they get back, you know, it’s different. You’re a different person. You know, people have gotten married. They’ve gotten divorced. They’ve had children. They’ve changed jobs. They’ve really moved on in their life experience, and you’ve sort of stayed the same in certain respects, so it’s very, very, very hard to adjust.   00:07:57     All of them have some kind of sleep disorder. Many of them are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, and it’s not so much that they were personally attacked in prison — well, of course, that happens. It’s the violence they see in a maximum-security prison. That’s what keeps you up at nights, watching, you know, somebody else, you know, get stabbed or, you know, suffer terrible injury.   00:08:22     Those are the kinds of things that prevent you from sleeping. So it’s very hard when they get out. And when they get out, for the most part, they have less social service support in many states than somebody that committed the crime and is out on parole and is getting some re-entry benefits.   00:08:41     ALICE WINKLER: One of the exoneration stories Barry Scheck told in detail during his interview with the Academy of Achievement in 2014 was about the case that changed the course of his career. It's a story about a rape case, so be forewarned, it contains some graphic details.   00:08:59     BARRY SCHECK:    The way that the Innocence Project really got started was this case of Marion Coakley, who was a man who was convicted of a rape, based on the testimony of three eyewitnesses in the Bronx that he broke into a motel and raped a woman and her boyfriend at gunpoint, and then put the woman in a car and drove to her home, and he got more money from her relatives, and then abandoned the car and left.   00:09:26     And so there were these three eyewitnesses, the rape victim, her boyfriend, and the brother that gave money, and he had 17 alibi witnesses that he was at a prayer meeting on the other side of the Bronx. Seventeen! You know, the reverend, all members of the congregation, and anybody who knew Marion, knew that he really, you know, couldn’t drive, and he was probably incapable of making it from the prayer meeting to the motel and back.   00:09:57     And there was really no way of explaining how he could have committed this crime. And there was also some serology at that trial, and —   00:10:06     GAIL EICHENTHAL: Explain serology.   00:10:07    BARRY SCHECK:    Yeah. So part of the evidence against Marion is that it appeared as though — when — before the era of DNA testing, forensic scientists would use what they called conventional serological methods, because people secrete blood group substances into their semen or into the vaginal discharge or saliva, and so that would be analyzed to look for blood types and also other, what they call conventional protein markers.   00:10:43     And in Marion Coakley's case, I believe, if I recall it correctly, they were saying that the only blood type that they got from the vaginal swab that was taken from the victim in this crime was blood type O, and Marion was blood type A. So in theory, he could not have been a contributor, right, because he was blood type A. So the prosecution put on a serologist, a good guy named Dr. Robert Shaler from the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office, and said, "Well, is it possible that somebody could be a low-level secretor? So even though they secreted blood group substances into their semen, but there was not very much, so you could get a false negative for the A?"   00:11:31    And he said, "Well, yes, in theory, that’s true," and that contributed to Marion Coakley's conviction. So we were given this case by our old public defender’s office in the Bronx, and Peter Neufeld and I, along with students, decided to work on it. Everybody in the office was just so shocked that he was convicted, you know, based on the testimony of the three eyewitnesses. So we decided to take on the case, and there was a company called Lifecodes that had just begun DNA testing.   00:12:03     It wasn’t in the courtrooms, and it was one of the two or three commercial companies that first tried to transfer this technology from medical and research purposes to the forensic arena. So Dr. Shaler had gone to work for Lifecodes, so we said, you know, "Bob, let’s get Lifecodes to do DNA testing on this case because, you know, maybe this will prove that Coakley is innocent." And they tried it, but they claimed that they didn’t get enough high-molecular-weight DNA to get a result, and then we went out and did quite a number of things to prove Marion innocent the old-fashioned way.   00:12:44     We found a palm print on the rear view mirror of the car that the perpetrator had abandoned, and they had taken, and we showed that it wasn’t Marion’s, and that analysis had never been done. We found exculpatory evidence that hadn’t been turned over, and we literally had Marion Coakley ejaculate at different times in Attica Prison, which we found very disturbing — it was hard for him to do — to prove that he wasn’t a low-level secretor. So we proved him innocent anyhow. But we saw immediately that this DNA testing would be transformative.   00:13:20     ALICE WINKLER: And one of the ways it has been so transformative is this: when DNA evidence exonerates someone who’s been convicted, it usually reveals what factors led to the wrongful conviction in the first place. For instance, the Innocence Project has shown, case after case, that eyewitness identifications are terribly unreliable. Also, false confessions are much more common than you would think. Then there’s misconduct by police or prosecutors, bad defense lawyering, and the intractable problem of racism.   00:13:57     Each of these, and often some combination of them, lead to innocent people serving time for crimes they did not commit.   