题目内容
When President Obama took the stage here Wednesday to address a community—and a nation—traumatized by Saturday’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona, it invited comparisons to President George W. Bush’s speech to the nation after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the memorial service President Bill Clinton led after the bombing of a federal office building killed 168 people in Oklahoma City in 1995. But Mr. Obama’s appearance presented a deeper challenge, reflecting the tenor of his times. Unlike those tragedies-which, at least initially, united a mournful country and quieted partisan divisions—this one has, in the days since the killings, had the opposite effect, inflaming the divide. It was a political reality Mr. Obama seemed to recognize the moment he took the stage. He directly confronted the political debate that erupted after the rampage, asking people of all beliefs not to use the tragedy to turn on one another. He called for an end to partisan recriminations, and for a unity that has seemed increasingly elusive as each day has brought more harsh condemnations from the left and the right. It was one of the more powerful addresses that Mr. Obama has delivered as president, harnessing the emotion generated by the shock and loss from Saturday’s shootings to urge Americans "to remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together.\ He called for an end to partisan recriminations, and for a unity that has seemed increasingly elusive as each day has brought more harsh condemnations from the left and the right.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
What will the woman do at the end of the conversation
Why will the man draw the woman a map
A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface-kindling bitter debate even if it fails to become law. At issue is "birthright citizenship" —provided for since the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Section 1 of that amendment, drafted with freed slaves in mind, says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants. Thus they contend that federal legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to end birthright citizenship. "Most Americans feel it doesn’t make any sense for people to come into the country illegally, give birth and have a new U.S. citizen," said the spokesman of the federation of American immigration reform. "But the advocates for illegal immigrants will make a fuss; they’ll claim you’re punishing the children, and I suspect the leadership doesn’t want to deal with that.\ Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants. Thus they contend that federal legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to end birthright citizenship.
The most important fact in Washington’s failure on Thursday to be re-elected for the first time since 1947 to the U.N. Human Rights Commission is that it was America’s friends, not its enemies, that engineered the defeat. After all, China and Cuba and other targets of U.S.-led criticism in the committee were always going to vote and lobby against Washington; the shock came in the fact that the European and other Western nations that traditionally ensured U.S. reelection turned their backs on Washington. Many traditional U.S. supporters clearly withdrew their votes to signal displeasure over U.S. unilateralism. They have been increasingly chagrined by Washington’s tendency to ignore the international consensus on issues ranging from the use of land mines to the Kyoto climate change treaty. They are also critical of what they see as Washington’s tendency to publicise the issue of human rights, using annual resolutions at the committee to denounce China or Cuba when that conforms to U.S. foreign policy objectives but for the same reason voting alone in defence of Israel when that country is in the dock over its conduct. The most important fact in Washington’s failure on Thursday to be re-elected for the first time since 1947 to the U.N. Human Rights Commission is that it was America’s friends, not its enemies, that engineered the defeat.
微信支付 
支付宝支付