题目内容
According to the passage, which of the following statements is NOT true？
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
According to the news report, President Bush was sorry for the following EXCEPT______.
听力原文： President Bush has apologized for U. S. soldiers who abused prisoners in Iraq. The apology came during a meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah.
President Bush says he told King Abdullah that those responsible for the wrongdoing will be brought to justice, and their actions do not represent American values.
"I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families. I told him I was equally sorry that people who have been seeing those pictures didn't understand the true nature and heart of America, "Mr. Bush said.
Mr. Bush says he and Americans are sickened by images of the abuse, which he says are a stain on America's reputation.
In interviews Wednesday with Arab-language television stations, Mr. Bush denounced the abuse, but stepped short of apologizing for it.
King Abdullah said Jordanians were also horrified by the images, but he is confident the abuse does not reflect U. S. morals or standards.
During his talk with King Abdullah, President Bush______.
Nice people do racism too. Liberal commitment to a multi-ethnic Britain is wilting. Some very nice folk have apparently decided that the nation's real problem is too many immigrants of too many kinds. Faced with a daily onslaught against migrants it may be understandable to give in to populist bigotry; but it is not forgivable.
Take this, for example: "National citizenship is inherently exclusionary." So no foreigners need ever apply for naturalisation, then. And" ... public anxiety about migration ... is usually based on a rational understanding of the value of British citizenship and its~ incompatibility with over-porous borders". Straight from the lexicon of the far right. And best of all: "You can have a welfare state provided that you are a homogenous society with intensely shared values."
These are extracts from an article in the Observer, penned by the liberal intellectual Goodhart, who is just one of several liberal thinkers now vigorously making what they consider a progressive argument against immigration. It goes like this: the more diverse a society, the less likely its citizens are to share common values; the fewer common values, the weaker the support for vital institutions of social solidarity, such as the welfare state and the National Health Service.
There are perfectly good reasons to worry about how we respond to immigration, not least the downward pressure on workers' wages; the growth of racial inequality; and the exploitation of illegals. But the answer to these problems is not genteel xenophobia, but trade union rights, backed by equality and employment law.
The xenophobes should come clean. Their argument is not about immigration at all. They are liberal Powellites; what really bothers them is race and culture. If today's immigrants were white people from the old Commonwealth, Goodhart and his friends would say that they pose no threat because they share Anglo-Saxon values.
Unfortunately for liberal Powellites, the real history of the NHS shatters their fundamental case against diversity. The NHS is a world-beating example of the way that ethnic diversity can create social solidarity. Launched by a Welshman, built by Irish: labourers, founded on the skills of Caribbean nurses and Indian doctors, it is now being rescued by an emergency injection of Filipino nurses, refugee ancillaries and antipodean medics. And it remains 100% British.
Virtually all of our public services have depended heavily on immigrants. Powell was forced to admit as much when, as minister for health he advertised for staff in the Caribbean. His new admirers will discover that a rapidly depopulating Europe will have no choice but to embrace diversity.
For the moment, however, the liberal Powellites are gaining support in high places. Their ideas are inspired by the work of the American sociologist Putnam, a Downing Street favourite. He purports to show that dynamic, diverse communities are more fragmented than stable, monoethnic ones. But the policy wonks have forgotten that Putnam's research was conducted in a society so marked by segregation that even black millionaires still live in gated ghettoes.
The prime minister still seems uneasy on the issue. Last week, he wavered uncertainly between backing his pro-immigration home secretary, and a defensive response to Howard's goading that the government was in a mess on the topic.
Oddly enough, this is a place in the arena of world politics where the PM does not stand shoulder to shoulder with Bush. The Spanish-speaking former governor of Texas recently announced that he would "regularise" the status of millions of illegal Mexican immigrants who had slipped across the border to work. It's the kind of massive amnesty that would send the Daily Express into conniptions.
Even more peculiar, the prime minister appears to be ignoring not only Blunkett but also his new best friend, the
Section B
Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A, B, C and D. You should decide on the best choice.
One of the saddest things about the period in which we live is the growing estrangement between America and Europe. This may be a surprising discovery to those who are over impressed by the speed with which turbojets can hop from New York to Paris. But to anyone who is aware of what America once meant to English libertarian poets and philosophers, to the young Ibsen bitterly excoriating European royalty for the murder of Lincoln, to Italian novelists and poets translating the nineteenth century American classics as a demonstration against Fascism, there is something particularly disquieting in the way that the European Left, historically "pro-American" because it identified America with expansive democracy, now punishes America with Europe's lack of hope in the future.
Although America has obviously not fulfilled the visionary hope entertained for it in the romantic heyday, Americans have, until recently, thought of themselves as an idea, a "proposition" (in Lincoln's word) set up for the enlightenment and the improvement of mankind. Officially, we live by our original principles; we insist on this boastfully and even inhumanly. And it is precisely this steadfastness to principle that irks Europeans who under so many pressures have had to shift and to change, to compromise and to retreat.
Historically, the obstinacy of America's faith in "principles" has been staggering—the sacrament of the Constitution, the legacy of the Founding Fathers, the moral Tightness of all our policies, the invincibility of our faith in the equality and perfectibility of man. From the European point of view, there is something impossibly romantic, visionary, and finally outrageous about an attachment to political formulas that arose even before a European revolutionary democracy was born of the French Revolution, and that have survived all the socialist Utopias and internationals. Americans honestly insist on the equality of men even when they deny this equality in practice; they hold fast to romantic doctrines of perfectibility even when such doctrines contradict their actual or their formal faith—whether it be as scientists or as orthodox Christians.
It is a fact that while Americans as a people are notoriously empirical, pragmatic, and unintellectual, they live their lives against a background of unalterable national shibboleths. The same abundance of theory that allowed Walt Whitman to fill out his poetry with philosophical road signs of American optimism allows a president to make pious references to God as an American tradition—references which, despite their somewhat mechanical quality, are not only sincere but which, to most Americans, express the reality of America.
The writer uses the example of Ibsen and others to maintain that ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付