00:14:06     BARRY SCHECK:    And, by the way, you’ve got to understand that when this happens, it’s not just that innocent people are incarcerated. It’s that the guilty is out on the street, often committing more crimes. Serial rapes and serial murderers, you know, are a real problem in the docket of the Innocence Project. So many of our clients were convicted of rapes and murders that they didn’t do and while the real perpetrator was out there committing crimes again.   00:14:31     ALICE WINKLER: Barry Scheck and his co-founder, Peter Neufeld, along with hundreds of lawyers and law students who have worked to reveal the cracks in our criminal justice system, are usually portrayed as the guys in the white hats. But that wasn’t the case exactly just a couple of years after the Innocence Project was created, when Scheck and Neufeld joined the so-called “Dream Team.”   00:14:53     BARRY SCHECK:    We always knew the Innocence Project was going to be, you know, extraordinarily important, but it became inevitable when O.J. Simpson was driving around in the Bronco, and I was literally in Madison Square Garden watching a playoff game and seeing the Bronco going around. I just knew, "Oh, we're going to get called," and sure enough we did.   00:15:13    GAIL EICHENTHAL: Why?   00:15:14     BARRY SCHECK:    Well, because it had to do with bloodstains, you know, on a walkway. And we knew that the defense lawyers would eventually call us just for advice on how to handle the serology evidence — how the DNA should be tested — you know, because this was an area of expertise that we had, and the legal community all knew this.   00:15:34     And so, you know, literally, while they're doing the hearings, we would, you know, send questions to Gerry Uelmen and Bob Shapiro about, you know, how the evidence was processed, what they should ask, etc. And then — it’s not something that we ever wanted, per se, but people forget that the DNA testing was going on before — even after they picked the jury they were still doing serological and DNA testing and other forensic testing in the Simpson case.   00:16:05     So, in any event, we were called in to be part of that defense team, and everybody thought that we were going to challenge the technology, per se. And that's not something that, you know, we did, because that wasn’t really — you know, the defense in the matter had to do with the way they mishandled its collection. And there’s not much good that could be said came out of the O.J. Simpson case for the American criminal justice system.   00:16:33     I think it exacerbated problems of race in this country enormously. I think it destroyed the sensible coverage of courts with cameras in the courtroom. And the Simpson case was such an insane circus, I think it really set us all back that way.   00:16:53     ALICE WINKLER: Here’s a clip from the televised trial of Barry Scheck delivering his part of the closing argument.   00:16:59     BARRY SCHECK:    But what have we heard about rules and training at the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory? Well, this laboratory is run without a set of rules that everyone knows. They don't even have a manual. Think about that. That’s extraordinary.   00:17:19     The one interesting thing that did come out of it is that the way that we critique the DNA evidence in terms of how it was picked up — because our whole position was “garbage in, garbage out.” If you cross-contaminate the samples when you collect it, you know, you can do all the DNA testing correctly, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to get results about who really is the source of the evidence.   00:17:45     You know, the idea that you would pick up things without wearing gloves, or you did not change the gloves, and you would take bloodstains and put them in plastic bags when they were wet so the bacteria would eat away the DNA, and then put them in a hot truck, and then take them back to the lab, and then put everything out on a table and open a purple top tube that contained Mr. Simpson’s DNA and have an aerosol, and then touch all of the different samples. I mean today that’s just insane and unthinkable.   00:18:13     So the critique of how the crime scene was handled was very important, and I think the forensic community recognized this changes everything. You can’t use, you know, a 19th century method of collecting evidence for a 20th, 21st century technology. And so, that’s about the only silver lining I can find in that case, if you must know the truth.   00:18:37     ALICE WINKLER: The O.J. Simpson case was as high-profile as it gets, but it really was a one-off. Barry Scheck’s docket has been almost entirely filled with clients who are poor, without access to decent representation. I want to switch gears here and spend some time on Barry Scheck’s professional and personal background to paint you a picture of why he wound up on the path he did. It starts with a classic American story, but quickly takes an unusual turn.   00:19:08     BARRY SCHECK:    I grew up as the first college graduate in my family. And my father was born on the Lower East Side of New York on Rivington Street, and he had seven brothers and one sister, and you know, the probably apocryphal story is that the last one up didn’t get clothes. But they were quite poor, and my father learned how to tap dance from a janitor in a bank, African American, and became a professional tap dancer, played the Apollo Theater, got into show business, had dancing and singing schools, was a producer of television for, first, the DuMont Network, and all the major networks.    00:19:49     And he had a show called Startime, where the kids from the singing and dancing schools would go right onto television. It’s sort of like Star Search, American Idol, you know, America’s Got Talent today, but back then. And then he wound up managing a lot of acts that came out of the schools, most prominently Connie Francis, Bobby Darin, and eventually managing Mary Wells, Odetta. His favorite client was actually a woman named Hazel Scott.   