- UID
- 735996
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-3-14
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
嗷~~母亲节到鸟~~大家别忘了给最爱你的母亲送祝福聊聊天哇~其实母亲关注的不是你G能考多少分，而是你能经常和她聊聊天，不管她听不听得懂~
再过几天就要一战了。。。这几天都没在跟小分队~~一战完了再来补作业好了
速度
President Obama States Support for Same-Sex Marriage
计时1
This week, President Obama said he now supports same-sex marriage.
BARACK OBAMA: "I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
He became the first sitting American president to express that opinion. Earlier he had said his thinking on the issue was "evolving."
Reaction in Congress was mixed. Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the minority Democrats in the House of Representatives, welcomed the news.
NANCY PELOSI: "America's children and families and workers saw history being made right before their very eyes: the president of the United States advancing civil rights in our country."
But Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans in the House said the president was sending the wrong message at the wrong time.
JOHN BOEHNER: "I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And the president, the Democrats can talk about all this all they want. But, the fact is, the American people are focused on our economy, and they are asking the question: where are the jobs?"
House Republicans are leading a court case against the administration for not defending a federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act. That nineteen ninety-six law defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
In the Senate, Republicans did not say much about the president's announcement. Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would support same-sex marriage if the issue were put to voters in his home state of Nevada.
Mr. Obama received strong support from politically influential gays and lesbians in the two thousand eight campaign. His re-election campaign says donations from both groups have greatly increased since his announcement.
Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential candidate, opposes same-sex marriage.
MITT ROMNEY: "My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, and that is the position I have had for some time and I don't intend to make any adjustments at this point."
【316】
计时2
Support for same-sex marriage has grown in recent years, especially among younger people. A recent Gallup public opinion survey suggested that Americans are now evenly split on the issue. Gallup first asked the question in nineteen ninety-six. That year only twenty-seven percent of people said they supported same-sex marriage.
The president's position on the issue gained new attention after a TV appearance Sunday by Vice President Joe Biden. He was on NBC's "Meet the Press" program.
JOE BIDEN: "I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men marrying women are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties."
President Obama announced the change in his thinking on ABC News on Wednesday.
BARACK OBAMA: "At a certain point, I just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
He noted his success at ending the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act.
But Mr. Obama said he still supports the right of individual states to decide the marriage issue. He spoke a day after a large majority of voters in North Carolina approved a state constitutional ban on homosexual marriage. North Carolina became the thirtieth state to pass such an amendment. The ban also includes civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Currently, six of the fifty states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to marry. Nine states allow civil unions or provide rights under domestic partnership laws.
【267】
Sex and power: why women choose to go missing from the top jobs
计时3
There are 5,400 women missing from Britain's most powerful jobs. They should be inparliament, in the cabinet, and running big companies and major public sector organisations. At the current rate of progress, it will be another 70 years before there is equal representation of women in parliament and on the boards of FTSE 100 companies. Gender equality makes periodic leaps forward and then slows to a glacial pace for a few decades; it sprints in some areas and remains stubbornly stuck in others.
Now we are fast moving into a strange paradox in which the numbers of women overtake men in entering further education and many professions – women are set to make up a majority of doctors by 2017 – but men still overtake them to reach the top. It's a rumstate of affairs when the most powerful are selected from an ever smaller section of the workforce, leaving to waste the huge investment in women's skills.
Time for a reckoning. It's roughly my generation that is failing to break through into the top jobs. Women in their 40s and 50s who could now be running the country but aren't, according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission's report Sex and Power. Its analysis is that it's a case of discrimination – direct and indirect. Motherhood and domestic responsibilities still exact a steep penalty. I feel like I'm back on the school hockey pitch (I was useless) with my PE teacher urging me to make a bit more of an effort and get stuck in.
【253】
计时4
Well, before we creep off the pitch with a chronic sense of failure, it's cheering to remember what this generation has achieved. Twenty five years ago, part-time work in professional occupations was virtually unheard of. There was only one model of female career success, and it consciously aimed to emulate a driven, obsessive male version – it was the era of shoulder pads and cliches of ball-crunching women bosses.
Since then, the workplace has been revolutionised with a huge increase in the number of women working part-time. Working mothers are no longer a novelty, and fathering no longer part of a hidden private life. In most offices, slipping the Christmas nativity play or a teacher meeting into a busy day is routine. The importance of family life, and the necessity of flexibility for childcare have become part of office culture. Women bosses have escaped ludicrous stereotypes to become normal. That's quite an achievement – something I never dreamed would be possible when I had my first child and was back at the desk full-time within four months of her birth. Now I look at colleagues routinely taking a year's maternity leave and returning part-time.
But it's two steps forward, one step back. The labour market has segregated into one for mums and one for serious players. Mums look for cosy niches – jobs they can manage without too much strain on the family, for which they still take the bulk of responsibility. When men take on the primary-carer role and go part-time, it can play a crucial role in helping women to reach the top – but change here inches forward. The gender roles around caring and breadwinning have proved resistant to change.
【279】
计时5
Perhaps we should be less surprised – or frustrated – that this kind of social change can take time. We have been a transitional generation, trying to live up to our stay-at-home mothers' standards of availability and attention while also carving out careers. Equally, men have sought to emulate their fathers' career dedication while responding to new expectations of engaged parenting. It's hardly surprising the concept of "role strain" litters the research studies.
It's not just the infamous "homemade" mince pies for the school fete (bought and bashed about with a rolling pin at midnight to look homemade) in Allison Pearson's novel I Don't Know How She Does It, but now new communication technologies require instantaneous multi-tasking – a child texting that they are locked out/been mugged/hungry as you sit in an important meeting. Or the reverse, at home and caught between the demands of a BlackBerry and a toddler. The complete separation of personal and professional life, a hallmark of 20th-century careers, has imploded, bequeathing us with a complex juggling act. Not only is it exhausting, but it can simply do your head in.
