题目内容
目前，我国限制进口货物管理按照其限制方式分为许可证件管理和关税配额管理。其中关税配额管理是指在一定时期内，国家对部分商品的进口制定关税配额税率并规定该商品进口数量总额，在限额内，经国家批准后允许按照关税配额税率征税进口，如超出限额则以国家主管部门签发许可证件的方式来实现限制进口。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
In the prevailing paradigm we have been conditioned to believe that power is a scarce commodity)it comes as a by-product of having achieved some sort of status. Whenever we see ourselves(individually, corporately, or nationally)as less powerful than some other party, it"s only logical to conclude that we lack whatever it takes to confer sufficient status. It could be wealth, education, good looks, toughness, strength, connections, intelligence, and so on, depending on our particular social milieu. It is natural to keep trying to get more of that attribute that will elevate you to more power. One consequence of concluding that relative powerlessness is due to a personal deficiency of some kind is the tendency to become preoccupied with pointing the finger of blame, "It"s my parents" fault," "My employer is to blame," "The government did it to me," "I didn"t have the appropriate education," "I"ve got the wrong genes. " The list is only limited by our imagination. Another consequence of blaming others or circumstances outside our control for lack of power is that it promotes feelings of self-pity, jealousy, anxiety, discouragement, resentment, and resignation. It"s not that there are no legitimate limitations to our power; limitations based on gender, physical disability, prejudice, etc. are all too common. It"s that the process of assessing blame keeps us from moving on with our lives. The victim mentality saps resolve and strength. Eventually it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy as people caught up in this mindset do indeed become increasingly powerless. Helping to keep people stuck in this morass are the perceived benefits of being seen as a victim. Not only does the victim get sympathy and attention, be or she is also able to exploit the sympathetic feelings of others for purposes of manipulation and control. Sometimes we point the finger of blame at ourselves. "If only we had done something differently," we reason, "we wouldn"t be in this position. " We tell ourselves that "we should have known better" or "only a "loser" would have let this happen. " In this way we gradually condition ourselves to believe that we are unworthy of success. This way of thinking is quite prevalent, even among those who are regarded as successful or powerful. For many, this thought process leads them to try even harder —work harder, compete harder, be more aggressive all with the aim of compensating for their deficiencies. Some end up overcompensating for their low self-esteems as a result they come across as aggressive, bard driving, over-bearing, arrogant, or superior. The author argues that the victim mentality______.
The 1st Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press, takes the view that the people should dictate to the government, not the other way around. But no one told a group of 32 state attorneys general, who have taken it upon themselves to instruct the film industry on the appropriate content of movies. This time, the cause is not raunchy sex, foul language or blood-spattering violence. It"s cigarettes. Many experts think that when actors puff away, they cause teenagers to do likewise. One study went so far as to say that 38 percent of all the kids who acquire the habit do so because of the influence of films. So all these state government officials want filmmakers to stop depicting tobacco use. It"s hard to fully credit the notion that kids start smoking just because they see Scarlett Johansson doing it. If movies exert such a mammoth influence on impressionable youngsters, shouldn"t teen tobacco use be on the rise The studies themselves are not as damning as they purport to be. They indicate that kids who watch more movies with smoking are more likely to smoke. But a correlation does not necessarily show a cause: Just because there is lots of beer drinking at baseball games doesn"t mean beer drinking causes baseball. It may be that kids see a star light up and rush out to imitate him. Or it may be that teens who are inclined to smoke anyway are also inclined to see the sort of movies that feature smoking. Michael Siegel, a physician and professor, believes the studies greatly exaggerate the impact of tobacco in films. "It is simply one of a large number of ways in which youths are exposed to positive images of smoking(which includes advertisements, television movies, television shows, DVDs, Internet, music videos, and a variety of other sources)," he told me in an e-mail interview. "To single out smoking in movies as THE cause of youth smoking initiation for a large percentage of kids is ridiculous. Putting an R rating on smoky movies probably wouldn"t do much to reduce teenagers" exposure. Some 75 percent of new releases that feature smoking are already rated R and a lot of them are accessible even to preteens. Siegel points out that applying R ratings to films just because they feature full-frontal shots of cigarettes may backfire. Parents anxious about sex and violence may stop paying attention to the rating system once it factors in smoking. " So you could actually end up with more kids seeing films with smoking. Some studies claim that if kids watch more movies with smoking, they will______.
When Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, it gave older Americans a broad right to sue for discrimination. But the Supreme Court has narrowed that right with a 5-to-4 ruling that union members cannot file lawsuits when their contracts call for arbitration of age-discrimination claims. The decision, which reversed the court"s precedents, sets back antidiscrimination law significantly. A group of New York City building-services workers sued after they were moved from positions like night lobby watchman to less desirable assignments, including cleaning jobs. The workers charged, among oilier claims, that they had been reassigned based on age. The contract negotiated by the workers" union required employees to submit claims of discrimination to binding arbitration. The workers sued in federal court, asserting that their job reassignments violated the federal age-discrimination statute and other laws. The employer moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the union contract required that the claims be arbitrated. The Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the motion, citing a 1974 Supreme Court case, Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Company. It held that collective bargaining agreements cannot waive workers" rights to sue under federal antidiscrimination laws. The Supreme Court reversed, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas. In the majority"s view, the union agreed to the arbitration clause, and it was binding on all of its members. The four dissenters, in an opinion by Justice David Souter, had by far the better argument. Rights that Congress grants, they argued, cannot be waived in a collective-bargaining contract. Union contracts represent group rights—and unions often sacrifice the interests of a minority of their members for the good of the whole. Laws like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act give individuals a right to sue for discrimination -no matter what deal their union decides to strike for the workers as a group. The dissenters protested that the majority was too quick to abandon the well-established, 35-year-old precedent of Gardner-Denver. The fight over who will hear these claims matters because workers who have been discriminated against are more likely to get a fair hearing in federal court than in arbitration. That is why employers are eager to arbitrate—and it may be why the court " s most conservative justices voted in favor of compulsory arbitration. When Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, it protected Americans from discrimination on the basis of age—and gave them the chance to vindicate that right in federal court. There is no reason to believe that Congress intended this right to sue to be so weak that unions could freely bargain it away. According to the text. Congress
When Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, it gave older Americans a broad right to sue for discrimination. But the Supreme Court has narrowed that right with a 5-to-4 ruling that union members cannot file lawsuits when their contracts call for arbitration of age-discrimination claims. The decision, which reversed the court"s precedents, sets back antidiscrimination law significantly. A group of New York City building-services workers sued after they were moved from positions like night lobby watchman to less desirable assignments, including cleaning jobs. The workers charged, among oilier claims, that they had been reassigned based on age. The contract negotiated by the workers" union required employees to submit claims of discrimination to binding arbitration. The workers sued in federal court, asserting that their job reassignments violated the federal age-discrimination statute and other laws. The employer moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the union contract required that the claims be arbitrated. The Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the motion, citing a 1974 Supreme Court case, Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Company. It held that collective bargaining agreements cannot waive workers" rights to sue under federal antidiscrimination laws. The Supreme Court reversed, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas. In the majority"s view, the union agreed to the arbitration clause, and it was binding on all of its members. The four dissenters, in an opinion by Justice David Souter, had by far the better argument. Rights that Congress grants, they argued, cannot be waived in a collective-bargaining contract. Union contracts represent group rights—and unions often sacrifice the interests of a minority of their members for the good of the whole. Laws like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act give individuals a right to sue for discrimination -no matter what deal their union decides to strike for the workers as a group. The dissenters protested that the majority was too quick to abandon the well-established, 35-year-old precedent of Gardner-Denver. The fight over who will hear these claims matters because workers who have been discriminated against are more likely to get a fair hearing in federal court than in arbitration. That is why employers are eager to arbitrate—and it may be why the court " s most conservative justices voted in favor of compulsory arbitration. When Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, it protected Americans from discrimination on the basis of age—and gave them the chance to vindicate that right in federal court. There is no reason to believe that Congress intended this right to sue to be so weak that unions could freely bargain it away. The example of a group of building-service workers is cited to show that
微信支付 
支付宝支付