可可英语听力优秀9篇

可可英语的英语网站的听力材料，一起来围观一下吧。下面是小练笔为大伙儿带来的9篇《可可英语听力》，在大家参考的同时，也可以分享一下小练笔给您的好友哦。

可可英语在线听力：Andrew Carnegie 篇一

Andrew Carnegie, known as the King of Steel, built the steel industry in the United States, and, in the process, became one of the wealthiest men in America. His success resulted in part fromhis ability to sell the product and in part from his policy of expanding during periods ofeconomic decline, when most of his competitors were reducing their investments.

Carnegie believed that individuals should progress through hard work, but he also felt stronglythat the wealthy should use their fortunes for the benefit of society. He opposed charity,preferring instead to provide educational opportunities that would allow others to helpthemselves. "He who dies rich, dies disgraced," he often said.

Among his more noteworthy contributions to society are those that bear his name, includingthe Carnegie Institute of Pittsburgh, which has a library, a museum of fine arts, and a museumof national history. He also founded a school of technology that is now part of Carnegie-MellonUniversity. Other philanthropic gifts are the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace topromote understanding between nations, the Carnegie Institute of Washington to fundscientific research, and Carnegie Hall to provide a center for the arts.

Few Americans have been left untouched by Andrew Carnegie's generosity. His contributions ofmore than five million dollars established 2,500 libraries in small communities throughout thecountry and formed the nucleus of the public library system that we all enjoy today.

可可英语听力：The Cuban revolution at 篇二

The Cuban revolution at 50

Heroic myth and prosaic failure

Dec 30th 2008

From The Economist print edition

All the Castro brothers have to celebrate this week is survival. But that in itself is aremarkable achievement

IN THE early hours of January 1st 1959, as New Year parties were in full swing in an otherwiseunnaturally quiet Havana, Fulgencio Batista stole away. He flew from Camp Columbia, the city’smain military base, to exile in the Dominican Republic with an entourage of relatives andcronies. The dictator’s flight meant that just 25 months after landing with 81 men, all but adozen of whom were immediately killed or captured, Fidel Castro, a lawyer and former studentleader, had led his guerrilla force to an improbable triumph against Batista’s American-backedarmy. The next day Mr Castro spoke to a jubilant multitude, many dressed in the red and blackcolours of his July 26th Movement, in the main square of Santiago de Cuba, the island’s secondcity. “The revolution begins now,” he proclaimed, adding: “This time, luckily for Cuba, therevolution will truly come into being. It will not be like 1895, when the North Americans cameand took over…For the first time the republic will really be entirely free.”

As they descended from the mountains of the Sierra Maestra and entered Santiago, thecolumns of bearded rebels “were literally swept off their feet by the overjoyed people”, as one ofthem, Carlos Franqui, recorded in his diary. “It was the hour of freedom after a long tyrannyand a very tough fight.” Such scenes were repeated across the island as Mr Castro embarkedon a week-long triumphal march to Havana. They were echoed in the rest of Latin America, andbeyond it. The dictatorship of Batista, a former army sergeant, had become notorious for itscorrupt brutality. To many people, Mr Castro and his similarly handsome lieutenants, includingErnesto “Che” Guevara, an Argentine doctor, seemed to be romantic heroes. To others, theyrepresented a renewal of socialism. Jean-Paul Sartre hailed Mr Castro’s revolution as “themost original I have known”.

Just as he had pledged, Mr Castro prevented the Americans from derailing his victory. But hedid so at the cost of the freedom he had promised. Less than two years after his speech inSantiago—and before the United States imposed its economic embargo against the island—hehad taken decisive steps to turn Cuba into the first, and still the only, communist country inthe Americas.

Half a century on, the euphoria is long gone. Everyday life in Cuba is a dreary affair of queuesand shortages, even if nobody starves and violent crime is rare. It is the only country in theAmericas whose government denies its citizens freedom of expression and assembly. Cuba’sjails contain 58 “prisoners of conscience” detained purely for their beliefs, according toAmnesty International, a human-rights group. But to the chagrin of the United States, and indefiance of its futile embargo, Mr Castro and Cuban communism stubbornly cling on just90 miles (145km) across the Florida Straits. He and it have outlasted the fall of the Berlin Walland the collapse of his Soviet patron, and lived to see new allies emerge in Latin America andelsewhere.

