Ban Fur? Then Why Not Leather?
Much to the displeasure of some local businesses, the City Council in West Hollywood, California, voted without opposition last week to ban the sale of fur products. Should laws be involved in this issue? Is it unfair to ban sales of fur, but not sales of leather and hides (兽皮)?
Animals Do Not Have Rights
By Tibor R. Machan
My view is that animals do not have basic rights. It is a matter of ethics (伦理学) and not of the laws of human societies. If animals had such rights as human beings do, they would have to be held responsible for killing fellow animals in the wild. That way of thinking about animals makes a category mistake. Using animals, including their fur or organs, to improve people's lives is acceptable.
A Small Step Against Cruelty
By Kate Carter
Both fur and leather are the skins of dead animals. Why should we think that the lovable furry ones deserve more of a life than the less pleasing ones? Some say leather is  less cruel because it's a byproduct (副产品) of the meat industry. But this isn't really true. Some cheap leather may be a byproduct of the meat industry, but often it's the other way round. In South Africa, where there is a developing market for ostrich(鸵鸟)farms, the skins account for roughly 80 percent of the slaughtered (宰杀)birds' value, a mere 20 percent of which comes from the meat.
"Who" Are You Wearing?
By Marc Bekoff
West Hollywood's ban is a move in the right direction. However, we must work to ban the sales of leather and hides, too. Furs come from animals who are attacked to become clothing, while some leather and hides come from slaughterhouse(屠宰场) animals. We must remember that when people choose to wear fur, leather and hides, they are wearing formering conscious beings. So it's a matter of who they are wearing, not what they are wearing because these animals must be referred to as who and not what or that.
【小题1】What is the passage mainly about?

Ban Fur? Then Why Not Leather?
Much to the displeasure of some local businesses, the City Council in West Hollywood, California, voted without opposition last week to ban the sale of fur products. Should laws be involved in this issue? Is it unfair to ban sales of fur, but not sales of leather and hides (兽皮)?
Animals Do Not Have Rights
By Tibor R. Machan
My view is that animals do not have basic rights. It is a matter of ethics (伦理学) and not of the laws of human societies. If animals had such rights as human beings do, they would have to be held responsible for killing fellow animals in the wild. That way of thinking about animals makes a category mistake. Using animals, including their fur or organs, to improve people's lives is acceptable.
A Small Step Against Cruelty
By Kate Carter
Both fur and leather are the skins of dead animals. Why should we think that the lovable furry ones deserve more of a life than the less pleasing ones? Some say leather is  less cruel because it's a byproduct (副产品) of the meat industry. But this isn't really true. Some cheap leather may be a byproduct of the meat industry, but often it's the other way round. In South Africa, where there is a developing market for ostrich(鸵鸟)farms, the skins account for roughly 80 percent of the slaughtered (宰杀)birds' value, a mere 20 percent of which comes from the meat.
"Who" Are You Wearing?
By Marc Bekoff
West Hollywood's ban is a move in the right direction. However, we must work to ban the sales of leather and hides, too. Furs come from animals who are attacked to become clothing, while some leather and hides come from slaughterhouse(屠宰场) animals. We must remember that when people choose to wear fur, leather and hides, they are wearing formering conscious beings. So it's a matter of who they are wearing, not what they are wearing because these animals must be referred to as who and not what or that.
【小题1】What is the passage mainly about?

Ban Fur? Then Why Not Leather?

    Much to the displeasure of some local businesses, the City Council in West Hollywood, California, voted without opposition last week to ban the sale of fur products. Should laws be involved in this issue? Is it unfair to ban sales of fur, but not sales of leather and hides (兽皮)?

    Animals Do Not Have Rights

    By Tibor R. Machan

    My view is that animals do not have basic rights. It is a matter of ethics (伦理学) and not of the laws of human societies. If animals had such rights as human beings do, they would have to be held responsible for killing fellow animals in the wild. That way of thinking about animals makes a category mistake. Using animals, including their fur or organs, to improve people's lives is acceptable.

    A Small Step Against Cruelty

    By Kate Carter

    Both fur and leather are the skins of dead animals. Why should we think that the lovable furry ones deserve more of a life than the less pleasing ones? Some say leather is  less cruel because it's a byproduct (副产品) of the meat industry. But this isn't really true. Some cheap leather may be a byproduct of the meat industry, but often it's the other way round. In South Africa, where there is a developing market for ostrich(鸵鸟)farms, the skins account for roughly 80 percent of the slaughtered (宰杀)birds' value, a mere 20 percent of which comes from the meat.

    "Who" Are You Wearing?

    By Marc Bekoff

    West Hollywood's ban is a move in the right direction. However, we must work to ban the sales of leather and hides, too. Furs come from animals who are attacked to become clothing, while some leather and hides come from slaughterhouse(屠宰场) animals. We must remember that when people choose to wear fur, leather and hides, they are wearing formering conscious beings. So it's a matter of who they are wearing, not what they are wearing because these animals must be referred to as who and not what or that.

1.What is the passage mainly about?

    A. West Hollywood's ban on fur products.

    B. Differences between fur and leather sales.

    C. The government's role in protecting animals.

    D. The ecological imbalance in West Hollywood.

2.Tibor R. Machan seems to believe that          .

A. laws should be passed to protect animals

B. humans are respornsible for killing animals

C. it is not reasonable to use animals to improve life

D. animals and humans aren't supposed to share equal rights

3.What is Kate Carter's opinion about wearing fur and wearing leather?

A. Both are decided by the meat industry.

B. There is little distinction (区别) between them.

C. Wearing fur is generally more acceptable.

D. Wearing leather is cheaper than wearing fur.

4.What is Marc Bekoff’s attitude towards sales of fur?

A. Sympathetic.       B. Careless.         C. Tolerant.         D. Opposed.

An epic^① love story, set against the sweeping landscapes of Wyoming and Texas, that tells the story of two young men — a ranch-hand and a rodeo cowboy — who meet in the summer of 1963 while driving cattle on a mountain range. They unexpectedly develop a lifelong connection, one whose complications^②, joys and tragedies provide a testament to the endurance and power of love.

Notes:

epic  adj. 英雄的

complication  n. 复杂化

According to the passage, Brokeback Mountain is mainly about ______.

A. language study      B. love     C. violence     D. funny story

The film Brokeback Mountain is mainly from short story by ______.

A. Ang Lee     B. Michelle Williams      C. Diana Ossana     D. E. Annie Proulx

According to the passage, the natural sights in Brokeback Mountain was filmed in ______.

A. America     B. Canada      C. China     D. Mexico

If you live in New York on Jan. 25, you’d better enjoy the film in ______.

A. Loews Dupont Circle 5           B. Pacific’s The Grove Stadium 14

C. Embarcadero                   D. BAM Rose Cinemas