00:20:17     ALICE WINKLER: The brilliant and beautiful African American jazz pianist who wound up blacklisted, and for a time was an expatriate in France. So Barry Scheck grew up in this multiracial milieu in a family that was intensely interested in the Civil Rights Movement.   00:20:33     BARRY SCHECK:    You know, it was a classic kind of, you know, second generation immigrant household, you know, where we had the values of your typical kind of left-wing, striving, you know, Jewish family that came from poverty.   00:20:50     ALICE WINKLER: But not so typical.   00:20:52     BARRY SCHECK:    Well, my whole life, you know — my father tap danced at my bar mitzvah, he tap danced at my wedding. And everywhere we would go over the years, we would see all the great tap dancers, you know, Honi Coles, Sandman Sims, all of these people, and they would turn to him and say, "George, do that step that only you and John Bubbles could do!"   00:21:11     ALICE WINKLER: Barry Scheck’s mom was unusual in her own right. She’d grown up with parents in the dress business, never went to college, but ended up writing for magazines. She also won punching bag championships, as well as the Silver Skates speed skating competition at Madison Square Garden. So the speed skater and the tap dancer gave birth to a lawyer? How did that happen?   00:21:35    BARRY SCHECK:    Oh, gosh. Well, you know, any person of my generation that grew up, you know, passionate and interested in the Civil Rights Movement saw that lawyers in the Civil Rights Movement really were able to use law as an instrument for social change. So, you know, that was, you know, quite inspirational and just seemed like, well, isn’t that what lawyers do?   00:22:01    You know, I liked Perry Mason, as anyone, you know, did in those days. But the show that I liked better was something called The Defenders that, you know, was written by Reginald Rose. I think Paddy Chayefsky would write episodes, and it was starring E.G. Marshall and Robert Reed. And The Defenders always, you know — they didn’t always win the cases, but they always took on the great constitutional challenges and the really interesting cases, and they were always idealistic, and it was, like — it was a great program. So, you know, I always remember that.   00:22:36    WILLIAM SHATNER: The people who defend me say if there hadn't been a war and I hadn't been taught to kill, I would never have killed Frank Cook. But in a way, wasn't it my fault there was a war? I mean, whose fault is it that there are wars and people learn to kill? Aren't we all to blame? Aren't we all bullies at one time or another, in one way or another? Aren't we all guilty?   00:23:02    ALICE WINKLER: Does that voice sound a little familiar? It’s a young William Shatner, but I digress. Barry Scheck may have found role models on television, but he also remembers the impact of particular books on his worldview, as he told journalist Gail Eichenthal.   00:23:19    BARRY SCHECK:    One book that had a lot of influence on me was Manchild in the Promised Land by Claude Brown, and I remember Michael Harrington wrote that book The Other America. I remember reading Silent Spring, Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom, very strange, and Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams. I read that in seventh grade, and it had a big impact on me.   00:23:41    GAIL EICHENTHAL: How so?   00:23:43    BARRY SCHECK:    Well, you know, all of a sudden you read that and, you know, your everyday life looks different because you start thinking about the motivations of everybody’s behavior. It was actually quite helpful.   00:23:56    ALICE WINKLER: Scheck’s childhood reading list is impressive, but he insists he wasn’t a very good student.   00:24:02    BARRY SCHECK:    They sent me to — you know, they had this — in the New York public school system they had these funds for kids that they thought were smart but, you know, couldn’t behave in class, and you know, these days they'd probably give us Ritalin, right? So it probably was attention deficit disorder, or maybe I was just — or I don't know. But I had — you know, I was a class clown and a cutup and, you know — so they sent me to this psychiatrist, I remember that.   00:24:33    And then we had this personal tragedy in our family when I was in fifth grade. Our house burned down. I was ten. My sister died. She was seven. My parents, you know, suffered injuries during the fire. So I was sort of dislocated.   00:24:52    GAIL EICHENTHAL: Well, obviously that's incredibly difficult for everyone. Do you think it affected your career?   00:24:59    BARRY SCHECK:    Well, I came to terms with it in my fifties. I actually went to this terrific psychotherapist for about a year. I think he's really quite an extraordinary man. His name is Martin Bergmann. He lived — he just died. He was 100 and really brilliant. And people probably know him because he played this doctor of love in Woody Allen’s movie Crimes and Misdemeanors.   00:25:33     But in any event, you know, I had compartmentalized this whole thing about the fire and the death of my sister and how it affected, you know, me and my parents. And I finally came to terms with it — or he pointed out to me, you know, how it really had been, without my truly being aware of it, you know, probably a pretty good motivating influence. It’s how you wind up wanting to defend people and protect the underdog and it probably had something to do with what I wound up doing professionally.   00:26:09     ALICE WINKLER: Somehow, despite the tragedy, or maybe because of it, Barry Scheck excelled in high school and wound up at Yale, studying macroeconomics. But it was 1968, and he was bitten by the politics bug, working for Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. He went to the '68 convention. He went to Woodstock. He decided to switch to American studies. He thought he’d change the world by making public access documentaries.   