A message to House Democrats: This is your moment of truth. You can do the right thing and pass the Senate health care bill. Or you can look for an easy way out, make excuses and fail the test of history. Tuesday’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts special election means that Democrats can’t send a modified health care bill back to the Senate. That’s a shame because the bill that would have emerged from House-Senate negotiations would have been better than the bill the Senate has already passed. ① But the Senate bill is much, much better than nothing. And all that has to happen to make it law is for the House to pass the same bill, and send it to President Obama’s desk. Right now, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, says that she doesn’t have the votes to pass the Senate bill. But there is no good alternative. Some are urging Democrats to scale back their proposals in the hope of gaining Republican support. But anyone who thinks that would work must have spent the past year living on another planet. The fact is that the Senate bill is a centrist document, which moderate Republicans should find entirely acceptable. In fact, it’s very similar to the plan Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts just a few years ago. Yet it has faced lock-step opposition from the G. O. P. , which is determined to prevent Democrats from achieving any successes. ② Why would this change now that Republicans think they’re on a roll Alternatively, some call for breaking the health care plan into pieces so that the Senate can vote the popular pieces into law. But anyone who thinks that would work hasn’t paid attention to the actual policy issues. Think of health care reform as being like a three-legged stool. You would, rightly, ridicule anyone who proposed saving money by leaving off one or two of the legs. Well, those who propose doing only the popular pieces of health care reform deserve the same kind of ridicule. Now what about the suggestion that Democrats use reconciliation to enact health reform That’s a real option, which may become necessary. But reconciliation, which is basically limited to matters of taxing and spending, probably can’t be used to enact many important aspects of reform. ~ In fact, it’s not even clear if it could be used to ban discrimination based on medical history. Ladies and gentlemen, the nation is waiting. Stop whining, and do what needs to be done. The purpose of the passage is to______.
A. urge House Democrats to modify a health care bill
B. explain why a health care bill is necessary to pass
C. call for House Democrats to pass a health care bill
D. clarify the importance of a health care bill
查看答案
Have we ever had judicious criteria on who are heroes and who are fools in science Have we ever had people believe in those seemingly self-evident judgments In the (31) model of scientific " progress ", we begin in superstitious ignorance and move toward final truth by the (32) accumulation of facts. In this complacent perspective, the history of science contains (33) than anecdotal interest—for it can only chronicle past errors and (34) the bricklayers for discerning (35) of final truth. It is as transparent as an old-fashioned drama: truth ( as we perceive it today) is the only arbiter and the world of (36) scientists is divided into good guys who are right and bad guys who are wrong. Historians of science have utterly (37) this model during the past decade. Science is not a heartless pursuit of (38) information. It is a creative human (39) , and its geniuses acting more as artists than as information processors. (40) in theory are not simply the results of new discoveries (41) the work of creative imagination (42) by contemporary social and political (43) We should not judge the past (44) anachronistic spectacles of our own convictions—designating as heroes the scientists (45) we judge to be right (46) that had nothing to do with their own (47) .We are (48) foolish if we call Anaximander (sixth century B. C. ) an evolutionist because, in advocating a (49) role for water among the four elements, he held that life first (50) the sea; yet most textbooks so credit him.
A. forces
B. force
C. strength
D. strengths
Have we ever had judicious criteria on who are heroes and who are fools in science Have we ever had people believe in those seemingly self-evident judgments In the (31) model of scientific " progress ", we begin in superstitious ignorance and move toward final truth by the (32) accumulation of facts. In this complacent perspective, the history of science contains (33) than anecdotal interest—for it can only chronicle past errors and (34) the bricklayers for discerning (35) of final truth. It is as transparent as an old-fashioned drama: truth ( as we perceive it today) is the only arbiter and the world of (36) scientists is divided into good guys who are right and bad guys who are wrong. Historians of science have utterly (37) this model during the past decade. Science is not a heartless pursuit of (38) information. It is a creative human (39) , and its geniuses acting more as artists than as information processors. (40) in theory are not simply the results of new discoveries (41) the work of creative imagination (42) by contemporary social and political (43) We should not judge the past (44) anachronistic spectacles of our own convictions—designating as heroes the scientists (45) we judge to be right (46) that had nothing to do with their own (47) .We are (48) foolish if we call Anaximander (sixth century B. C. ) an evolutionist because, in advocating a (49) role for water among the four elements, he held that life first (50) the sea; yet most textbooks so credit him.
A. with
B. at
C. in
D. through
Have we ever had judicious criteria on who are heroes and who are fools in science Have we ever had people believe in those seemingly self-evident judgments In the (31) model of scientific " progress ", we begin in superstitious ignorance and move toward final truth by the (32) accumulation of facts. In this complacent perspective, the history of science contains (33) than anecdotal interest—for it can only chronicle past errors and (34) the bricklayers for discerning (35) of final truth. It is as transparent as an old-fashioned drama: truth ( as we perceive it today) is the only arbiter and the world of (36) scientists is divided into good guys who are right and bad guys who are wrong. Historians of science have utterly (37) this model during the past decade. Science is not a heartless pursuit of (38) information. It is a creative human (39) , and its geniuses acting more as artists than as information processors. (40) in theory are not simply the results of new discoveries (41) the work of creative imagination (42) by contemporary social and political (43) We should not judge the past (44) anachronistic spectacles of our own convictions—designating as heroes the scientists (45) we judge to be right (46) that had nothing to do with their own (47) .We are (48) foolish if we call Anaximander (sixth century B. C. ) an evolutionist because, in advocating a (49) role for water among the four elements, he held that life first (50) the sea; yet most textbooks so credit him.
A. outer
B. external
C. surface
D. objective
Have we ever had judicious criteria on who are heroes and who are fools in science Have we ever had people believe in those seemingly self-evident judgments In the (31) model of scientific " progress ", we begin in superstitious ignorance and move toward final truth by the (32) accumulation of facts. In this complacent perspective, the history of science contains (33) than anecdotal interest—for it can only chronicle past errors and (34) the bricklayers for discerning (35) of final truth. It is as transparent as an old-fashioned drama: truth ( as we perceive it today) is the only arbiter and the world of (36) scientists is divided into good guys who are right and bad guys who are wrong. Historians of science have utterly (37) this model during the past decade. Science is not a heartless pursuit of (38) information. It is a creative human (39) , and its geniuses acting more as artists than as information processors. (40) in theory are not simply the results of new discoveries (41) the work of creative imagination (42) by contemporary social and political (43) We should not judge the past (44) anachronistic spectacles of our own convictions—designating as heroes the scientists (45) we judge to be right (46) that had nothing to do with their own (47) .We are (48) foolish if we call Anaximander (sixth century B. C. ) an evolutionist because, in advocating a (49) role for water among the four elements, he held that life first (50) the sea; yet most textbooks so credit him.
A. credited
B. discredited
C. approved
D. praised