题目内容
You might think they would have learned their lesson by now. At the end of 2005 Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill that cracked down on illegal immigration, while doing nothing to regularise the position of the 12m or so people, mostly of Hispanic origin, who were living and working inside the United States without the proper papers, or to create a mechanism for allowing in people from Mexico and other southern neighbours to work with temporary permits. The bill never became law, but its one-sided nature helped stamp the Republicans (92% of whom voted for it in the House) as an anti-immigrant party. In April 2006 Latinos organised a day of protests in more than 100 cities; more than 500,000 people marched in Los Angeles alone. In the 2008 election 67% of Hispanics voted for Barack Obama.Now it is all happening again. Until now, the detection of illegal immigrants has invariably been a matter for the federal authorities.Republican-governed Arizona has just enacted a tough new law of its own: it requires state police to check the papers of anyone whose immigration status they have "reasonable" cause to doubt. Opponents say this is sure to lead to racial profiling. The bill is popular with angry white locals, so much so that the previously reform-minded John McCain, who is running for re-election to the Senate in Arizona, has not dared to oppose it. But in a country that is turning Hispanic at a rapid rate (by mid-century white Anglos will be another minority), the Republicans are once again hellbent on being on the wrong side of demography. The backlash will surely last longer than any bump in popularity gained by looking tough. The marches have begun again: on May 1st, up to a million people across the country took to the streets, by no means all of them Hispanic.For those who yearn for America to have a sensible immigration policy, the Arizona bill is a reason for both despair and hope. The first is easier to spell out. By any measure, Arizona’s offering is deeply illiberal. It would require all non-U. S. citizens to carry documents proving their immigration status, and would require police to check those papers in any contact with anyone who might be illegal. The obvious danger is that it would lead to the systematic harassment of brown-skinned people, including legal immigrants. As for illegals, it would simply drive even more of them underground. It would also criminalise anyone who shelters or helps illegals. Even the plan’s fans acknowledge that this is the toughest such bill ever passed in America.Paradoxically, the reason for hope is much the same. The bill is such a shocker that it is restarting the national debate. The Arizona law passed largely because the government is failing to do its job. The border is not secure; employers can and do hire people who have no legal right to be in America; and cross-border crime is on the rise. Better enforcement is needed. But on both political and moral grounds, better enforcement can only he part of a comprehensive immigration reform. The 12m illegals cannot be wished away, but must be given a chance to earn their citizenship; a guest-worker programme is needed to match the demands of employers with the desire of Mexicans and others to work. Mr. Obama’s administration has talked a lot about an immigration bill. It is now long past time that they produced one. Otherwise, expect to see more Arizonas. The Arizona bill is believed to be().
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Kathryn Harrison is a wonderful writer. It seems important to get that on the table right away, since for most readers, her name will elicit one fact: Kathryn Harrison wrote a memoir about having slept with her father. Back in 1997, that notoriously hyper publicized book, "The Kiss"—in which she recounted an affair she had in her 20’s with the father she had not seen since she was a child—set critics scratching furiously at the welts it raised in the culture, largely neglecting the book in the process for its lurid cover story. Skip to next paragraphIn the hubbub, few pointed out that "The Kiss" is a pretty terrific memoir. Poetic and compressed, it is not a pointed finger, or an artless blurt, but a grimly hypnotic horror story, making human what might in other hands seem merely grotesque. That’s Harrison’s particular gift as a writer; and while her output, from memoirs and essays and novels, has been of varying quality, she has continually circled around her central, obsessive themes: narcissism, family violation, sexual taboo and physical suffering. For better or worse, this is a writer who veers toward what others find distasteful; in her novels, she has found parallel torments everywhere in history, from foot-binding in China ("The Binding Chair") to the Inquisition ("Poison").The setting of "Envy" is less exotic. Will Moreland, a New York psychoanalyst, thinks at once too much and too little. His son has died. His twin brother—a world-famous swimmer—is estranged. His wife is distant. In fact, everything in this grief-stained but otherwise normal existence feels a little distant, and Will himself appears, if not precisely unreliable, then slightly clueless. In his struggle to wriggle out from his own anxieties, his remarks can seem like witty meta-comments on the narrative itself: "Yes, he’s obsessed with sex. How else could he escape the inside of his head, where every thought refuses to be fleeting and instead waits its turn to be hyperarticulated, edited, revised and then annotated like some nightmare hybrid of Talmudic commentary and Freudian case study"In the spellbinding opening chapters, Will attends his college reunion and confronts an old girlfriend who may or may not have gotten pregnant by him years back. The ex is