00:26:37     BARRY SCHECK:    There was not a revolution, by the way, by 1971 and, you know, so I took the law boards and, you know, got into a bunch of law schools. And I just didn’t think I wanted to do it, and then I decided, “Well, here, the University of California at Berkeley, it only costs $400 dollars a semester, and it’s Berkeley,” and I had never been there, you know. And that was, you know, a hotbed of, you know, political activity, so I figured, “Let’s go move there.” That’s how I wound up at law school.   00:27:13    After I left Berkeley, I worked for a while for the United Farm Workers Union, and I took the New York and California bars at the same time, which was a little hard then. And then eventually, after, I went back and I worked as a public defender in the South Bronx for the Legal Aid Society for two-and-a-half years and before I sort of accidently wound up as a law professor.   00:27:36     ALICE WINKLER: The South Bronx was one of the most bereft neighborhoods in America during his time as a public defender there. It’s where he was steeped in the inequities of our justice system, and it’s where he met Peter Neufeld, his future partner in the Innocence Project. When Scheck stumbled into a job at the new Benjamin Cardozo School of Law, he immediately started focusing on clinical education, which was very uncommon in those days.   00:28:02     BARRY SCHECK:    The clinical movement really changed legal education. Then there was a focus on seeing the client as a person. And fact investigation, which really, you know, is quite important to the development of law because, you know, you can have the analytical principles that decide cases, but you know, who created the facts? And how you gather the facts and how you marshal them and present them, you know, has enormous importance for lawyers.   00:28:32     You know, so I was a clinical professor. I had students working on cases, but I would take major cases, and I guess the first one that really caught public attention involved battered women. There was this horrible incident just a few blocks from our law school where a lawyer — although it turned out he didn't really have a license — named Joel Steinberg had actually beaten to death his not-legally-adopted daughter, Lisa.   00:29:02     He had another small child that he had adopted, and his live-in companion, who was a woman named Hedda Nussbaum, who had been a book editor at Random House and was drop-dead gorgeous. I mean, Hedda Nussbaum was a very, very beautiful woman, and she used to write children’s books, and she became involved in this relationship with Joel Steinberg. And he was sort of a mesmerizing character and eventually became batterer of Hedda.   00:29:34     And by the time that Lisa Steinberg was brought to the emergency room at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Manhattan and Hedda was seen, she was unrecognizable. You know, she had a ruptured spleen. You know, bones in her face were broken, you know, all over her body, and she looked twice her age. And when she was seen on television, you know, people were appalled.   00:29:58     HEDDA NUSSBAUM: There was a period when Joel made me sleep in the bathtub. When I would displease him the first time, he would say, "No breakfast," so I couldn’t have any breakfast. Then, "No lunch. No dinner." Next would come, "No blanket."   00:30:11     BARRY SCHECK:    This was a case that really did divide the feminist movement because, on the one hand, Joel was clearly a batterer. He battered Hedda. He had killed Lisa. There had been heavy drug use in the house, and we all came to believe that they were literally, you know, sharing a delusional system. They would call it a folie à deux. But there were many that believed, "Well, you know, if you're a battered woman, that’s one thing. We can understand, you know, either killing your batterer — we understand that. We’ll defend that, but if a child dies, even though both you and the child were being battered, well, that’s where we draw the line, and you won’t get support from us."   00:30:56     And I am very, very grateful to this day for Gloria Steinem, because Gloria Steinem was the person that really stood up and came to Hedda’s defense when, you know, that was not easy or simple. But it was quite an extraordinary case because it was televised every day in New York. This was a televised trial in New York City, so all daytime programming was off every day that trial was on television.   00:31:24     And the prosecutors involved in that case and myself and the students and the other lawyers that worked on it, when we really investigated the lives of, you know, Joel and Hedda and the children and some of the people that were around them, it was so upsetting and horrifying that we all reached the same conclusion. And we managed to get Hedda into Neuro 12 at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital and treated by psychiatrists.   00:31:55     And the prosecutors agreed to dismiss the case against her, and they did that without any assurance guarantee or quid pro quo that she could ever be a witness, but she did make enough of a recovery where eventually she was able to testify, and that was pretty riveting.   00:32:13     ALICE WINKLER: Over the years Barry Scheck has worked on other extraordinary and high-profile cases. There was Abner Louima, a Haitian man who was sexually brutalized by New York City police officers; and Amadou Diallo, an unarmed immigrant from Guinea, who was shot and killed by New York City police officers. To this day, Scheck continues to practice as a civil rights attorney while also co-directing the Innocence Project. There are now more than 50 branches of the organization, and while the individual cases are gut-wrenching, Barry Scheck is optimistic about the big picture.   