듣기 자료 (blank-in) (2007-3)

[charliek]

LISTENING REVIEW (1) MARCH,  2007

                                                                                            INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON

STORY1: CROWDED FIELD

In Washington, almost two years before the presidential election, the question is not so much now who is (1. 대선 출마하다: _______ for _______), but who isn't.  Three more candidates (2. 출사표를 던지다: ______  ____ the ________) this weekend, most notably Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.  Never have so many run so early, so hard.  Why are we seeing so many candidates declare so early?  As you might expect, one of the answers is money.  ABC’s senior national correspondent Jake Tapper is joining us now from Capitol Hill.  Jake?

Good evening, Charlie.  Well, Charlie, this is (3. 처음으로 후보들이 난립할 대선: the first ______-_____ ___________ _____) with no (4. 현직 대통령: _________ __________) or vice president running since 1928, so things have started very early and (5. 경쟁이 치열하다: the _____________ is ____________).

So let the conversation begin.

For Senator Hillary Clinton and the 20 or so other (6. 대선 후보들: _____________ __________s), (7. 경선이 시작되다: the _______ is ______)...

I declare my candidacy.

Today, I'm announcing...

Running for the presidency is a profound decision.

...earlier than ever.  Why?  Because (8. 예비선거: the __________) and caucus calendar will likely start earlier and (9. 비용을 사용할 시기가 앞으로 몰리다: be ________ ______-_______ed) in 2008.  What was typically a four- or five-month process will be condensed to two or three weeks, so candidates need (10. 기반을 다지다: to ____ the ____________) in all those states now.  And that costs money.

It used to be a candidate with a couple of million dollars in the bank could get them through Iowa, New Hampshire and then hope from there.  Now, you have to be ready to run a full national campaign from day one and that takes a lot of money.

In 1991, then Governor Bill Clinton came to the New Hampshire primary having (11. 불과 3백만 달러를 약간 상회하는 액수를 모금했다: ______ just over $3 million).  Today, Senator Clinton and the other frontrunners hope to each raise as much as $100 million by the end of this year alone, before (12. 첫 투표가 치러지다: the first ________ is even ______).  The fierce competition for that money will likely help frontrunners, (13. 2군 및 3군에 속하는 후보들을 경선에서 탈락하게 만들다: _________ ______ and _____ _____ candidates from the ______).

I think you'll have more people drop out in the course of this year before the, before the actual voting event is held than they actually (14. 본격적인 투표를 치른 이후에 떨어져 나가다: _______ ______ in the _________ of the _______ ________s).

Where does all the money go?  Television ads, (15. 직원 운영: _______), (16. 정치 자문위원들: ________ _______s), (17. 여론 조사: ___________) and (18. 유권자 자료 수집: _______ ______ about ______s) in order to target them, and that's just (19. 예비 선거 기간: the ________  __________).  For (20. 본선: the _________ ________), if Senator Clinton is the nominee, she said she will (21. 자진해서 정부 자금 지원을 받지 않다: _______ ______ ___ the _______ ________ system), turning down more than $80 million because (22. 그 돈을 받게 되면 제한규정들이 따르다: that money ______s with _______s) and she will want to spend more than that.

We're gonna see an unlimited spending arms race.  We're going to see the two presidential nominees spend a total of $1 billion (23. 개별 모금으로: in ___________  _______) in this election.

$1 billion or not, political consultants from both parties point to (24. 자금이 충분했던 상당수 후보들: a long _______ of _____-______ _______________s) who ultimately were not able (25. 유권자들의 의사를 반영하다: to ________ with the _________s).  Money can buy you a lot of things, Charlie, but it cannot make a candidate articulate the hopes and dreams of the American people.

Jake Tapper, reporting tonight from Capitol Hill.

President Bush will, of course, be making the case for his leadership in his State of the Union address tomorrow night.  I’ll be reporting live from Capitol Hill starting at 9:00 PM tomorrow, Eastern Time.

Still ahead on this broadcast, the woman shaking up the presidential race.  We will speak in a moment live with Senator Hillary Clinton.

The two coaches who will make history at the Super Bowl.  Fierce rivals, but also very good friends.

And the amateur historian unraveling the mystery behind the Mona Lisa.  Who was she?

This is “World News with Charles Gibson,” brought to you by...

ABC NEWS REVIEW (STORY 1: CROWDED FIELD):

1. 이제 문제는 누가 대선에 출마하는지의 문제가 아니다.

2. 세 명의 후보가 추가로 이번 주말에 출사표를 던졌다.

3. 이번 경선에는 현직 대통령이나 부통령이 전혀 출마하지 않는다.

4. 경쟁이 치열하다.

5. 예비선거와 코커스 일정이 2008년에는 앞 부분에 몰려 있다

6. 후보자들은 이 모든 주에서 기반을 다질 필요가 있다.

7. 1991년, 당시 빌 클린턴 주지사는 3백만 달러를 약간 상회하는 액수를 모금했었다.

8. 첫 투표가 치러지다:

9. 치열한 자금 경쟁 때문에 2, 3위권 후보들이 경쟁에서 탈락하게 될 것이다.

10. 후보들이 본격적으로 투표들이 진행된 후에 탈락하다.

11. 힐러리는 자진해서 공적 지원을 받지 않는 쪽을 택할 것이다. 

12. 그 두 대선 후보는 개별 모금을 통해 모금해 총 10억 달러의 자금을 쓰게 될 것이다.

LISTENING REVIEW (1) MARCH,  2007

                                                                                            INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON

STORY1: CROWDED FIELD

In Washington, almost two years before the presidential election, the question is not so much now who is (1. 대선 출마하다: running for President), but who isn't.  Three more candidates (2. 출사표를 던지다: got in the race) this weekend, most notably Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.  Never have so many run so early, so hard.  Why are we seeing so many candidates declare so early?  As you might expect, one of the answers is money.  ABC’s senior national correspondent Jake Tapper is joining us now from Capitol Hill.  Jake?

Good evening, Charlie.  Well, Charlie, this is (3. 처음으로 후보들이 난립할 대선: the first wide-open presidential race) with no (4. 현직 대통령: incumbent president) or vice president running since 1928, so things have started very early and (5. 경쟁이 치열하다: the competition is fierce).

So let the conversation begin.

For Senator Hillary Clinton and the 20 or so other (6. 대선 후보들: presidential hopefuls), (7. 경선이 시작되다: the race is on)...

I declare my candidacy.

Today, I'm announcing...

Running for the presidency is a profound decision.