a grade-A wench, and their run-in is a startling rat-a-tat of mutual accusation. "Ironic that she’d become a dermatologist," Will thinks. "She’d always had a personality like a rash, itchy, chafing, the kind of woman who just won’t let you get comfortable." She ends the scene (and it does feel like a scene—the best elements of "Envy" are its most theatrical) with the fair-enough remark, "You are an excellent example of why it is that people think shrinks are nuts."The pages that follow ignore this electric showdown, or at least repress it. There’s a lot going on here, perhaps too much: a married couple drifting apart in grief, tension between Will and his philandering father, identical twins with non identical faces, a patient whose seductive behavior spills insistently over the edges of her shrink’s couch. And despite Will’s agitated attempts to interrogate the meaning of his life, he is surrounded by people who would prefer that he stop his inquiries immediately. As much detective as psychoanalyst, he’s too blinded by over thinking to give in to his own intuition.Then abruptly, with one traumatic sexual sequence, these disparate story lines cohere to reveal a new pattern: a Rorschach plot, in essence. The book’s muted family problems become elements in a Greekish tragedy, one filled with the tropes of sexual violation for which Harrison is best known. It’s like one of those souvenir 1950’s pens that tilt upside down to strip an innocent cheesecake model to her pornographic double, and Harrison’s witty, lucid, poetic sentences do carry us quite a long way through passages rife with the kind of ickiness bound to alienate some readers and rivet others.Unfortunately, her consistently skillful descriptions aren’t quite enough to make the novel pay off in the end. As heightened as this hidden plot turns out to be, it is frustratingly formulaic at its deepest level. It’s a dream horror that finally feels all too dreamlike, too embeddedly symbolic to have the pang of real life. And when the villain of the book is unmasked—and there is a villain, as blackhearted as a medieval troll—it’s disappointing to find a sociopath standing behind that particular door. So rank an antagonist renders the whole question of analytical motivation moot: the human flaws of the other characters pale by contrast; their struggles seem weightless next to such grave crimes.Still. there are standout moments here, mainly in the most chaotic and unmediated confrontations: the sequences, especially, in which a waifish, tattooed, sardonic, compulsively sexual graduate student is transformed into the world’s most disturbing therapy patient. What finally marks the book is Harrison’s abandonment of the tragic mode. After a series of lurid turns that would leave most families in seizures of distress, her characters do not collapse, or brutalize one another. Instead, they fulfill Will’s deepest psychoanalytic desires, and confess—reeling out monologues far less con vincing than the showdowns that came before. We are left with the loving attempts of well-meaning people to heal their wounds. In real life, that would be a beautiful ending; but in a novel soaked so deeply in horror, it feels too much like wishful thinking. What does Will Moreland think of his old girlfriend rash, itchy, chafing().
The two Koreans signed a deal last Friday to allow reunions of families separated since the 1950s and the return of former Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) prisoners.A delegation of 100.people is to travel to DPRK capital Pyongyang and 100 North Koreans will visit relatives in Seoul beginning on August 152, 000, reports said.The two sides also agreed to repatriate all DPRK prisoners formerly held in the South. The two Koreans signed a deal to allow ().
An interview with Helena Norberg-Hodge, about her work in a pristine, ancient Himalayan culture as it faced the siren song of western-style development. Share International US editor Monte Leach spoke with Norberg-Hodge on her recent visit to the San Francisco Bay Area.Share International: How did you first get involved with helping to preserve the Ladakhi cultureHelena Norberg-Hodge: I trekked into remote valleys and spoke to Ladakhi people everywhere. I saw quite a remarkable self-reliant wealth and above all an amazing self-esteem of people who were models of what it means to feel completely secure in their own identity and place. They seemed to be the most open, happy and humble people. And they told me they had never known hunger. They had a standard of living much higher than I would have expected, none of it from so-called progress.SI: How did their way of life begin to be underminedHNH: The Indian Government had a territorial dispute with the Chinese, and decided to develop this area as a way of ensuring that it became a closer part of India. Their approach to development was based on a Western model which had nothing to do with local knowledge and resources. This included pushing chemical fertilizers and pesticides, including DDT and other outlawed pesticides. It meant subsidizing white rice and white sugar from the outside. These subsidies for imported food were destroying local food production, and creating a total dependence on imports. It was making the region very vulnerable. Subsidized fossil fuels like kerosene and coal being brought in to heat houses also led to subsidized transport. It meant that roads the government was building were actually destroying the local economy.Tourism also became part of the Indian Government’s plan to develop the area. Nearly every foreigner who came there was just amazed by how peaceful, happy and beautiful the place and people were. The foreigners would say: "Oh, what a paradise. What a pity it has to be destroyed." When