00:32:50     BARRY SCHECK:    Well, you know, the work of the Innocence Project — we use DNA testing to get people out of jail that didn’t commit the crimes, and we've worked on non-DNA cases and will continue to do even more of those, and the network of projects that we have across the country does that. But what we found is that there are a whole group of causes of wrongful convictions, sort of well-known and established, you know, and they would include eyewitness misidentification, which, depending on how you look, is probably the single greatest cause of the conviction of the innocent, certainly in our DNA sample.   00:33:26     And there are wonderful, wonderful fixes that scientific research has given us that will minimize mistakes without really reducing correct identifications. Now it's, you know, an inherent problem, eyewitness identification, but there are these fixes that come out of 30 years of terrific scientific research by psychologists. And now we are making enormous efforts to get the police to adopt these reforms, and we find a lot of police departments, you know, have been doing this across the country.   00:34:00     And we won a landmark case in the New Jersey Supreme Court that also would inform jurors about a lot of this research and its effects. And the Oregon Supreme Court has followed that, and it’s really an effort to bring all the scientific research and have it adequately transferred into the courtroom and to adequately inform jurors and to change police practices.   00:34:29     So we have had a lot of success, I think, in the eyewitness area. We're also looking at false confessions, which is an extraordinary cause of wrongful convictions. The simple fix, of course, is to videotape them, and that we're getting in state after state after state, and the FBI just has finally agreed to videotape interrogations, which is a big step forward.   00:34:53     And it’s not just videotaping, although that's going to help enormously, to have that record, but also better training on how to conduct interrogations because there’s a lot to learn in this area, again, from psychologists about the best way to do it. And we really have to get the courts now to look at reliability because courts, unfortunately, have looked at confessions and said, "Well, it’s admissible if it’s voluntary."   00:35:19     Well, if you certainly have a record of a videotape of interrogation, you can see if the suspect is giving information that only the police and the suspect would know and whether that information independently leads to other incriminating information. That is what I think law enforcement officials all across the world would agree are the measures of what is a reliable interrogation.   00:35:42     And that has to be recognized more by the courts, and we have to train law enforcement on how to do that better. You know, I feel — and my colleague Peter Neufeld and everybody that works on the Innocence Project in New York and in the other projects across the country, we feel we are involved in an international human rights movement. And we now have established that far more innocent people are convicted than anybody ever really thought.   00:36:06     It was really a necessary fiction to believe that we have an infallible system, but it certainly isn’t, and there's no good reason to believe it is. You know, we're in a brave new world of digital evidence. It's extraordinary how quickly this technological change is coming, and the criminal justice system has to catch up, and we can’t afford anymore to have lawyers and judges that are scientifically illiterate.   00:36:35     And I am not saying you have to understand every aspect of the technology, but what you have to understand are things like, how do you validate something? You're coming in with evidence in the courtroom. What does it mean to validate it? You have to understand sensitivity and specificity and probabilities and the kinds of things that are, you know, the staples of scientific research in all kinds of disciplines.   00:36:58     It's just unacceptable not to understand these things in some way anymore if you're a lawyer or a judge. I don't care whether you are doing criminal or civil work. And so I think the Innocence Project has had an enormous impact on state and federal policy and trying to bring the mainstream scientific community into the criminal justice arena. That's going to be one of our significant contributions.   00:37:25     ALICE WINKLER: Remember that poem Barry Scheck recited at the beginning of this podcast by Irish poet Seamus Heaney? Well, it goes on a little longer, and since Barry Scheck chose to return to the poem at the end of his 2008 speech to the Academy of Achievement, I will let him end this podcast episode the same way. It's called The Cure at Troy.   00:37:47    BARRY SCHECK:    “So hope for a great sea change on the far side of revenge. Believe that a further shore is reachable from here. Believe in miracles and cures and healing wells. Call the miracle self-healing: the utter self-revealing double-take of feeling. If there’s a fire on the mountain or lightning and storm and a god speaks from the sky, that means someone is hearing the outcry and birth cry of new life at its term."   00:38:28     ALICE WINKLER: The poetic justice of Barry Scheck, civil rights lawyer, professor, and co-founder of the Innocence Project. If you have friends you think would like this episode, give them a tweet. Our hashtag is #WhatItTakesNow, and you can find more about Barry Scheck at the Academy of Achievement’s website, achievement.org. I’m Alice Winkler, and this is What It Takes. Thanks for listening.   00:38:57    ALICE WINKLER: What It Takes is made possible with the tremendous support of the Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation.     END OF FILE