...earlier than ever.  Why?  Because (8. 예비선거: the primary) and caucus calendar will likely start earlier and (9. 비용을 사용할 시기가 앞으로 몰리다: be more front-loaded) in 2008.  What was typically a four- or five-month process will be condensed to two or three weeks, so candidates need (10. 기반을 다지다: to lay the groundwork) in all those states now.  And that costs money.

It used to be a candidate with a couple of million dollars in the bank could get them through Iowa, New Hampshire and then hope from there.  Now, you have to be ready to run a full national campaign from day one and that takes a lot of money.

In 1991, then Governor Bill Clinton came to the New Hampshire primary having (11. 불과 3백만 달러를 약간 상회하는 액수를 모금했다: raised just over $3 million).  Today, Senator Clinton and the other frontrunners hope to each raise as much as $100 million by the end of this year alone, before (12. 첫 투표가 치러지다: the first vote is even cast).  The fierce competition for that money will likely help frontrunners, (13. 2군 및 3군에 속하는 후보들을 경선에서 탈락하게 만들다: driving second and third tier candidates from the race).

I think you'll have more people drop out in the course of this year before the, before the actual voting event is held than they actually (14. 본격적인 투표를 치른 이후에 떨어져 나가다: drop out in the aftermath of the voting events).

Where does all the money go?  Television ads, (15. 직원 운영: staffing), (16. 정치 참모들: political consultants), (17. 여론 조사: polling) and (18. 유권자 자료 수집: acquiring data about voters) in order to target them, and that's just (19. 예비 선거 기간: the primary season).  For (20. 본선: the general election), if Senator Clinton is the nominee, she said she will (21. 자진해서 정부 자금 지원을 받지 않다: opt out of the public financing system), turning down more than $80 million because (22. 그 돈을 받게 되면 제한규정들이 따르다: that money comes with limits) and she will want to spend more than that.

We're gonna see an unlimited spending arms race.  We're going to see the two presidential nominees spend a total of $1 billion (23. 개별 모금으로: in private funds) in this election.

$1 billion or not, political consultants from both parties point to (24. 상당수의 자금이 충분했던 후보들: a long line of well-funded candidates) who ultimately were not able (25. 유권자들의 의사를 반영하다: to connect with the voters).  Money can buy you a lot of things, Charlie, but it cannot make a candidate articulate the hopes and dreams of the American people.

Jake Tapper, reporting tonight from Capitol Hill.

President Bush will, of course, be making the case for his leadership in his State of the Union address tomorrow night.  I’ll be reporting live from Capitol Hill starting at 9:00 PM tomorrow, Eastern Time.

Still ahead on this broadcast, the woman shaking up the presidential race.  We will speak in a moment live with Senator Hillary Clinton.

The two coaches who will make history at the Super Bowl.  Fierce rivals, but also very good friends.

And the amateur historian unraveling the mystery behind the Mona Lisa.  Who was she?

This is “World News with Charles Gibson,” brought to you by...

STORY1-1: BEST PERSON TO TAKE OVER

As we said, a well-known name was added to the list of White House hopefuls this weekend, New York Senator Hillary Clinton.  Her announcement immediately shifted the race for president into higher gear.  And Senator Clinton joins us now from Washington.  Good to have you with us, Senator.

Thank you.

I'd like to get your mission statement, if I could, in, in 20 or 30 seconds, as to why you think you should be the person elected president?

Well, Charlie, I think that my experience and my understanding of the problems facing our country equip me to be the best person to take over in January 2009, when we will be facing a lot of problems at home and abroad, and, frankly, inheriting many of the problems that have been made worse by this administration.

A lot of people think you have been running for president for years.  But you said you were undecided.  We took you at your word.  Can you tell me, was there a moment that tipped the scales and you said, “Okay, this is it I'm going to run and this is why”?

You know, after my election in New York, where I was really determined to do the best job I could as the senator from New York, I then started to think about what people had been talking to me literally for years and it was a hard decision.  A lot of people had me already running but that wasn't the way that I felt about it.  And the more I thought about it and looked at the challenges that we face as a country, I believe that I can build on all of the positive activities that we saw in the Clinton administration but go beyond that.  I want to be an instrument of bold but practical solutions, whether it's health care, making it universal, energy independence, finally dealing with climate change, restoring our leadership and respect for America around the world.  And I am very fortunate that I have had a wealth of experiences going back many years that I think equip me for this particular moment in our history.

You are a strong, credible female candidate for president of the United States and I mean no disrespect in this, but would you be in this position were it not for your husband?

Well, I don't know.  You can't go back and, you know, live your life in some other way than you've lived it.  Bill and I started a conversation, you know, 35 years ago about our country.  We both love this country and I worry about her future.  I never thought I would be in the Senate.  I certainly didn't think I would run for president.  But, you know, life has a way of putting challenges in front of you and you decide to meet them or go another direction.  And I care too much about what's happened in our nation.

I care too much about, you know, my daughter and every other child who should have a good future but there's a cloud over it.  And I think we need to get back to doing what Americans do best, rolling our sleeves up and solving problems instead of, you know, living with this sense that are just not going right.  We're not being asked to make any real commitment or even sacrifice.  We've had leadership the last six years that has not really risen to the occasion and it's time to get back to doing what we can do as Americans, and that's charting a good future.

Well, let - let me get to some of those, I'm constrained by time because you wanted to do this in an unedited fashion.  And so I'd like to lay down some benchmarks on issues that I hope we'll talk about more in the coming year.  I've tried to frame this as – as close as I can to yes or no questions.  Would you take pledge not to sign a bill that raise taxes?

Oh, I'm not gonna take any pledges been about any issue because I want to be in a position to bring people together, to figure out what the best ideas are to solve our problems and not get locked into this, you know, partisan, you know, ideological debate that's been so sterile the last years.

Can we finance this war without raising taxes?

Well, we've never had a president who took us to war and refused to pay for it.  We're hopefully gonna get this war and its costs, which are growing exponentially into the budget, which he also wouldn't do.  And we're gonna have to make some tough decisions but we, we also don't wanna be straitjacketed because if we miss the opportunities for energy independence, for expanding health care and taking the burden off of the competition that we face globally, we will not be in a position to be as rich and strong and powerful in the future as we should be.

Was your vote to authorize war in Iraq a mistake?

You know I've said many times that, you know, I would never have expected any president, if we knew then what we know now, to come and ask for a vote, there would not have been a vote and I certainly would not have voted for it.

Is Barack Obama qualified to be president?

Well, he's a terrific guy and we're gonna have a great group of talented competitors in this contest, and I'm looking forward for everybody putting out their qualification and let the voters decide.

Is he – well, but that's something of a dodge.  In your mind is he qualified to be president?