Some men and women enjoy juggling and get very good at it, but it requires ferocious organisation, focus and energy. Lots don't have them, or don't even want them. I know many women my age who could be among those "missing" at the top; instead of becoming chief executives they've worked out a combination of family and work that leaves time for friends, hobbies, voluntary work and exercise. Its priorities map well on to the research literature on happiness; an aspect that perhaps doesn't get the acknowledgement it deserves.
Ambition has proved hard to combine with the mundane requirements of secure nurturing. The cost is obvious; they don't get the power or conventional measures of professional success. It's not letting the sisterhood down but holding on to values of relationships and wellbeing. We're delighted to see others forging ahead and crashing through the prejudices, but we shiver at the price it might exact in our own lives.
【339】
越障
Law and the President
BOOK REVIEW BY RICHARD H. PILDES
THE EXECUTIVE UNBOUND: AFTER THE MADISONIAN REPUBLIC. By Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. 2010. Pp. 3, 249. $29.95.
How much does law in fact constrain the exercise of presidential power, in both domestic and foreign affairs? How much should law constrain presidential power?
It is widely recognized that the expansion of presidential power from the start of the twentieth century onward has been among the central features of American political development. While Andrew Jackson, with his rhetorical creation of the “plebiscitary presidency,” and Abraham Lincoln, with his invocation of presidential war powers during the existential military threat of the Civil War, were among the most powerful and activist of all presidents, the nineteenth-century presidency was essentially a narrowly understood office that presided over a highly decentralized and fragmented political system. What Theodore Roosevelt later began identifying and celebrating as the “Jackson-Lincoln” school of presidential practice remained latent through most of the nineteenth century. As the timing of Roosevelt’s comments signals, it was the Progressive movement, first at the state and then at the national level, that turned to executive power as the institutional vehicle through which to bypass corruption-plagued, paralyzed legislative bodies and status quo–affirming courts, and realize the Progressives’ agenda of an activist government, responsive to average voters, that would ensure health, safety, and economic fairness in a world transformed by industrialization and concentration of economic power.
A string of Progressive Era presidents and intellectuals revived, enhanced, legitimated, and institutionalized the expansive presidency with which, with ebbs and flows, we have since lived. Woodrow Wilson, in his later years as a scholar before assuming office, urged presidents to view their office as “anything [they have] the sagacity and force to make it.” Herbert Croly, a key architect of the Progressive movement, has been characterized as seeking to realize “Jeffersonian ends through Hamiltonian means.” Indeed, this renaissance of Alexander Hamilton as the original visionary of the energetic President, capable of cutting through factional division and corruption, was characteristic and oft repeated. Calling Hamilton “the most brilliant American statesman who ever lived, possessing the loftiest and keenest intellect of his time,” Roosevelt conjured up Hamilton’s spirit; even Roosevelt’s more conservative successor, William Howard Taft, similarly praised Hamilton as “our greatest constructive statesman.” Meanwhile, Progressives disparaged the Constitution’s system of checks and balances as a blueprint for government “divided against itself,” a government “deliberately and effectively weakened,” that could be forged into an instrument of effective power only through the dominating, energetic leadership of a commanding President.
Thus, long before the New Deal, those seeking an activist national government had envisioned a powerful presidency as the vehicle through which their aims could (and had to) be realized. In the aftermath of World War II, Congress’s power was further discredited in foreign affairs and military matters by its abject failure in the 1930s to come to terms with the threat that the rise of Nazi Germany posed — a failure that continued to limit Congress’s credibility in these areas for thirty or so years after the war. And as is well known, the ensuing rise of the Cold War, the national security state, and the constant specter of instant nuclear annihilation further enhanced the legitimacy (and reality) of ever-expanding presidential power.
Only in the 1970s did this general thrust in the direction of enhanced presidential power confront more complex terrain. In the aftermath of the presidentially led Vietnam War, increased U.S. participation in wars of choice rather than of necessity, and President Nixon’s domestic abuses of the office, liberals (in particular) developed anxiety and ambivalence about the powers of the presidency. The work of many of the great liberal constitutional scholars for whom the Vietnam War was a formative experience reflected this newfound concern; in the mid-1970s, Congress enacted a series of statutes designed to cabin presidential power.
Yet this transformation of perspective about the proper bounds of presidential power was countered by the rise of a transformative conservative movement, cresting initially in President Reagan’s 1980 election, which had as its aim a dramatic undoing of the New Deal consensus that had reigned since the 1940s. And like all modern insurgent national movements, the new Republican majority viewed presidential power as the means through which its ambitions would be most effectively and immediately realized. Conservatives, the one source of efforts to urge limitations on presidential power throughout the twentieth century, now became the leading proponents of the energetic, forceful presidency that had been transforming American government throughout the century. Thus, as Democratic presidents of the 1990s and 2000s became more ambivalent about presidential power than their predecessors, Republican presidents seized the scepter of expansive presidential power. And with their greater control of the presidency since the 1980s, Republicans had greater opportunity to implement their vision — a vision that included renewed emphasis on the “unitary executive branch” theory of government administration as well as more aggressive assertions of autonomous Article II powers, which Congress purportedly could not restrict, than in the past. In addition, as presidents of both parties found the path to legislative partnership blocked by the rise of hyperpolarized political parties, particularly during divided government, presidents found new tools to set policy unilaterally, without congressional endorsement. Thus, presidential power expanded through liberal hands for most of the century, and just as liberals began to have second thoughts, conservatives propelled the expanding presidency further.
【873】 |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-5-13 20:52:39
收藏
收藏
