According to the passage, which of the following statements is NOT true?
A. Hewet was in love with Rachel but he did not want to marry her.
B. Hewet saw in his mind unpleasant pictures of married couples.
C. Hewet believed married women were worse than married men.
D. Hewet's most individual and humane friends were not married.
According to the news report, President Bush was sorry for the following EXCEPT______.
A. the abuse of Iraqi prisoners
B. the Iraqi prisoners' humiliation
C. that many people didn't understand America
D. that those responsible for the abuse were not brought to justice
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______.
A. denied that U. S. soldiers were to blame for their abuse of prisoners in Iraq
B. refused to admit that it was an error to launch the war on Iraq
C. made an apology for American soldiers' abuse of prisoners in Iraq
D. required Jordan to give help in fighting against terrorism
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
A. genteel xenophobia
B. liberal commitment
C. Britain's multi-ethnicity
D. populist bigotry