You know, Charlie, this is such an intensely personal decision that voters make.  We're all gonna get out there.  We're gonna say what believe in.  We're gonna put our experiences before the voters and ultimately that's what's so great about our system, all of the people watching you tonight are gonna make that decision.

Mrs. Clinton...

About me and everybody.

Senator, appreciate your being with us.  Thanks every so much.  We look forward to talking...

Thank you.

... with you again.  And when we return, the coaches facing off at the Super Bowl.  No longer on the sidelines of history.

STORY2: DA VINCI'S MONA LISA

Finally tonight, the lady with the mysterious smile.  For five centuries Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa has (1. 다른 예술가들에게 영감을 주다: inspired other artists), songwriters and a whole lot of questions.  The identity of the lady in the most famous portrait in the world has never been confirmed.  But now one Italian says he has proved, not only who she was, but where she is.  Here's David Wright.

Giuseppe Palanti is (2. 소박한 고등학교 교사: a modest high school teacher) from Florence, but he may have (3. 최대 미스터리 중의 하나를 해결하다: cracked one of the biggest mysteries) in art history.  The Italians call her “La Giaconda,” (4. 낙천적인 여성: the lighthearted woman).  And her smile isn't her only secret.  The true identity of Mona Lisa is a mystery, too.  Palanti has found (5. 침례교의 기록들: baptismal records) and legal documents that (6. 가장 가능성이 높은 후보자의 일대기를 말해주다: tell the life story of the most likely contender), Lisa Gherardini, born 1479.

Lisa was born here in this place.

In this house?

She married at age 16, becoming Mona Lisa, Mrs. Lisa del Giaconda.  In the 16th century, Leonardo da Vinci's first biographer, Giorgio Vasari, said he painted a portrait of her.

Vasari said that she was bellisima.

Lisa Gherardini died in 1542 at age 63 in St. Ursula's convent.  Now one of the least beautiful buildings in Florence, it's been (6. 버림받은 건물: a condemned building) for 40 years.  But somewhere behind these metal barricades is her grave.  Wow.

Let's have that examination, scientific investigation of the bones and let's see if the scientists can come up with (7. 물리적 모습의  복원: a reconstruction of the physical appearance).

They did it for King Tut.  Why not for Mona Lisa?  Or they could look closer to home.  Palanti's Mona Lisa had six children and 15 generations later, (8. 그녀의 직계손: her direct descendants), including actress Natalia Strozzi, still live in Florence.

Now, will you all indulge me for one thing?  Can I get you to all smile?  Please?

If it's true, they certainly do have something to smile about.  David Wright, ABC News, Florence.

LISTENING REVIEW (3) FEB, 2007

                                                                                            INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON

STORY3: CONTRACEPTION CONCERNS

(1. 연방 약물 규제 당국, 즉, 식약국: Federal _____ ________s) asked (2. 자문위원회: __________s) today whether to (3. 효능 기준을 높이는 것을 의무화하다: _________ ______ ________s for ____________) in (4. 피임제: ______ _______ drugs).  More than 60% of American women between the ages of 15 and 44 use some form of (5. 피임제: ___________).  And the FDA says it may need to re-eval‎uate the effectiveness of modern (6. 피임제: ___________ ____s).  Here's ABC's Nancy Cordes.

For many women, they are (7. 하늘이 준 선물: a _________).  Newer birth control pills with less than half the hormone dose of older pills.  The results, (8. 고혈압 위험성이 더 줄다: ______ ______ of high ________ _________), (9. 뇌졸중: ________) and (10. 혈전: _______ ______s).  But the FDA says lower levels of hormones that (11. 배란을 막다: _______ ________) could also mean (12. 피임 효능 저하: less __________).

Everybody feels, oh, the lower, the lower, the lower, the better, the better, the better.

New York (13. 산부인과의사: ____/______) Laura Corio says she has several patients who have gotten pregnant on (14. 낮은 성분의 피임제: ____-________ __________s).

If you're gonna go down that low, you're gonna have an increased risk of, if they miss pills, ovulating and getting pregnant.

According to the FDA, (15. 호르몬 성분이 더 강화된 피임제들: the ________-_____ ______ _______ pills) approved back in the 1960s, result in fewer than one pregnancy for 100 women a year.

The newer low-dose pills, they say, may be slightly more likely to fail, particularly for women who tend to skip or miss a day here and there.

Some doctors say (16. 손익효과: the ___________) is worth it for women who experience uncomfortable side effects with the higher dose pills, such as moodiness or bloating.

Many patients who were frustrated with being on higher-dose pills and is frequently discontinuing the pills will continue when placed on a lower dose birth control pill because they're happier with respect to side-effects.

FDA officials are consulting with (17. 출산보건 전문가들: ___________ _______ professionals) to determine whether they should (18. 낮은 성분의 새 호르몬제를 규제하다: _________ ___________s on new ____-____ pills) and whether they should require more testing to determine which pills work best for women who are overweight or have heart problems.  They are decisions that could affect the nearly 12 million American women, who use birth control pills every year.  Nancy Cordes, ABC News, New York.

STORY3: CONTRACEPTION CONCERNS

(1. 연방 약물 규제 당국, 즉, 식약국: Federal drug regulators) asked (2. 자문위원회: advisers) today whether to (3. 효능 기준을 높일것을 의무화하다: require higher standards for effectiveness) in (4. 피임제: birth control drugs).  More than 60% of American women between the ages of 15 and 66 use some form of (5. 피임제: contraception).  And the FDA says it may need to re-eval‎uate the effectiveness of modern (6. 피임제: contraceptive pills).  Here's ABC's Nancy Cordes.

For many women, they are (7. 하늘이 준 선물: a Godsend).  Newer birth control pills with less than half the hormone dose of older pills.  The result, (8. 고혈압 위험성이 더 줄다: less risk of high blood pressure), (9. 뇌졸중: strokes) and (10. 혈전: blood clots).  But the FDA says lower levels of hormones that (11. 배란을 막다: block ovulation) could also mean (12. 피임 효능 저하: less protection).

Everybody feels, oh, the lower, the lower, the lower, the better, the better, the better.

New York (13. 산부인과의사: Ob/Gyn) Laura Corio says she has several patients who have gotten pregnant on (14. 낮은 성분의 피임제: low-dose contraceptives).

If you're gonna go down that low, you're gonna have an increased risk of, if they miss pills, ovulating and getting pregnant.

According to the FDA, (15. 호르몬 성분이 더 강화된 피임제들: the higher-dose birth control pills) approved back in the 1960s, result in fewer than one pregnancy for 100 women a year.

The new low-dose pills, they say, may be slightly more likely to fail, particularly for women who tend to skip or miss a day here and there.