from Voice of America http://ift.tt/2F02gky
via IFTTT

Cate Blanchett to Lead Cannes Film Festival Judges

  Actor Cate Blanchett will head the awards jury at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival in May. The Australian movie star is a major voice in the campaign against sexual harassment. In a statement, Festival officials Pierre Lescure and Thierry Fremaux praised Blanchett. They called her “a rare and unique artist whose talent and convictions enrich both screen and stage.” Blanchett is a two-time Academy Award winner. She also was an early supporter of the women who accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual wrongdoing. Weinstein resigned as head of the powerful Weinstein Company in October. He left a few weeks after the first reports of widespread accusations against him were published. Blanchett recently joined the Time's Up campaign with movie stars Reese Witherspoon, Emma Stone and others. The campaign aims to act against sexual harassment and inequality in the workplace. Blanchett said she had been to Cannes for many reasons over the years: as an actress, producer and in competition. But the actor said she has never attended only for the pleasure of watching the many films the festival offers. “I am humbled by the privilege and responsibility of presiding over this year's jury. This festival plays a pivotal role in bringing the world together to celebrate story,” Blanchett said. Blanchett won the 2014 best actress Oscar for her part in the movie “Blue Jasmine.” Ten years earlier, she had won the Academy Award for best supporting actress in “The Aviator.” In 2012, the French government honored Blanchett with the Chevalier de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres. Blanchett follows Spanish director Pedro Almodovar. He headed the 70th festival in the coastal town of Cannes last year. This year's event will take place from May 8 to 19. I’m Caty Weaver.   Caty Weaver adapted this story for Learning English based on Associated Press news reports. Mario Ritter was the editor. Write to us in the Comments Section or on our Facebook page. _________________________________________________________________ Words in This Story   unique – adj. used to say that something or someone is unlike anything or anyone else conviction – n. a strong belief or opinion harassment – n. the act of annoying or bothering (someone) In a repeated way humbled – adj. not thinking of yourself as better than other people privilege – n. a special opportunity to do something that makes you proud pivotal – adj. very important  

from Voice of America http://ift.tt/2EcgoWI
via IFTTT

January 5, 2018

A look at the best news photos from around the world.

from Voice of America http://ift.tt/2qurdBk
via IFTTT

English @ the Movies: 'Cooked Up'

Here is a scary thought. What if dinosaurs were brought back to life? They have been gone a long time from our planet, but in the movie "Jurassic World," they are back. Wonder what it means if something is "cooked up?" Listen, and find out.

from Voice of America http://ift.tt/2F2FbgZ
via IFTTT

US Attorney General Ends Obama Marijuana Policy

  American Attorney General Jeff Sessions has cancelled a federal policy that let American states legalize marijuana. The move came just days after California, the country’s largest state, began permitting recreational use of the drug. President Donald Trump’s top law enforcement official announced the change Thursday. Instead of the earlier hands-off policy, Sessions will let federal lawyers in states where marijuana is already legal decide how aggressively to enforce federal law. In a memo, Sessions asked federal lawyers to consider the seriousness of the crime and its impact “in deciding which marijuana activities to prosecute under these laws.” The move by Sessions is likely to create questions in states where it is legal to buy, use and grow marijuana. Although some state laws have legalized the use of the drug for medical and recreational reasons, marijuana remains illegal under U.S. federal law. In 2013, the Obama administration announced in a memo that it would not resist states’ efforts to legalize marijuana. The memo urged the states to keep marijuana from getting to places where it remained illegal. And it asked the states to keep the drug from criminal gangs and children. Opposition to Sessions’ policy change Republican lawmaker Cory Gardner of Colorado quickly voiced opposition to Sessions’ plan. Colorado is among eight states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use. Gardner said in a Twitter message that the Justice Department “has trampled on the will of the voters” in Colorado and other states. He also said the action goes against what Sessions had said he would do before becoming attorney general. Along with Colorado, recreational use of marijuana is legal in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Maine and Masachussetts and in the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C. Another 21 U.S. states permit the use of marijuana for medical reasons. The legal sale of marijuana has become a multi-million-dollar business. It helps fund schools, educational programs and law enforcement. In California, the business is estimated to bring in $1 billion a year in tax money within the next several years. Maria McFarland Sanchez-Moreno is with the Drug Policy Alliance. She called Sessions’ policy a return to outdated drug-war policies that mainly affected minorities. She added that Sessions “wants to maintain a system that has led to tremendous injustice ... and that has wasted federal resources on a huge scale.” A public opinion study carried out by Gallup in October 2017 shows that 64 percent of Americans support legalizing marijuana. Support for Sessions policy The attorney general and some law enforcement officials have blamed legalization for increased drug trafficking. They said drug traffickers have taken advantage of state laws to grow marijuana. Then, they sell it across state lines for more money. Kevin Sabet of Smart Approaches to Marijuana called Sessions’ decision a “victory.”  Sessions has blamed the illegal use of marijuana and heroin for rising violence in America. But activists argue that legalizing the drug would likely reduce violence, since criminals would no longer control the marijuana trade. I’m Caty Weaver. The Associated Press reported this story. Hai Do adapted it for VOA Learning English. Ashley Thompson was the editor. _________________________________________________________________ Words in This Story   recreational - adj. (of a drug) used for pleasure instead of for medical purposes hands-off - adj.  allowing people to do what they want to do without bothering or stopping them memo - n. a usually brief written message from one person or department in an organization, company, etc., to another prosecute - v. ​ to hold a trial against a person who is accused of a crime to see if that person is guilty​ trample - v. ​ to treat other people's rights, wishes, or feelings as if they are worthless or not important​ outdated  - adj. ​no longer useful or acceptable : not modern or current tremendous  - adj. ​very large or great take advantage of - to use (something, such as an opportunity) in a way that helps you : to make good use of (something)

