When a new movement in art attains a certain fashion, it is advisable to find out what its advocates are aiming at, for, however farfetched and unreasonable their principles may seem today, it is possible that in years to come they may be regarded as normal. With regard to Futurist poetry, however, the case is rather difficult, for whatever Futurist poetry may be-even admitting that the theory on which it is based may be right it can hardly be classed as Literature.
    This, in brief, is what the Futurist says: for a century, past conditions of life have been conditionally speeding up, till now we live in a world of noise and violence and speed. Consequently, our feelings, thoughts and emotions have undergone a corresponding change. This speeding up of life, says the Futurist, requires a new form of expression. We must speed up our literature too, if we want to interpret modern stress. We must pour out a large stream of essential words, unhampered by stops, or qualifying adjectives, or finite verbs. Instead of describing sounds we must make up words that imitate them; we must use many sizes of type and different colored inks on the same page, and shorten or lengthen words at, will.
    Certainly their descriptions of battles are confused. But it is a little upsetting to read in the explanatory notes that a certain line describes a fight between a Turkish and a Bulgarian officer on a bridge off which they, both fall into the river—and then to find that the line consists of the noise of their falling and the weights of the officers: ‘Pluff! Pluff ! A hundred and eighty-five kilograms.’
    This, though it fulfills the laws and requirements of Futurist poetry, can hardly be classed as Literature. All the same, no thinking man can refuse to accept their first proposition: that a great change in our emotional life calls for a change of expression. The whole question is really this: have we essentially changed?

    In police work, you can never predict the next crime or problem. No working day is identical to any other, so there is no “(1) _____ ” day for a police officer. Some days are (2) _____ slow, and the job is (3) _____; other days are so busy that there is no time to eat. I think I can (4) _____ police work in one word: (5) _____. Sometimes it’s dangerous. One day, for example, I was working undercover; that is, I was on the job, but I was wearing (6) _____ clothes, not my police (7) _____. I was trying to catch some robbers who were stealing money from people as they walked down the street. Suddenly,  (8) _______________. Another policeman arrived, and together, we arrested three of the men; but the other four ran away. Another day, I helped a woman who was going to have a baby. (9) _______________. I put her in my police car to get her there faster. I thought she was going to have the baby right there in my car. But fortunately, (10) _______________.

    What would you do with $590m? This is now a question for Gloria MacKenzie, an 84-year-old widow who recently emerged from her small, tin-roofed house in Florida to collect the biggest undivided lottery jackpot in history. If she hopes her new-found fortune will yield lasting feelings of fulfillment, she could do worse than read Happy Money by Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton.
    These two academics use an array of behavioral research to show that the most rewarding ways to spend money can be counterintuitive. Fantasies of great wealth often involve visions of fancy cars and extravagant homes. Yet satisfaction with these material purchases wears off fairly quickly. What was once exciting and new becomes old-hat; regret creeps in. It is far better to spend money on experiences, say Ms Dunn and Mr. Norton, like interesting trips, unique meals or even going to the cinema. These purchases often become more valuable with time—as stories or memories—particularly if they involve feeling more connected to others.
    This slim volume is packed with tips to help wage slaves as well as lottery winners get the most “happiness bang for your buck”. It seems most people would be better off if they could shorten their commutes to work, spend more time with friends and family and less of it watching    television (something the average American spends a whopping two months a year doing, and is hardly jollier for it). Buying gifts or giving to charity is often more pleasurable than purchasing things for oneself, and luxuries are most enjoyable when they are consumed sparingly. This is apparently the reason McDonald’s restricts the availability of its popular McRib—a marketing trick that has turned the pork sandwich into an object of obsession.
    Readers of Happy Money are clearly a privileged lot, anxious about fulfillment, not hunger. Money may not quite buy happiness, but people in wealthier countries are generally happier than those in poor ones. Yet the link between feeling good and spending money on others can be seen among rich and poor people around the world, and scarcity enhances the pleasure of most things for most people. Not everyone will agree with the authors’ policy ideas, which range from mandating more holiday time to reducing tax incentives for American homebuyers. But most people will come away from this book believing it was money well spent.