Fidel himself has not appeared in public since he underwent abdominal surgery in July 2006.But his views, expressed in a column entitled “Reflections of the Commander” that ispublished every few days in the state newspapers, still dominate Cuba. His slightly youngerbrother Raúl, who succeeded him as president last February, may be more pragmatic and moreopen to capitalism (though not to liberal democracy). But Raúl’s plans for economic reform,already cautious, have been further stalled by two devastating hurricanes that hit Cuba thisyear (see article). What will be officially celebrated in Havana this week is not the prospect ofchange. It is the stubborn survival of a revolution that has had profound consequences forthe Americas—though rarely those that Mr Castro wanted.

Outwitting the CIA

On the face of things, Cuba was an unlikely candidate for communism. The largest island inthe Caribbean, it was also the wealthiest, thanks to sugar. Its insular status had allowed Spainto hold on to its “ever-faithful isle” for seven decades after it lost its colonies on the Americanmainland. As Mr Castro noted in his victory speech, a long struggle for independence washijacked when the United States intervened: the Spanish-American war of 1898 marked the endof Spain’s presence in the Americas and turned Cuba into an American neo-colony. Some60% of farmland and much of the sugar industry came to be owned by Americans. A third ofthe workforce, most of them black rural labourers, lived in severe poverty.

Nevertheless, in 1958 Cuba was among the five most developed countries in Latin America: lifeexpectancy was close to that in the United States, and there were more doctors per head thanin Britain or France. Although Havana had its darker side as a mafia bolthole, it was also aglittering cultural and commercial centre. It is the music from that era—the son, revived underthe label of the Buena Vista Social Club—that has once again in recent years got the worldsinging and dancing, rather than the nueva trova (“new song”) of the revolution. As Bertrandde la Grange and Maite Rico note in the latest issue of Letras Libres, a Mexican magazine,Havana boasted 135 cinemas in 1958—more than New York City. Today only a score remainopen, although the city’s population has doubled.

As Rafael Rojas, a Cuban historian who lives in exile in Mexico, has pointed out, most Cubanswanted and expected Mr Castro to restore the democratic constitution of 1940, repudiatedby Batista’s coup of 1952. That, after all, was what he had promised in the manifesto of theJuly 26th Movement, along with agrarian reform. and the nationalisation of the American-owned public utilities (though not of the rest of the economy). But Mr Castro had other ideas.He was determined that his revolution should not suffer the fate of Jacobo Arbenz, ademocratic social reformer in Guatemala, who was overthrown by an invasion misguidedlyorganised by the Eisenhower administration in 1954 in the name of anti-communism. Guevarahad witnessed that event, and learned from it.

Guatemala was the first skirmish of the cold war in Latin America. But it was the Cubanrevolution that turned the region into an important theatre in that ideological and militaryconflict. Installing moderate civilian politicians in government, Mr Castro named himself headof the armed forces. He quickly dismantled Batista’s army. Some 550 people more or lessclosely linked to Batista’s regime were executed after show trials, a bloodbath in which Guevaraplayed a particularly prominent role. Mr Castro deepened his alliance with the Popular SocialistParty (as Cuba’s old-established communist party called itself), and set up a parallelgovernment at a newly created National Agrarian Reform. Institute headed by Guevara. Withinseven months of victory he had shelved his promise of elections. The July 26th Movementsplintered, with many of its non-communists (including Mr Franqui) going into exile, jail orquiet opposition. In October 1959, just nine months after entering Havana, Mr Castro beganthe contacts with the Soviet Union that swiftly led to a full-scale economic and militaryalliance.

The CIA quickly concluded that Mr Castro was a closet communist and set out to overthrowhim. But it was not until October 1960 that the United States began to impose the embargo.By the time a CIA-organised invasion of anti-Castro Cubans landed at the Bay of Pigs in April1961, Mr Castro was ready for them, as Arbenz had not been in Guatemala. In 1962 the SovietUnion’s decision to station missiles on Cuban soil brought the world the closest it has evercome to nuclear war. In return for their withdrawal, the Kennedy administration guaranteedthat it would not again invade Cuba. Mr Castro had consolidated his victory. His triumph wouldprompt an exodus of hundreds of thousands of the more entrepreneurial Cubans. It thushad the unintended effect of turning Miami from a sleepy beach town into a throbbing regionalentrepôt.