from Voice of America http://ift.tt/2CueTT6
via IFTTT

Iranian Americans Closely Watching Protests in Iran

  Iranian Americans have been closely watching protests in Iran. An Iranian government campaign against protesters led to the deaths of at least 21 people over the past week. More than 400 others were arrested. Thousands of Iranians have also taken part in pro-government demonstrations. Many Iranian Americans are hoping for a peaceful resolution and reform. Southern California is home to the largest Iranian community outside Iran. The largest number of Iranian immigrants live in the Little Persia neighborhood on the west side of Los Angeles. People there are openly critical of Iran’s religious government, which they consider useless and corrupt. “When you are mullah,” one immigrant says of Iran’s religious rulers, and “you want to manage a country like Iran, you destroy everything.” He added that Iranians are tired of the government. Iran’s government has a history of repression, said an immigrant named Ali. He told VOA that “the people are angry, especially young people,” and everyone is worried there will be more violence. United States government officials have criticized the Iranian government’s actions. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has called on the Security Council to hold an emergency meeting over the protests and government actions. Iranian officials have restricted the use of social media sites such as Instagram. U.S. President Donald Trump has promised “support from the United States” in messages posted on Twitter. Some Iranian Americans say the U.S. government should react carefully because the anti-government protests are the result of internal problems. Muhammad Sahimi works at the University of Southern California. He also follows Iranian politics. “If the U.S. intervenes in any shape or form, or even supports some faction against another, the hardliners in Iran will use that as an excuse” for more violence, he said. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already blamed what he calls “enemies of Iran” for inciting the protests. The secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council accuses the United States, Britain and Saudi Arabia of supporting the opposition. The demonstrations started last week as workers in a number of cities marched to protest corruption and high unemployment. Sahimi does not believe that the protests are as popular as those in 2009. That was when students and members of the middle class denounced election results in a movement that came to be known as the Green Revolution. Others believe the current protests will spread, as the earlier ones did. Los Angeles publisher Bijan Khalili blames mismanagement of the Iranian economy. He says Iranian officials will not accept responsibility, and “the only thing that is left is blaming it on foreign countries and foreign people.” Muhammad Sahimi says that U.S. measures set up to punish Iran for its nuclear activities are also an issue. He notes that President Trump has promised to strengthen those sanctions by removing waivers on Iranian oil. He says stronger actions will only worsen economic conditions in Iran. Businessman Sam Kermanian says the nuclear agreement with world powers raised the hopes of Iran’s people. But when the economy did not improve, he adds, people became angry over corruption among religious leaders. Los Angeles grocer Todd Khodadadi says Iranians are “trying to get their rights, and they raised their voices…Hopefully, peacefully, they (will) get what they want,” he says. “What they want is freedom,” says travel agent Farhad Besharati. “It’s not too much,” he argues. “We’re in the 21st century. The government killing them? This is not fair. It’s not good,” he says. These Iranian Americans say the nations of the world should defend the right to peaceful protest. They add that the demonstrations should be left in the hands of Iran’s people to avoid giving the government an excuse for more violence. I'm Susan Shand. ___________________________________________ Words in this story: mullah – n. a Muslim learned in Islamic teachings and religious law hardliner – n. a member of a group, often a political group, who is not willing to compromise sanctions – n. a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule. waiver – n. a document recording the surrendering of a right or claim. grocer – n. someone who sells food, meats, fruits, vegetables and usually other products excuse – n. reason manage – v. to direct or supervise someone or something

