题目内容

数据库系统的三级组织结构中，DBA视图是【】。

查看答案

搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈

更多问题

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.\ 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.

In the coming decades, Europe’s influence on affairs beyond its borders will be sharply limited, and it is in other regions, not Europe, that the 21st century will be most clearly forged and defined. Certainly, one reason for NATO’s increasing marginalization stems from the behavior of its European members. With NATO, critical decisions are still made nationally; much of the talk about a common defense policy remains just that—talk. There is little specialization or coordination. Missing as well are many of the logistical and intelligence assets needed to project military force on distant battlefields. With the Cold War and the Soviet threat a distant memory, there is little political willingness, on a country-by-country basis, to provide adequate public funds to the military. Political and demographic changes within Europe, as well as the United States, also ensure that the transatlantic alliance will lose prominence. In Europe, the E.U. project still consumes the attention of many, but for others, especially those in-southern Europe facing unsustainable fiscal shortfalls, domestic economic turmoil takes precedence. No doubt, Europe’s security challenges are geographically, politically and psychologically less immediate to the population than its economic ones. Mounting financial problems and the imperative to cut deficits are sure to limit what Europeans can do militarily beyond their continent. It is true that the era in which Europe and transatlantic relations dominated U.S. foreign policy is over. With the Cold War and the Soviet threat a distant memory, there is little political willingness, on a country-by-country basis, to provide adequate public funds to the military.

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.\ 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.

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. 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.