Communism, Cuban-style

Precisely when Mr Castro became a communist is a matter of conjecture (though Raúl was amember of the Communist Youth and Guevara’s experience in Guatemala strengthened hisprevious embrace of Marxism). The evidence suggests that Mr Castro imposed communismin Cuba of his own volition, not in reaction to American hostility. Certainly that hostility(which included endless CIA attempts to kill him) made his task easier. But it was not inevitablethat the Cuban revolution should become a communist one. Mexico’s revolution earlier in the20th century installed a nationalist but non-communist regime. In Venezuela in 1959 apopular uprising against a dictatorship led to a democracy under Rómulo Betancourt, asocial-democrat, though this would be corroded by the collapse in the price of oil in the 1980sand 1990s.

可可英语说法 篇三

cocoa

可可的英语例句： 篇四

1、 My wife was tucked up in bed with her cup of cocoa.

我老婆端着一杯热可可窝在床上。

2、 About 70% of the cocoa acreage is treated with insecticide.

大约70%的可可树林地喷过杀虫剂。

3、 The Ivory Coast became the world's leading cocoa producer.

象牙海岸成为世界上可可粉的主要产地。

4、 The cocoa industry dwindled because it became increasingly difficult to cover costs.

由于越来越难以收回成本，可可产业日渐衰落。

5、 A system of forced labour was used on the cocoa plantations.

可可种植园中曾实行强迫劳役制。

6、 Chocolate comes from the cacao tree.

巧克力出自可可树。

7、 a mug of cocoa

一大杯热可可饮料

8、 West Africa was the pivot of the cocoa trade.

西非是可可豆贸易的中心。

9、 They always had a cup of cocoa last thing at night.

他们总是在临睡前喝杯可可饮料。

10、 Steam rose from her mug of cocoa.

水汽从她那杯可可饮料里升起。

11、 Some coffee and cacao are www.baihuawen.cn grown for export.

种植的咖啡豆和可可豆有些是为了出口。

12、 The wild cocoa tree is effectively immortal.

野生可可树实际上是不会死的。

13、 They are con-trolling so much cocoa that they are virtually monopolizing the market.

他们控制了大量的可可粉，因此他们几乎垄断了整个市场。

14、 The Holmbergs were sitting before a roaring fire in the lounge, sipping their cocoa.

霍姆伯格一家坐在客厅里，对着熊熊炉火呷着可可。

15、 Most foreign trading companies in West Africa deals in rubber, cocoa and vegetable oil.

西非的大多数外贸公司经营橡胶 、 可可和植物油。

可可英语在线听力：烹饪进化论 篇五

Science & Technology

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

What's cooking?

Feb 19th 2009 | CHICAGO

From The Economist print edition

The evolutionary role of cookery

YOU are what you eat, or so the saying goes. But Richard Wrangham, of Harvard University,believes that this is true in a more profound sense than the one implied by the old proverb. Itis not just you who are what you eat, but the entire human species. And with Homo sapiens,what makes the species unique in Dr Wrangham’s opinion is that its food is so often cooked.

Cooking is a human universal. No society is without it. No one other than a few faddists triesto survive on raw food alone. And the consumption of a cooked meal in the evening, usually inthe company of family and friends, is normal in every known society. Moreover, without cooking,the human brain (which consumes 20-25% of the body’s energy) could not keep running. DrWrangham thus believes that cooking and humanity are coeval.

In fact, as he outlined to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)， inChicago, he thinks that cooking and other forms of preparing food are humanity’s “killer app”:the evolutionary change that underpins all of the other—and subsequent—changes that havemade people such unusual animals.

Humans became human, as it were, with the emergence 1.8m years ago of a species calledHomo erectus. This had a skeleton much like modern man’s—a big, brain-filled skull and anarrow pelvis and rib cage, which imply a small abdomen and thus a small gut. Hitherto, theexplanation for this shift from the smaller skulls and wider pelvises of man’s apelike ancestorshas been a shift from a vegetable-based diet to a meat-based one. Meat has more calories thanplant matter, the theory went. A smaller gut could therefore support a larger brain.

Dr Wrangham disagrees. When you do the sums, he argues, raw meat is still insufficient tobridge the gap. He points out that even modern “raw foodists”， members of a town-dwelling,back-to-nature social movement, struggle to maintain their weight—and they have access toanimals and plants that have been bred for the table. Pre-agricultural man confined to raw foodwould have starved.