from Voice of America http://ift.tt/2lUgafq
via IFTTT

Getting to Know Gerunds and Infinitives

Welcome to another episode of Everyday Grammar on VOA Learning English. English learners have difficulty with gerunds and infinitives. A gerund is the –ing form of a verb that functions the same as a noun. For example, “Running is fun.” In this sentence, “running” is the gerund. It acts just like a noun. The infinitive form of a verb appears either as the basic form (with no marking) or with the word “to.” For example, you can say “I might run to the store” or  “I like to run.” In this sentence, “to run” is the infinitive. It is difficult for English learners to know whether to use a gerund or an infinitive after a verb. Here’s an example. Which sentence is correct? Sentence One: I suggested going to dinner. Sentence Two: I suggested to go to dinner. Sentence One, with the gerund, is correct. “I suggested going to dinner.” Why? You can only use a gerund after the verb “suggest.” Let’s take the word “like.” You can say “I like" running” or “I like to run.” Both sentences have the same meaning. You can use either a gerund or an infinitive after “like.” Now let’s try “enjoy.” We can say, “I enjoy running.” But we cannot say, “I enjoy to run.” Why? Only a gerund can follow the verb “enjoy.” Are you confused yet? You’re not alone. Gerunds and infinitives confuse even very advanced English learners. Basically, some verbs are followed by gerunds, some verbs are followed by infinitives, and some verbs can be followed by gerunds or infinitives. Native speakers do not think about the difference. But English learners have to memorize the hundreds of different verb combinations. Here are a few tips. Tip Number 1: you almost always find a gerund after a preposition. For example, “She is afraid of flying.” In this sentence “of” is the preposition and “flying” is the gerund. You cannot say “She is afraid of to fly.” An infinitive cannot be the object of a preposition, only a gerund can. You could say, “She is afraid to fly,” but in this sentence, the preposition “of” is gone. Tip Number 2: When you are talking about an activity, you usually use a gerund. For example, “I stopped smoking.” You can describe many activities by using “go” before a gerund. “Let’s go shopping,” or “We went skiing.” Let’s see how much you know. Try to complete these sentences using the verb “study.” Ready? I’ll read the first part of the sentence and you finish it. I enjoy … (studying) I considered … (studying) I managed … (to study) I hope … (to study) I suggested … (studying) I like… … (studying) or … (to study) This is only a simple introduction to a complicated grammar topic. There is no quick and easy way to learn gerunds and infinitives. It takes years of practice and familiarity with the English language. Next time you read or listen to a VOA Learning English story, pay attention to use of gerunds and infinitives. Over time, you will begin to hear the right verb combination. Below is a helpful reference list for using gerunds and infinitives. I’m Jonathan Evans. And I’m Ashley Thompson.   Adam Brock wrote this story for Learning English. Dr. Jill Robbins was the editor. _________________________________________________________________ Words in This Story   gerund  - n. an English noun formed from a verb by adding -ing infinitive - n. the basic form of a verb; usually used with to except with modal verbs like should and could and certain other verbs like see and hear preposition - n.  a word or group of words that is used with a noun, pronoun, or noun phrase to show direction, location, or time, or to introduce an object Now it’s your turn. In the Comments section, write one sentence that uses a verb followed by a gerund or an infinitive. We’ll respond with feedback about your usage. _____________________________________________________________ Only a gerund can follow these verbs: admit, avoid, be used to, can’t help, can’t stand, consider, deny, discuss, dislike, end up, enjoy, feel like, finish, get used to, give up, go on, have difficulty, have problems, have trouble, imagine, it’s no use, it’s worthwhile, keep, look forward to, mention, mind, miss, recommend, remember, quit, spend time, stop, suggest, understand, waste time, work at Either a gerund or an infinitive can follow these verbs, and there is no change in meaning advise (requires object with infinitive), begin, continue, hate, intend, like, love, prefer, start Either a gerund or an infinitive can follow these verbs, but the meaning may change: forget, remember, stop An infinitive follows these verbs: afford, agree, appear, arrange, ask, care, decide, demand, expect, fail, hope, learn, manage, mean, offer, plan, prepare, pretend, promise, refuse, remember, seem, stop, volunteer, wait, want, wish A noun or pronoun and an infinitive follow these verbs advise, allow, ask, cause, challenge, command, convince, expect, forbid, force, hire, instruct, invite, order, pay, permit, program, remind, teach, tell, urge, want, warn

from Voice of America http://ift.tt/2CWrZKh
via IFTTT