Some doctors say (16. 손익효과: the tradeoff) is worth it for women who experience uncomfortable side effects with the higher dose pills, such as moodiness or bloating.

Many patients who were frustrated with being on higher-dose pills and is frequently discontinuing the pills will continue when placed on a lower dose birth control pill because they're happier with respect to side-effects.

FDA officials are consulting with (17. 출산보건 관계자들: reproductive health officials) to determine whether they should (18. 저호르몬제를 규제하다: impose restrictions on low-dose pills) and whether they should require more testing to determine which pills work best for women who are overweight or have heart problems.  They are decisions that could affect the nearly 12 million American women, who use birth control pills every year.  Nancy Cordes, ABC News, New York.

ABC NEWS REVIEW:

1. 미 식품의약국에서 피임제의 효능 기준을 높이는 것을 의무화할지 여부를 자문 위원회에 문의했다. 

2. 15세에서 44세 사이 미국 여성 60%가 어떤 형태로든 피임제를 사용한다.

3. 미 식약국은 근래에 나온 피임제의 효과를 재평가해야 할 지도 모른다.

4. 비교적 새로 나온 피임제는 이전 피임제에 들어 있는 호르몬 양의 절반도 되지 않는다.

5. 고혈압, 뇌졸중, 혈전의 위험성이 더 줄다

6. 호르몬 수치가 낮아지면 피임 효능이 저하될 수 있다.

7. 몇몇 환자는 호르몬이 낮은 피임제를 복용하고 임신을 했다.

8. 배란해서 임신의 위험성이 높아진다.

9. 1960년대에 승인된 호르몬 성분이 강화된 피임제들:

10. 여성들이 불쾌한 부작용을 경험하다:

11. 새로 나온 호르몬 성분이 낮은 피임제들은 실패할 가능성이 조금 더 높다.

12. 낮은 성분의 피임제를 규제하다.

13. 어떤 약이 비만이거나 심장 문제가 있는 여성들에게 가장 효과적인지 결정하다.

LISTENING REVIEW (3) FEB, 2007

                                                                                            INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON

STORY5: RECORD LOSSES

Good evening.  The name Ford and the word automobile are virtually synonymous.  Since its founding more than a century ago, Ford has been (1. 미국을 상징하는 회사: an iconic American company).  But now, not enough people have (2. 포드차를 몰다: driven a Ford) lately.  And the company, today, announced it lost, and it's (3. 엄청나게 큰 숫자: a staggering number), $12.7 billion last year.  When you (4. 계산을 하다: do the math) that means Ford lost almost $35 million every single day in 2006.  How did it get in so much trouble?  Can it recover?  ABC’s Bill Weir is with us tonight.  Bill?

Charlie, even if Ford had managed to (5. 신형 무스탕을 분당 한 대 꼴로 팔다: sell a brand-new Mustang every minute) of 2006 they still would have (6. 적자를 보다: lost money).  Such is the cost of (7. 인원 감축: downsizing) an American corporate giant paying billions of dollars to workers they no longer need.

Ford's strength has always been big vehicles.  But in an era of expensive gas, bigger is no longer better.  SUV and pick-up (8. 매출액: sales) slumped.  The company lost $5.8 billion in (9. 4사분기: the fourth quarter) alone.  An entire production lines (10. 가동을 중단하다: ground to a halt).  Cynthia Allison made $27 an hour on one of those lines.  Now, she (11. 술집에서 서빙하고 팁을 받는다: pours drinks for tips).

It was a privilege to be a part of the Ford family.  Everybody looked up to you when you said you worked at Ford.  But now, it's almost like you really don't see a future.

After 12 years at Ford, she (12. 십만 달러의 명예퇴직금을 받다: took a $100,000 buyout), and will (13. 요모조모 줄이다: cut all corners) to make sure it lasts.

I got rid of my home phone.  I got rid of my cable.  I got rid of my Internet.  I (14. 최대한 줄여 생활하다: do bare minimum).

She is not alone.  At least 14 plants will close (15. 향후 몇 년 내에: in coming years).  75,000 workers (16. 명예 퇴직을 제의받다: were offered a buyout).  Around half took it.

We're right around the bottom.  And so clearly, the first few quarters of next year are gonna still be tough.  This year, it's gonna be tough.  And then, we'll start to climb out towards profitability in 2009.

Alan Mulally is (17. 신임 CEO: the new man in charge).  (18. 보잉사를 기사회생 시켰다는 평가를 받다: He is credited with saving Boeing Aviation), and hopes to (19. 이 추락에서 구하다: pull out of this nosedive) by downsizing both the cars and the company.  (20. 이 엄청난 손실을 보전하기 위해서: To cover the huge losses), Mulally borrowed more than $23 billion dollars in cash using everything, even the logo, as (21. 담보: collateral).

(22. 걸 수 있는 모든 것을 다 걸다: All the chips are on the table).  Everything could blow up.  But I think the chances are good that they're gonna pull this off.

(23. 업계 전문가들: Industry watchers) say they have good vehicles in development, but the century-old brand needs polish.  For example, the Ford 500 is (24. 공간이 넓직한 세단: a roomy sedan) that (25. 호평을 받다: gets great reviews).  But even the boss admits it’s boring.

What everybody is telling us now is they like a little bit but more pizzazz, a little bit more exciting on the styling on the exterior.

They'll (26. 이런 것들을 조정하다: make those adjustments) without Willie McDonald.  After 12 years at the Atlanta plant, he also took the money and left.

We have to change (27. 일반의 인식: the public perception) about Ford Motor Company.  And once they change that, they can (28. 다시 정상에 서다: be back up top again).

So Ford loses $12.7 billion last year.  That is what Toyota made in profit in 2005.  And it made headlines in Motown when this new CEO of Ford flew to Tokyo to sit down with the CEO of Toyota.  He told us today, no merger plans.  He was just looking for ideas.  Charlie?

Perhaps a sign of the times.  Bill Weir, reporting tonight.  Out thanks.  I'll be reporting, by the way, from Detroit on Monday, where we'll begin our special series on the auto industry running on empty.

LISTENING REVIEW (4) FEB, 2007

                                                                                            INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON

STORY4: CATCH OF THE DAY

Finally tonight, what amounts to a great scavenger hunt.  This story started with (1. 영국 남서부 인근 해역에서의 난파: a shipwreck off the southwest coast of England).  And the ship (2. 콘테이너로 화물을 수송 중이었다: carried containerized cargo).  Those containers (3. 파도에 밀려 해안에 도달하다:  floated to shore).  The containers were hardly filled with (4. 금화: gold doubloons), like (5. 옛날에 침몰한 배들: sunken ships of old).  But that didn't seem to bother the folks who showed up to (6. 주인없는 취득물을 그냥 가져가버리다: carry the loot away).  Here's ABC's Jim Sciutto.