I heard this for something like the 100th time, something within me snapped. I was closely involved with the local people, and I knew not a single one of them thought of this as destruction. Not a single local person ever said: "What a pity we have to be destroyed." I realized the foreigners had seen that in the rest of the world this type of economic growth could be very destructive. I also realized the local people knew nothing about it. Around that time I read a book called Small is Beautiful. It gave me the conviction that things could be done differently and meeting the outside world didn’t have to mean destruction.I started talking to the local people about what development had meant in other parts of the world. I realized riley were getting a completely wrong view of what life was like in the West. They were saying: "My God, you must be incredibly wealthy." They were getting an impression that we never need to work, that we have infinite wealth and leisure. It is not that they were unintelligent, but they had limited information about this other world.That led me to realize that I could do work which would provide more accurate information. My goal was not to tell the Ladakhis what to do, not even to tell them that they should stay exactly the way they were, but to provide as much information as possible on what life is really like in the West. That included information on our problems of pollution, unemployment, and poverty, and that a lot of the poverty in the so-called Third World was due to our wealth in the developed world. I also wanted to show that many Westerners who ended up a part of this system were struggling in their own country to find a more environmentally and socially equitable way of living. I gave examples that some people were using solar energy and growing food organically, and implementing a range of more sustainable and equitable alternatives.SI: What kind of response did you get from the LadakhisHNH: On the whole the information was received with great interest and appreciation. The end result was that the message showed them they need not feel ashamed about who they were, or think they were backward or primitive. There were also modernized young men who for a while thought this approach would hold them back, but they have on the whole now changed. I think the support now for this work is tremendous, and growing all the time in Ladakh. As far as tourism concerned, local people.().
Have all-male clubs lost their cachet A decade ago, the testosterone fortress of the Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia was a battlefront of the feminist movement. Now, as the club contemplates a historic first offer of membership to a woman—Virginia "Ginni" Rometty, Chief Executive Officer of IBM, which is a sponsor of this week’s Masters Tournament—the most remarkable part of the story is that this time there’s a near-universal consensus."A lot is different now," says Ilene Lang, President and Chief Executive Officer of Catalyst, a global firm that studies women in business. "To most people looking at this, it just seems silly." Yet silly or not, Lang says it’s about time Augusta got on the distaff side of history. "It is still discrimination," she says, "and it’s ridiculous."Rometty has stayed mum on whether she’ll get—or even covets—the boxy green blazer that the club has awarded to her four predecessors at IBM. At a press event Wednesday, Augusta Chairman Billy Payne, who called Tiger Woods a disappointment for his 2010 sex scandal, dodged questions about Rometty. Meanwhile, President Obama and Mitt Romney said they believe women should be admitted, and Callista Gingrich expressed interest in becoming a member.The notion of women fighting to get into the old boys’ club seems almost quaint now, when every socioeconomic indicator shows female fortunes on the rise, while men, it seems, devote more and more time to sexting naughty photos. Augusta is one of the few remaining bastions of a particularly anachronistic kind of male privilege, where men of means enjoy golf, whisky, and whatever other private pleasures they take in the company of their own sex.Less than one percent of America’s golf clubs are still closed to women. Most big-city social groups have opened their doors, as have most country clubs and secret societies. Those that haven’t carry enough stigma that politicians regularly resign from them before running for office—as Mike Bloomberg did with New York’s Brook Club before he ran for mayor."Certainly, I think the mainstream is less accepting of this kind of discrimination," says Sally Frank, a law professor who successfully sued Princeton’s all-male eating clubs while a student at the university in the 1980s. Furthermore, the social aspect of male-only clubs is hardly as tantalizing as it once was. Does any powerful woman actually long to participate in the ritualistic cross-dressing that passes for entertainment at VIP man-camp Bohemian GroveStill, admission for Rometty does matter. Says Martha Burk, who led the campaign against Augusta in 2002: "What I fear is that [Augusta will] come up with some kind of half-baked ’solution,’ such as not letting her in now but maybe waiting a year or two when all this female stuff blows over."But the "female stuff" likely won’t blow over. Rometty, whose true passion is scuba diving, is in increasingly feminine company in the C-suite, which includes the CEOs of HP, Xerox, and Pepsi. If Augusta National clings to its no-estrogen policy, will it really be able to maintain its white-hot power status for much longer You can’t make deals on the back nine when all the CEOs are at the bottom of the ocean, swimming with sharks. (From Newsweek; 572 words) "Bastions" in the fourth paragraph is an example of().
微信支付 
支付宝支付