题目内容
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. It can be inferred that in the health care bill, there are some pieces concerning______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
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 author is opposed to breaking the health care bill into pieces because______.
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.
There are two moments that Alice and Henry remember with exceptional poignancy. The first occurred near the beginning of their relationship, when they looked at each other with the full knowledge of loving and being loved. Years later, they looked into each other’s eyes and suddenly saw a stranger; their attitudes shaped by hurt and anger. This couple came to consult me because they wanted to learn if there was any possibility of re-igniting the flame that had once burned between them. ① Both acted almost ashamed, as if they knew they once had something precious and had somehow betrayed it. ② Alice and Henry asked me a question I hear many times in my counseling practice. Are there specific ways in which couples who remain happy in love behave differently from couples who do not The answer, I told them, is yes. My own studies, as well as those of other marriage counselors, show that happy couples consistently exhibit these behaviors: They say, "I love you. " Happy couples express their love in words. They do not say, "What do you mean, do I love you I married you, didn’t 1.9 Saying the words," one woman remarked, "is a way of touching. " They express their appreciation and admiration. Successful couples talk about what they like in each other. "My husband had always been my best audience," one woman said to me. "Whether it’s something I did at work that day, or a clever remark I made at party—he seems to notice everything. He lets me see his pride and delight. I feel like I’m standing in the most marvelous spotlight. I only hope I’m as good at expressing my appreciation of him, because I’ll tell you something: being loved is the second-best thing in the world; loving someone is the best. " They reveal themselves to each other. Happy couples share their inner lives with each other more than with any other person. They share thoughts, feelings, hopes and aspirations as well as hurt, anger, longing, and memories of painful or embarrassing experiences. They offer each other emotional support. Couples who are happy are there for each other in times of illness, difficulty and crisis. They are best friends and nurture each other. They express love materially. Happy couples give gifts on more than just routine occasions, or perform tasks in order to lighten the partner’s burdens. The cost of such gifts is not relevant. What is relevant is the underlying intention: to give pleasure to the partner. The reward is the expression of joy or satisfaction on the partner’s face. They accept demands and put up with shortcomings. Demands and shortcomings are integral to every happy relationship. So are the benevolence and grace with which successful couples respond to them. They do not torment themselves or each other over imperfections. Each knows he or she is not perfect. Both understand that their partner’s virtues outweigh his or her flaws. They choose to enjoy the positives rather than drown the relationship in a preoccupation with the negatives. According to the passage, we can infer that ______.
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 suggestion to scale back Democrats’ proposals for Republican support seems to be______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付