They're calling it "the great free-for-all," as in free to take whatever you want, absolutely free of charge.  From diapers to dog food, wine barrels to steering wheels.

How are you gonna use that without the car attached?

Well, I don't think it will get me up the hill any quicker but I think it will look nice on my speedboat.

Or on eBay, where some of the ship's cargo is already (7. 최고가가 붙어있다: fetching top prices).  Today, police tried to (8. 강하게 나가다: get tough).  But when they blocked cars, scavengers dragged, carried and pushed their loot miles uphill.

I mean do you have any use for them?

Flower pots maybe.

Flower pots, suitcase.

And the police aren't stopping folks today?

They didn't stop no one.

All the police did was (9. 작성해야 할 문건을 건네주다: hand them forms) to declare what they'd taken, (10. 진짜 소유주에게 물권을 주장할 권리를 1년을 부여하다: giving the real owners a year to claim them).  This is all in keeping, if not with the law, then with hundreds of years of dark tradition here.  Residents once (11. 선박들을 유도해서 암초에 난파시키다: lured ships on to dangerous reefs) to steal their cargo.  Shouting, "The coast is clear," when it was safe to move their loot.  Today, we met a fourth generation scavenger with a modern-day (12. 노획물: booty) of car parts.

My great-granddad did it.  Thought we'd give it a go.

One of the greatest concerns now is the sheer mess.  In fact, many scavengers say they're (13. 봉사하다: performing a service) by picking up debris like this from one of (14. 영국에서 가장 경치 좋은 해안들: Britain's most picturesque coastlines).

Some residents were more skeptical.

If they come down here and (15. 쓰레기를 줍다: pick up their rubbish), then, I think, they'd be doing a service, not just (16. BMW부품을 노획하다: walking off with BMW parts).

Tonight officials say cleaning up the trash could take a year.  And as the ship threatens to (17. 훨씬 더 많은 화물을 해안에 방출하다: spill even more cargo on to the beach), the coast is clear again for the scavengers.  Jim Sciutto, ABC News, Branscombe, England.

LISTENING REVIEW (5) FEB, 2007

                                                                                            INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON

STORY5: RECORD LOSSES

Good evening.  The name Ford and the word automobile are virtually synonymous.  Since its founding more than a century ago, Ford has been (1. 미국을 상징하는 회사: an iconic American company).  But now, not enough people have (2. 포드차를 몰다: driven a Ford) lately.  And the company, today, announced it lost, and it's (3. 엄청나게 큰 숫자: a staggering number), $12.7 billion last year.  When you (4. 계산을 하다: do the math) that means Ford lost almost $35 million every single day in 2006.  How did it get in so much trouble?  Can it recover?  ABC’s Bill Weir is with us tonight.  Bill?

Charlie, even if Ford had managed to (5. 신형 무스탕을 분당 한 대 꼴로 팔다: sell a brand-new Mustang every minute) of 2006 they still would have (6. 적자를 보다: lost money).  Such is the cost of (7. 인원 감축: downsizing) an American corporate giant paying billions of dollars to workers they no longer need.

Ford's strength has always been big vehicles.  But in an era of expensive gas, bigger is no longer better.  SUV and pick-up (8. 매출액: sales) slumped.  The company lost $5.8 billion in (9. 4사분기: the fourth quarter) alone.  An entire production lines (10. 가동을 중단하다: ground to a halt).  Cynthia Allison made $27 an hour on one of those lines.  Now, she (11. 술집에서 서빙하고 팁을 받는다: pours drinks for tips).

It was a privilege to be a part of the Ford family.  Everybody looked up to you when you said you worked at Ford.  But now, it's almost like you really don't see a future.

After 12 years at Ford, she (12. 십만 달러의 명예퇴직금을 받다: took a $100,000 buyout), and will (13. 요모조모 줄이다: cut all corners) to make sure it lasts.

I got rid of my home phone.  I got rid of my cable.  I got rid of my Internet.  I (14. 최대한 줄여 생활하다: do bare minimum).

She is not alone.  At least 14 plants will close (15. 향후 몇 년 내에: in coming years).  75,000 workers (16. 명예 퇴직을 제의받다: were offered a buyout).  Around half took it.

We're right around the bottom.  And so clearly, the first few quarters of next year are gonna still be tough.  This year, it's gonna be tough.  And then, we'll start to climb out towards profitability in 2009.

Alan Mulally is (17. 신임 CEO: the new man in charge).  (18. 보잉사를 기사회생 시켰다는 평가를 받다: He is credited with saving Boeing Aviation), and hopes to (19. 이 추락에서 구하다: pull out of this nosedive) by downsizing both the cars and the company.  (20. 이 엄청난 손실을 보전하기 위해서: To cover the huge losses), Mulally borrowed more than $23 billion dollars in cash using everything, even the logo, as (21. 담보: collateral).

(22. 걸 수 있는 모든 것을 다 걸다: All the chips are on the table).  Everything could blow up.  But I think the chances are good that they're gonna pull this off.

(23. 업계 전문가들: Industry watchers) say they have good vehicles in development, but the century-old brand needs polish.  For example, the Ford 500 is (24. 공간이 넓직한 세단: a roomy sedan) that (25. 호평을 받다: gets great reviews).  But even the boss admits it’s boring.

What everybody is telling us now is they like a little bit more pizzazz, a little bit more exciting on the styling on the exterior.

They'll (26. 이런 것들을 조정하다: make those adjustments) without Willie McDonald.  After 12 years at the Atlanta plant, he also took the money and left.

We have to change (27. 일반의 인식: the public perception) about Ford Motor Company.  And once they change that, they can (28. 다시 정상에 서다: be back up top again).

So Ford loses $12.7 billion last year.  That is what Toyota made in profit in 2005.  And it made headlines in Motown when this new CEO of Ford flew to Tokyo to sit down with the CEO of Toyota.  He told us today, no merger plans.  He was just looking for ideas.  Charlie?

Perhaps a sign of the times.  Bill Weir, reporting tonight.  Out thanks.  I'll be reporting, by the way, from Detroit on Monday, where we'll begin our special series on the auto industry running on empty.

LISTENING REVIEW (6) FEB, 2007

                                                                                            INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON

STORY6: REALITY CHECK

(1. 자동차 업계: The auto industry), and the entire economy are (2. 석유 가격에 극도로 예민하다: extremely susceptible to the price of oil).  This was one of the themes in President Bush's (3. 연두교서: State of the Union Address).  He said the US needs to (4. 수입 석유에 대한 의존도를 완화시키다: ease its dependence on foreign oil) by growing more fuel here rather than importing it.  But is that realistic?  ABC’s Betsy Stark is here to look into that.  Betsy?