Firelight

Start cooking, however, and things change radically. Cooking alters food in three importantways. It breaks starch molecules into more digestible fragments.

It “denatures” protein molecules, so that their amino-acid chains unfold and digestiveenzymes can attack them more easily. And heat physically softens food. That makes it easier todigest, so even though the stuff is no more calorific, the body uses fewer calories dealing withit.

In support of his thesis, Dr Wrangham, who is an anthropologist, has ransacked other fieldsand come up with an impressive array of material. Cooking increases the share of fooddigested in the stomach and small intestine, where it can be absorbed, from 50% to 95%according to work done on people fitted for medical reasons with collection bags at the ends oftheir small intestines. Previous studies had suggested raw food was digested equally well ascooked food because they looked at faeces as being the end product. These, however, havebeen exposed to the digestive mercies of bacteria in the large intestine, and any residualgoodies have been removed from them that way.

Another telling experiment, conducted on rats, did not rely on cooking. Rather theexperimenters ground up food pellets and then recompacted them to make them softer. Ratsfed on the softer pellets weighed 30% more after 26 weeks than those fed the same weight ofstandard pellets. The difference was because of the lower cost of digestion. Indeed, DrWrangham suspects the main cause of the modern epidemic of obesity is not overeating(which the evidence suggests—in America, at least—is a myth) but the rise of processedfoods. These are softer, because that is what people prefer. Indeed, the nerves from the tastebuds meet in a part of the brain called the amygdala with nerves that convey information onthe softness of food. It is only after these two qualities have been compared that the brainassesses how pleasant a mouthful actually is.

The archaeological evidence for ancient cookery is equivocal. Digs show that both modernhumans and Neanderthals controlled fire in a way that almost certainly means they could cook,and did so at least 200,000 years ago. Since the last common ancestor of the two specieslived more than 400,000 years ago (see following story) fire-control is probably at least as oldas that, for they lived in different parts of the world, and so could not have copied each other.

Older alleged sites of human fires are more susceptible to other interpretations, but they doexist, including ones that go back to the beginning of Homo erectus. And traces of fire areeasily wiped out, so the lack of direct evidence for them is no surprise. Instead, Dr Wranghamis relying on a compelling chain of logic. And in doing so he may have cast light not only onwhat made humanity, but on one of the threats it faces today.

可可英语说法 篇六

chocolate

可可英语听力网：Gaza and the laws of war 篇七

Gaza and the laws of war

A thousand tragedies. But is it a crime?

Jan 15th 2009

From The Economist print edition

Israel has been operating in the grey zone of international law

THE weeping of Ahmad Samouni was heart-rending. From a hospital bed in Gaza, the 16-year-old broke into tears as he told a television interviewer how several members of his family hadbeen killed in an Israeli strike. “My brother was bleeding so much and right in front of my eyes,he died. My other brother Ismail, he also bled to death. My mum and my youngest brother, theyare gone. Four brothers and my mother, dead. May God give them peace.”

The plight of the Samouni clan stands out even amid the profligate bloodshed of Israel’s war inthe Gaza Strip. According to survivors, about 100 members of the clan had been gathered byIsraeli soldiers in a building in the Zeitun district on January 4th. The next day, it was struck byIsraeli shells or missiles, killing about 30. Worse, Israeli forces are accused of preventingPalestinian paramedics from helping the survivors for two days.

“This is a shocking incident. The Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but didnot assist the wounded,” said the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)， not usuallygiven to emotive language or public complaints about violations of humanitarian law. Navi Pillay,the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights, went further. The killings show“elements of what would constitute war crimes”， she said.

Israel replies that its army has looked into the claims and found no record of the incident atZeitun. It claims that it is targeting Hamas only, and promises to improve “co-operation and co-ordination” with the ICRC. But Israel is vague about whether it will conduct a further inquiry,and tends to be wary of outside investigation. It declined to co-operate, for instance, with aUN inquiry into a shelling incident that killed 19 civilians in Gaza in 2006.

This concluded that “there is a possibility that the shelling…constituted a war crime”。

Another contentious incident in this war was the killing of more than 40 bystanders onJanuary 6th near a UN school that was temporarily housing refugees.