    Directions: In the following text, some sentences have been removed. For Question (1)-(5), choose the most suitable one from the list A-G to fit into each of the numbered blanks. There are two extra choices, which do not fit in any of the gaps. 

    Canada’s premiers (the leaders of provincial governments), if they have any breath left after complaining about Ottawa at their late July annual meeting, might spare a moment to do something to reduce health-care costs.
    They’re all groaning about soaring health budgets, the fastest-growing component of which are pharmaceutical costs
    (1) _______________________________________________________________________.
    What to do? Both the Romanow commission and the Kirby committee on health care—to say nothing of reports from other experts—recommended the creation of a national drug agency. Instead of each province having its own list of approved drugs, bureaucracy, procedures and limited bargaining power, all would pool resources, work with Ottawa, and create a national institution.
    (2)_______________________________________________________________________.
    But “national” doesn’t have to mean that. “National” could mean interprovincial—provinces combing efforts to create body.
    Either way, one benefit of a “national” organization would ho negotiate better prices, if possible, with drug manufacturers. Instead of having one province—or a series of hospitals within a province—negotiate a price for a given drug on the provincial list, the national agency would negotiate on behalf of all provinces.
    Rather than, say, Quebec, negotiating on behalf of seven million people, the national agency would negotiate on behalf of 31 million people. Basic economics suggests the greater the potential consumers, the higher the likelihood of a better price.
    (3) _______________________________________________________________________.
    A small step has been taken in the direction of a national agency with the creation of the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, funded by Ottawa and the provinces. Under it, a Common Drug Review recommends to provincial lists which new drugs should be included, predictably and regrettably Quebec refused to join.
    A few premiers are suspicious of any federal-provincial deal-making. They (particularly Quebec and Alberta) just want Ottawa to fork over additional billions with few, if any, strings attached. That’s one reason why the idea of a national list hasn’t gone anywhere while drug costs keep rising fast.
    (4) _______________________________________________________________________.
    Premiers love to quote Mr. Romanow’s report selectively, especially the parts about more federal money perhaps they should read what he had to say about drugs: “A national drug agency would provide governments more influence on pharmaceutical companies in order to constrain the ever-increasing cost of drugs.”
    (5) _______________________________________________________________________.
    So when the premiers gather in Niagara Falls to assemble their usual complaint list, they should also get cracking about something in their jurisdiction that would help their budgets and patients.

[A] Quebec’s resistance to a national agency is provincialist ideology. One of the first advocates for a national list was a researcher at Laval University. Quebec’s Drug Insurance Fund has seen its costs skyrocket with annual increases from 14.3 per cent to 26.8 per cent! [B] Or they could read Mr. Kirby’s report: “the substantial buying power of such an agency would strengthen the public prescription—drug insurance plans to negotiate the lowest possible purchase prices form drug companies.” [C] What does “national” mean? Roy Romanow and Senator Michael Kirby recommended a federal-provincial body much like the recently created National Health Council. [D] The problem is simple and stark: health-care costs have been, are, and will continue to increase faster than government revenues. [E] According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, prescription drug costs have risen since 1997 at twice the rate of overall health-care spending. Part of the increase comes from drugs being used to replace kinds of treatments, part of it arises from new drugs costing more than older kinds, part of it is higher prices. [F] So, if the provinces want to run the health-care show, they should prove they can run it, starting with an interprovincial health list that would end duplication, save administrative costs, prevent one province from being played off against another, and bargain for better drug prices. [G] Of course the pharmaceutical companies will scream. They like divided buyers; they can lobby better that way. They can use the threat of removing jobs from one province to another. They can hope that, if one province includes a drug on its list, the pressure will cause others to include it on theirs. They wouldn’t like a national agency, but self-interest would lead to deal with it.