Well, Charlie, this year the President gave us a detailed outline of how to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.  Something he has called “a national addiction.”

The centerpiece of the President’s plan to (5. 석유 소비를 줄이다: cut gas consumption) by 20% in 10 years is a mandatory and massive increase in the production of (6. 대체 연료: alternative fuels) especially ethanol.  Can it be done?  (7. 정유사들: Refineries) are already (8. 초과 근무 하다: working overtime), turning corn into ethanol fuel.  But they can't make enough to (9. 대통령이 제시한 목표를 맞추다: meet the President's goal) of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuel by 2017.

Sixteen billion gallons can come from corn.  The rest will have to come from other sources.

Other sources such as wheat, wood chips, and switch grass, which the President was touting yesterday.

That switch grass, which would be grown all across America, can end up being (10. 자동차 연료: the fuel that powers our automobiles).

But before Americans can drive a car powered by switch grass, or anything else, someone, and it could be taxpayers, will have to spend billions of dollars building refineries for turning switch grass and other natural products into fuel.  (11. 주유소들: Filling stations) will need to (12. 개조되다: be refitted) to sell these alternative fuels.

The 2007 Chevrolet Volt.

Detroit needs to (13. 제 몫의 노력을 하다: do its part) by increasing the number of cars it makes that do not (14. 휘발유로 달리다: run on gasoline).  Analysts say they're beginning to do that.

(15. 생산 중인: In their pipeline) are (16. 혼합형 차량: hybrid cars), are diesel cars, are small cars, and even more exciting things like electric cars.

The President’s plan also calls for cutting gas consumption by (16. 차량 연비 개선을 의무화하다: requiring cars to be more fuel-efficient).  His proposal would (17. 연비 기준을 높이다: raise efficiency standards) from about 27-miles per gallon today to about 34 miles per gallon in the next 10 years.  Analysts say it's an achievable goal if new cars are produced to be more fuel-efficient.

Detroit has both the technology and the will (18. 대통령의 목표를 맞추거나 초과 달성하다: to meet or exceed the President’s targets).

And what does this plan mean for consumers at the pump? For now, it's cheaper to make gasoline than it is to make ethanol fuel.  But in the future that could change if the ethanol in your car is made from woodchips or some (19. 값싼 폐기물: cheap waste product), and not from a food like corn.  More expensive.

LISTENING REVIEW (7) FEB, 2007

                                                                                            INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON

STORY7: PILOTS AND GUNS

And tonight, we have a report on guns on planes.  When a passenger boards a plane these days, it is more likely that the pilot will be carrying a gun than it is that (1. 항공 경찰이 탑승하다: an air marshal will be on board).  In order to carry a gun, a pilot needs (2. 교육과 인증서: training and certification).  So, tonight, we have a rare look at the pilot training program.  Here's ABC’s Lisa Stark.

An attack in the cockpit.

Get back, get back.  Drop the knife now.

This is part of the training for the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, attracting nearly 50 pilots a week to a remote facility in the New Mexico desert, for instruction in everything (3. 자기방어부터 사격에 이르기까지: from self-defense to marksmanship).  Some are former military.  Some, like seven in this class, have never before held a gun.

As a federal flight deck officer, (4. 연방 사법 집행 요원 직을 대행하는 사람들이다: they're deputized federal law enforcement officers).  Their (5. 사법관할권: jurisdiction) is the cockpit.

The Air Marshal Service now (6. 무장 파일럿 프로그램을 운영하다: runs the armed pilot program) and has made changes.  Pilots will now get badges and (7. 교육 프로그램 참석이 의무화되다: be required to attend recurrent training).

The goal of all the changes in the program is (8. 무장 파일럿들로 하여금 경찰 문화에 익숙해지도록 하다: to bring the armed pilots into a law enforcement culture), so they can better (9. 항공 경찰 업무를 보조하다: complement the work of the air marshals).

Their job? To protect the cockpit against any intruder.  They're authorized to (10. 살상력을 사용하다: use deadly force) if necessary.

They have to look at the situation.  They have to think about the critical decision-making process, (11. 현명하게 판단하다: exercise good judgment) and then (12. 위협에 적절히 대응하다: apply the appropriate response to the threat).

These trainees, whose identities we've been asked to protect, say they are ready to (13. 이 새로운 역할을 담당하다: take on this new role).

You know, we always have in the back of our mind, we're gonna get all of our passengers home safely that day.

Pilots must (14. 시간을 스스로 내다: volunteer their time) and (15. 자비로 프로그램에 참여하다: pay their own way to join the program).  Many say they are only (16. 소기의 역할을 하다: doing their small part) to prevent another 9/11.

I hope that people get the message that this exists and never try this kind of stuff again.  But if they do, we're ready.

Lisa Stark, ABC News, Artesia, New Mexico.

LISTENING REVIEW (8) FEB, 2007

                                                                                            INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON

STORY8: COLLEGE ERROR

There are (1. 몇몇 격앙된 사람들: some very red faces) tonight (2. 입학 사무실: at the admissions office) of (3. 한 명문 대학: one prestigious university), to say nothing of thousands of (4. 심한 가슴앓이를 한 입학 희망자들: very stressed prospective students).

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill mistakenly sent e-mails congratulating 2700 (5. 입학 지원자들: applicants on admission).  Trouble is, they haven't been admitted.  The students who got the e-mails have to wait until March to (6. 진짜 입학 여부를 확인하다: find out if they really got in).

And still ahead on this broadcast, parents (7. 품위없는 행동으로 F를 받다: get an F for behavior, lying and cheating to get their kids into a very popular public school.

STORY8-1: CLASS WARFARE

Finally, tonight, a magnate school that is attracting more than (1. 당연히 받아야 할 관심: its share of attention).  (2. 너무도 많은 공립학교들이 제 기능을 다하지 못하는 상황에서: With so many public schools failing miserably), this is one where parents are actually (3. 자신의 자녀를 입학시키기 위해 싸우는: fighting to find a spot for their kids), fighting and (4. 규정을 어기다: breaking the rules).  ABC’s John Donvan in Charleston, South Carolina has the story of this (4. 입학을 위해 반칙까지 동원하는 난리법석: underhanded scramble for admission).

A equals D, divided by eight?

Okay.  This is eighth grade math.  But here's a real number challenge, kindergarten, 40 spaces available, 240 kids (5. 입학 지원하다: applying to get in).  How does a parent (6. 가능성을 높이다: improve those odds)?  Well, by cheating, sometimes, it seems.