Here the Israeli army says that its soldiers were attacked by mortars fired “from within theschool” and responded with mortar fire. But the UN strenuously denies that Hamas fighterswere in the school. There is also the alleged use of white phosphorous shells: permitted as asmokescreen, but not over civilian areas.

About 1,000 Palestinians have been killed, among them more than 400 women and children, innearly three weeks of fighting. But Hugo Slim, author of “Killing Civilians”， a book on thesuffering of civilians in war, argues that although every civilian death is a tragedy, “not everycivilian death is a crime”。

War crimes typically involve deliberate brutality or recklessness. The modern laws ofconflict do not seek to ban war, or even to eliminate the killing of civilians; they merely seekto stop the most egregious abuses and to limit harm to civilians as far as possible.

Short of arguing that Israel is deliberately massacring Palestinians (if so, many more wouldprobably have been killed and Israel’s warning leaflets would be superfluous)， judging warcrimes depends on the facts of specific incidents and subjective legal concepts. Is Israeldiscriminating between civilians and combatants? Are its actions proportionate to the militarygain? And is it taking proper care to spare civilians in the crowded Strip?

A British government manual on the laws of war admits that, for example, the principle ofproportionality “is not always straightforward”， not least because attempting to reduce thedanger to civilians may increase the risk to one’s own forces. Moreover, if the enemy putscivilians at risk by deliberately placing military targets near them, “this is a factor to be takeninto account in favour of the attackers”。

Israel makes precisely such arguments. Its aggressive tactics, it says, are justified by the needto protect Israeli forces, and Hamas is to blame for civilian deaths by hiding rockets and otherweapons in mosques. According to Israeli officials, Hamas’s top leaders are hiding in a bunkerunder the overstretched Shifa hospital (which, however, has not been attacked)。

The laws of war have their roots, in part, in early worries about the impact of militarytechnology such as air bombardment and poison gases. But international law has found iteasier to deal with low-tech mass killings at close quarters, as in the Rwandan genocide of1994, than with the rights and wrongs of Western-style. air campaigns. Civilians are repeatedlyhit by NATO aircraft in Afghanistan, but there are only regrets, not court-martials.

In other ways, military technology has raised the bar for what is considered acceptable. Theskies above Gaza are buzzing with surveillance drones. Israeli command-and-control systemsare doubtless as sophisticated as American ones, which give commanders vast digital maps inwhich structures are individually numbered and clearly identified if they are not to be attacked;they even have “splat” graphics to estimate the area that will be affected by a blast.

Mishaps do happen; on January 5th three Israeli soldiers were killed by one of their own tanks.But without more facts, it is hard to believe the Israelis did not know about the presence ofcivilians at Zeitun and at the UN school.

可可英语在线听力：American Revolution 篇八

The American Revolution was not a sudden and violent overturning of the political and socialframework, such as later occurred in France and Russia, when both were already independentnations. Significant changes were ushered in, but they were not breathtaking. What happenedwas accelerated evolution rather than outright revolution. During the conflict itself peoplewent on working and praying, marrying and playing. Most of them were not seriously disturbedby the actual fighting, and many of the more isolated communities scarcely knew that a warwas on.

America's War of Independence heralded the birth of three modern nations. One was Canada,which received its first large influx of English-speaking population from the thousands ofloyalists who fled there from the United States. Another was Australia, which became a penalcolony now that America was no longer available for prisoners and debtors. The thirdnewcomer-the United States-based itself squarely on republican principles.

Yet even the political overturn was not so revolutionary as one might suppose. In somestates, notably Connecticut and Rhode Island, the war largely ratified a colonial self-rule alreadyexisting. British officials, everywhere ousted, were replaced by a home-grown governing class,which promptly sought a local substitute for king and Parliament.

可可的相关短语： 篇九

可可树 Theobroma cacao

可可群岛 cc ； coco islands

可可属 Theobroma ； chocolate tree

可可色 Cocos ； cocoa ； choco ；

可可酒 CREAM de cacao ； creme de cacao ； Cocoa Liquor ； Cre de Cacao

那可可 lacoco ； lair conditionersoco ； lhvacoco ； lair conditioning unitoco

可可太妃 cocoa toffee

读书破万卷下笔如有神，以上就是小练笔为大家带来的9篇《可可英语听力》，希望对您有一些参考价值。