题目内容
How"s this for a coincidence Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born in the same year, on the same day: Feb. 12, 1809. Although people hardly think of them in tandem, yet instinctively, we want to say that they belong together. It"s not just because they were both great men, and not because they happen to be exact contemporaries. Rather, it"s because the scientist and the politician each touched off a revolution that changed the world. They were both revolutionaries in the sense that both men upended realities that prevailed when they were born. They seem—and sound—modern to us, because the world they left behind them is more or less the one we still live in. So, considering the joint greatness of their contributions—and the coincidence of their conjoined birthdays—it is hard not to wonder: who was the greater man It"s an apples-and-oranges—or Superman-vs.-Santa—comparison. But if you limit the question to influence, very quickly the balance tips in Lincoln"s favor. As great as his book on evolution is, it does no harm to remember that Darwin hurried to publish The Origin of Species because he thought he was about to be scooped by his fellow naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace. In other words, there was a certain inevitability to Darwin"s theory. Ideas about evolution surfaced throughout the first part of the 19th century, and while none of them was as convincing as Darwin"s—until Wallace came along—it was not as though he was the only man who had the idea. Lincoln, in contrast, is unique. Take him out of the picture, and there is no telling what might have happened to the country. True, his election to the presidency did provoke secession and, in turn, the war itself, but that war seems inevitable—not a question of if but when. Once in office, he becomes the indispensable man. Certainly we know what happened once he was assassinated: Reconstruction was ad-ministered punitively and then abandoned, leaving the issue of racial equality to dangle for another century. If Darwin were not so irreplaceable as Lincoln, that should not negate his accomplishment. No one could have formulated his theory any more elegantly. Their identical birthdays afford us a superb opportunity to observe these men in the shared context of their time—how each was shaped by his circumstances, how each reacted to the beliefs that steered the world into which he was bom and ultimately how each reshaped his corner of that world and left it irrevocably changed. Lincoln"s contribution to the world can be best described as
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
How"s this for a coincidence Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born in the same year, on the same day: Feb. 12, 1809. Although people hardly think of them in tandem, yet instinctively, we want to say that they belong together. It"s not just because they were both great men, and not because they happen to be exact contemporaries. Rather, it"s because the scientist and the politician each touched off a revolution that changed the world. They were both revolutionaries in the sense that both men upended realities that prevailed when they were born. They seem—and sound—modern to us, because the world they left behind them is more or less the one we still live in. So, considering the joint greatness of their contributions—and the coincidence of their conjoined birthdays—it is hard not to wonder: who was the greater man It"s an apples-and-oranges—or Superman-vs.-Santa—comparison. But if you limit the question to influence, very quickly the balance tips in Lincoln"s favor. As great as his book on evolution is, it does no harm to remember that Darwin hurried to publish The Origin of Species because he thought he was about to be scooped by his fellow naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace. In other words, there was a certain inevitability to Darwin"s theory. Ideas about evolution surfaced throughout the first part of the 19th century, and while none of them was as convincing as Darwin"s—until Wallace came along—it was not as though he was the only man who had the idea. Lincoln, in contrast, is unique. Take him out of the picture, and there is no telling what might have happened to the country. True, his election to the presidency did provoke secession and, in turn, the war itself, but that war seems inevitable—not a question of if but when. Once in office, he becomes the indispensable man. Certainly we know what happened once he was assassinated: Reconstruction was ad-ministered punitively and then abandoned, leaving the issue of racial equality to dangle for another century. If Darwin were not so irreplaceable as Lincoln, that should not negate his accomplishment. No one could have formulated his theory any more elegantly. Their identical birthdays afford us a superb opportunity to observe these men in the shared context of their time—how each was shaped by his circumstances, how each reacted to the beliefs that steered the world into which he was bom and ultimately how each reshaped his corner of that world and left it irrevocably changed. Which of the following is true of the text
What is a woman worth That is the question that has to be faced by divorcing couples and by their lawyers. The answers seem to be getting curiouser and curiouser. Last week a judge ordered an insurance broker to give his former wife a settlement of ￡48m. She had earlier refused his offer of about ￡20m, which is why the matter went to court. No doubt Beverley Charman was an exemplary wife, and it is written in the Book of Proverbs that the price of a virtuous woman is above rubies, but even so, 348m seems a little steep. It would buy a couple of continents" worth of rubies. What women are really worth is beset with confusion and contradiction. There was a time when what women wanted was equal pay for equal work. One of the logical consequences was that no woman was entitled to take out of a marriage any more than she brought into it. That view was later softened by a recognition that childbearing and childcare present a serious opportunity cost to most women. So now people tend to agree that at divorce a woman should be compensated both for the real value that she brought to the marriage and for the opportunity cost to herself—her long slide down the career ladder, her loss of a personal pension, her reduced chances of finding another spouse. Then there is a surprisingly unliberated tendency among women, and among men, to make estimates that are unfairly biased in favor of women. The judge in the Charmans" hearing said that this was one of the very small category of cases where the wealth created is of extraordinary proportions from extraordinary talent and energy of the husband and therefore the husband could keep more than half the assets. That still left the wife with 48m(37% of the assets). But then the judge made some odd remarks about old-fashioned attitudes. Discussing John Charman"s determination "to protect what he regards as wealth generated entirely by his efforts", he said: "In the narrow, old-fashioned sense, that perspective is understandable, if somewhat outdated." Wrong. It is the judge who sounds old-fashioned. This country is awash with clever and hardworking men who make huge sums of money while their wivesdo little to contribute to domestic comfort and not much to advance their husband"s careers.That does not mean they are not entitled to proper compensation on divorce, but I think the assumption that they are entitled to half the fruits of the marriage, unless there is good reason why not, is absurd. The main idea of the text is
B公司为增值税一般纳税人，2012年12月份发生如下经济业务： 用银行存款240000元从其他单位购入一项专利权；
肝硬化患者在很短时间里出现腹痛和大量血性腹水，不伴有发热，应首先考虑可能并发( )(1993年)
微信支付 
支付宝支付