No, I don't understand why they (7. 그 정도까지 그러다: go to that length), no.  I mean, that, there's no justification or excuse for that sort of thing.

Thanks to its special status as (8. 명문학교: a magnate school), Buist Academy, a public school, is the only successful program in (9. 지역 학교들 전체: a local school system) that has long-failed its students, (10. 탁월한 무료 교육: an excellent education for free), even (11. 잘사는 집 부모들: well-off parents) want their kids here.  But some, says Principal Sally Ballard, have been caught lying, pretending to live downtown when their real homes are miles from (12. 지원 가능 학군: the eligible district).  The trick?  (13. 허위 주소지 기재: False home addresses) on their kids’ (14. 응시 원서: applications) until they get caught.

I found them.

And said?

And I have a conversation.

In which says?

Which says, “Excuse me, but I have driven by your residence and it appears to be a coffee shop.”

Another example, one family (15. 주소를 기재하다: listed an address) at this apartment building.  But when I knocked on a neighbor’s door, the woman who answered told me...

There's no students here.

This cheating infuriates parents who do live downtown, where many of the kids live in poverty.

It's so frustrating to watch true residents of the peninsula have their children in unsatisfactory schools.

And so this week, the school board met and decided to get tough.

What's tough?  How about 30 days in jail for any parents caught lying now about where they live on their kids' application.

They're serious.  The new school application will warn that listing of false address is perjury.

People will do a lot for their children.  We want them to know there's a limit to what they should do.

Some option, jail time or not, not what anybody means when they talk about school choice.  John Donvan, ABC News, Charleston, South Carolina.

LISTENING REVIEW (9) FEB, 2007

                                                                                            INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON

STORY9: FIGHTING CANCER

There's troubling news tonight in the fight against cancer.  Just over a week ago, we learned the total number of (1. 암 사망자 숫자: cancer deaths) in the US has been dropping.  But now, we're told, (2. 정기적으로 유방조영 검사를 받는 여성의 수가 줄어들고 있다: fewer women are getting regular mammograms), (3. 그 병을 조기 발견하는 주요 방법: a key to finding the disease early).  The American Cancer Society says about 80 million women should be (4. 정기적으로 유방 조영 검사를 받다: getting regular mammograms), but a growing number are not.  And doctors are worried some will die because of that.  Here's ABC’s John McKenzie.

(5. 40세 이상 여성: Women 40 and older) have (6. 유방암 검사가 권장되다: been encouraged to get a mammogram) every year, and (7. 그 홍보가 효과를 거두고 있었다: that message was getting through).  From 1987, when only 29% of women in the US (8. 조영 검사를 받다: were screened), the rate climbed steadily.  But (9. 최근에 발표된 정부에서 실시한 이 설문조사에 따르면: this latest government survey suggests) (10. 무엇인가가 잘못 되었다: something has gone wrong).  (11. 2000년도에 76.%로 최고치를 기록했다가: From a high of 76.4% in 2000), mammography rates over the next five years fell 1.8%.  That might not seem a lot, but it suggests more than a million fewer women getting mammograms, potentially reversing many of the gains in breast cancer survival.

If women put off having mammography done, when their cancers are diagnosed, they will be larger, they will be more difficult to treat, they will be more likely to kill.

So why are fewer women getting mammograms?

Just too busy with other things.  I mean, it's a matter of scheduling.

Most of the radiology companies (12. 예약이 과도하게 이루어져 있다: are very overbooked) and it takes a long time to get an appointment.

Between 2001 and 2004, there were 538 fewer mammography centers in the US, that's a drop of 6%.

They were (13. 적자를 보다: losing money).  The amount that they received for (14. 유방암 검사를 해주다: doing mammograms) did not (15. 그 비용을 충당하다: cover their costs).

It's also why (16. 이 분야에서 일하고자 하는 사람들의 숫자도 줄다: fewer people wanna work in this field).

The number of technologists that do mammography and the number of radiologists are all going down, are all declining.

There are many reasons why fewer women are getting mammograms.  But (17. 그 순전한 결과: the net result), say researchers, is that thousands more breast cancers each year are (18. 진단되지 않고 그냥 지나가다: going undiagnosed).  John McKenzie, ABC News, New York.

LISTENING REVIEW (10) FEB, 2007

                                                                                            INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON

STORY10: TEEN DRINKING

Every year, about 6,000 American (1. 20세 미만 운전자들: drivers under the age of 20) are involved in (2. 알코올 관련 사망 사고들: fatal, alcohol-related accidents).  Now, some high schools have begun (3. 첨단 검사법을 사용하다: using an advanced test) to determine which students have been (4. 스스로를 위험에 처하게 하다: putting themselves at risk) of (5. 이 통계 자료에 포함회다: adding to those statistics).  Here's ABC's Nancy Cordes.

Starting next month, there will be a new test at Pequannock Township High School in New Jersey, not math or history, but (6. 무작위로실시되는 소변검사: a urine test administered at random) to (7. 음주 여부를 검사하다: check for alcohol).

I think it's gonna do its job.  I think it's really gonna show the kids that drinking's a problem.

It's a serious test.  Unlike the typical (8. 타액 채취 검사: saliva swabs) and breathalyzers, the urine test, called ETG, can detect whether a student has had a drink any time in the last 80 hours, meaning, a Friday night party will (9. 월요일 아침에 검사하면 드러나다: register on a Monday morning test).

It's our hope that because we're using the technology that students who had thought that they might, they might use alcohol might think twice about it.

Pequannock is one of several schools around the country using (10. 정부 교부금: government grants) to (11. 음주 단속을 강화하다: step up its alcohol monitoring).

We have a, a serious problem with drugs and alcohol in this country.

(12. 10대들에 대한 무작위 검사: Random testing for teens) doesn't (13. 모든 사람에게 좋게 받아들여지다: sit well with everyone).

You send the wrong message by doing a mass testing of all kids about who, whom there’s no suspicion.  I think it teaches kids that they have no rights at all.

(14. 연방 정부의 약물 남용 전문가들: The federal government's own substance abuse experts) warn urine testing (15. 단점이 있다: has its drawbacks).  It's so sensitive that can mistake consumer products like (16. 손 위생 세정제: hand sanitizer) or (17. 구강 청결제: mouth wash) for alcohol.

I'll be honest, some of my friends do think it's fair, and some of them don't.  Some of them feel that it's (18. 사생활 침해: an invasion of privacy).  And that they shouldn't be, you know, tested at all because it's their own business.  (19. 학교 경계 밖의 일이다: It's outside of the school).

Students who (20. 검사 결과 양성으로 나오다: test positive) at Pequannock won't get punished, but (21. 그들의 부모님들에게 통지서가 가다: their parents will be notified).  And for many teens, that is (22. 가장 강력한 억제제: the most powerful deterrent of all).  Nancy Cordes, ABC News, New York.

LISTENING REVIEW (11) FEB, 2007

                                                                                            INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON

STORY11: CLIMATE CHANGE

On Capitol Hill, a dramatic example today of how (1. 국정 의제가 바뀌다: the agenda has changed) now that (2. 민주당이 주도권을 쥐다: Democrats are in charge).  The issue of global warming didn't (3. 많이 논의되다: get much of an airing) (4. 공화당이 다수당인 상황에서: under the Republican majority).  But there were two hearings today and testimony that the Bush administration has been (5. 기후 변화의 증거가 일반에 알려지지 못하도록 하다: suppressing evidence of climate change from the public).  Here's our senior national correspondent Jake Tapper.

Scientists say their work on global warming has (6. 희석되다: been watered down) and twisted by a White House that does not want the public to hear about it.

Although it's frustrating for me to see my work suppressed, even more importantly, it's (7. 일반에게 손해: a disservice to the public) to distort or suppress information needed.

According to a Union of Concerned Scientists survey released today, at least 150 federal climate scientists personally have experienced (8. 정치권에서 자신들의 연구에 간섭하는 행위: political interference with their work) under the Bush administration.  Rick Piltz, a former climate change official, testified that a White House aide (9. 의회에 제출할 보고서를 편집하다: edited a report to Congress), (10. 과학계가 합의한 내용을 삭제하다: deleting what is scientific consensus) that global warming is advancing the melting of mountain glaciers and polar ice.

Did he ever give a plausible reason why he would remove that warning to Congress?

He called it speculative musing.

Speculative musings?

Speculative musing.

All of us have a right to our own views about the seriousness of global warming, but we don't have a right to our own science.

The White House today said claims that the administration interfered with scientists are false and insists it's focused on making real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(11. 상원 상임위원회: A Senate committee) (12. 청문회를 가졌다: held hearings) today, too, (13. ~를 의장으로 한: chaired by) Senator Barbara Boxer.  The committee's previous chairman, Senator Jim Inhofe, has called global warming (14. 날조: a hoax).

I'll put you down as skeptical.

Skeptical?

On global warming.

For the most part, though, senators from both parties expressed concern.

The world is gonna be watching us.

The argument about climate change is over.  Now it's time to act.  The argument is over.

Showing, if nothing else, on this issue, there is evidence of a climate change in Congress.  Jake Tapper, ABC News, Washington.

LISTENING REVIEW (12) FEB, 2007

                                                                                            INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON

STORY12: RUNNING ON EMPTY: THE STATE OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY

It may not be easy for people in some parts of the country to understand what's going on here in Michigan.  Generations here have (1. 자동차회사들을 생활의 일부로 여기다: treated the auto companies as a way of life).  You hear this, “My grandfather worked on the line.”  “My dad did,” and “I expected to spend my entire life here at Ford or GM or Chrysler.”  It was just the expectation.  (2. 직장을 옮기는 일이 전혀 없이: No hopping from job to job).  The car companies were the bedrock.  That's just not true anymore.  In the past years, 72,500 autoworkers have (3. 명예 퇴직하다: taken buyouts) from just Ford and GM.

Terry Callahan for one.  For 21 years she was in the Design Department at GM.  And then one day, last April, she (4. 통보를 받았다: got the call).  (5. 그녀의 일자리가 없어졌다: Her job was eliminated).  She was told, “You can (6. 두 달치 퇴직 수당을 받다: have two months severance) or we'll (7. 명예 퇴직 시키다: buy you out) and you can have 15 months pay.”

It says you can take a buyout and have 15 months pay.

Right.

Or we can fire you and give you two months pay.

Yeah.

That's not a choice.  That's an IQ test.

Yeah.  That's kind of how I felt about it.

That was last April.  Meanwhile, her husband Bill's (8. 판금회사: sheet metal company) is (9. 일거리가 없다: not getting work, part of (10. 자동차업계의 불황의 여파: the ripple effect from the bad times in the auto industry).  And nine of Terry's 15 months of salary and health care have passed.  Only six months to go. And  they have five kids.

The interesting thing is, when you take the buyout, a clock starts ticking.  And you're always conscious of where the end is.

That's true.

That's exactly true.

It is.

We got the big decisions to make now, between now and August.

We met Terry when a local college (11. 통지서를 보내다: sent out a notice) (12. 실직한 자동차업체 근로자들을 모집하다:recruiting displaced autoworkers) for (13. 속성 간호사 자격 과정:  an accelerated nursing degree).  (14. 16개 자리가 있었다: 16 positions were available), more than 250 people (15. 지원하다: showed up).  Terry was one.  Chong Yi-Miller was another one.

I'm an engineer.  I have two kids.  At this point, I'm just tired of (16. 자동차업계와 같이 경제 주기를 거치다: going through the cycle with the automotive industry).  The way it goes.  It has its ups, it has its downs.

Chong has (17. 명예 퇴직 제의를 받다: been offered a buyout) from Ford after six years with the company.  She has the choice.  Take a buyout like Terry's or (18. 나중에 해고될지 모를 위험에 처하다: run the risk of being fired down the road).

I know I’m gonna have a lot of sleepless nights thinking about this.  A lot.

She'll probably take the buyout, she says, because Ford is also (19. 육아 시설 운영을 중단하다: shutting down their day-care centers).  (20.  또 다른 비용 절감 조치: Another cost-cutting move).

You could say that the whole city is, sort of, depressed right now.  Because (21. 사람들의 감정 상태는 전염된다: emotions are contagious).  And when your anchors, which are the big three auto companies are all suffering and all the people who working on them are starting to suffer, it (22. 가족에까지 영향을 미치다: ripples into the family).

So many families with so many decisions to make.  Lakendra (PH) and Larry Hampton both worked for Ford.  Both of them have been offered the buyout.  She'll take it.  He won't.

Basically, the main reason is medical.

It's just the need of insurance.

So he (23. 의료 보장 때문에 계속 버티다: stays for the health insurance).  But just to cover himself, he started a snowplowing business.  He stays at Ford for now, but without any real confidence (24. 그의 자동차 회사 직장이 확실히 유지되다: his auto job is secure).  So many people, so many decisions.  The interesting thing, all realize the realities the auto companies face.  It's a new economy.  But they all preferred life the way it was - when the auto companies represented a secure way of life.

I mean I can go back there if things change, and there are things that I’m qualified for.  So I just keep sending them my resume in case they decide they need me again.