- UID
- 539611
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2010-6-13
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
大家好，今天开始我接替映雪滴文史哲板块，大家有什么建议（关于难度、内容等）和疑问短消息给我哈！
今天的速度1、2、3、4是同一篇文章，大家读的时候注意结合上下文！
标题我白色了，大家读完文章后拉黑就可以看到。
【Time 1】
The Federalist No.1
Independent Journal
Saturday, October 27, 1787
[Alexander Hamilton]
After an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.
This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.
Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every state to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.（406）
【Time 2】
It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.
（304）
【Time 3】
And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
（325）
【Time 4】
In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.
I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: -- The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity -- The insufficiency of the present confederation to preserve that union -- The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object -- The conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican government -- Its analogy to your own state constitution -- and lastly, the additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property.
（328）
The Rest：
In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.
It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.1 This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.
（227）
【Time 5】
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court case (1966) in the area of due process of law (see Fourteenth Amendment). The decision reversed an Arizona court's conviction of Ernesto Miranda on kidnapping and rape charges. Identified in a police lineup, Miranda had been questioned, had confessed, and had signed a written statement without being told that he had a right to a lawyer; his confession was used at trial. In overturning Miranda's conviction, Chief Justice Earl Warren held that the prosecution may not use statements made by a person in police custody unless certain minimum procedural safeguards were in place. Before questioning, a person must be given what is now known as a "Miranda warning": that you have the right to remain silent; that anything you say may be used as evidence against you; that you may request the presence of an attorney, either retained by you or appointed by the court; and that you have the right, even after beginning to answer questions, to stop answering or request an attorney. The Miranda decision was one of the most controversial of the Warren Court. Under Chief Justices Warren Burger and William Rehnquist (who as a legal spokesman for the Nixon administration had proposed that Miranda be overturned), a Supreme Court more friendly to police operations limited its scope several times, although failing to reverse its central holding, and in 2000 the Rehnquist court, in an opinion authored by the chief justice, reaffirmed the original decision as a constitutional rule that may not be overturned by an act of Congress. Under a 2010 Supreme Court ruling, when a person has invoked Miranda rights, law-enforcement officials may attempt to resume questioning without a lawyer present 14 days after that person has been released from custody. Civil liberties groups have continued to protest that police routinely omit Miranda warnings.
（305）
Obstacle：
Copy-Editing the Culture: Star Trek Into Darkness
Every Valentine’s Day, Copy-Editing the Culture bakes himself a tray of nourishing bran cookies shaped like hearts and settles down to be seduced by his dear love: contemporary North American style and usage guides. It is an impassioned affair. Gently, he peels the dust jacket off The Chicago Manual of Style: Sixteenth Edition and admires the book’s creamy, well-ordered pages; he fondly fingers the pages of the “Glossary of Grammatical, Rhetorical, and other Language-Related Terms” in Garner’s Modern American Usage; he allows the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers: Seventh Edition to work its ordered magic on his vulnerable soul. His worries drift away. Afterward, dreamy with love, he indulges in a seasonal tea of pine needles and orange rind. He curls up in his modest ladder-back Shaker chair, surrounded by style books. It’s a simple ritual but a stirring one; a modicum of ecstasy, he thinks, helps warm the soul and temper the grammatical mind.
This year, however, Copy-Editing the Culture had trouble focusing on the pleasures at hand. He grew distracted from reading his favorite entry on anadiplosis. His attention, normally vigorous, became limp. The change stemmed from an item he saw in the day’s newspaper, neatly folded and resting on a corner of his table. It concerned the title of an upcoming film, Star Trek Into Darkness. What a horrific name. And what an early end to Copy-Editing the Culture’s night of love.
Where should Copy-Editing the Culture begin his complaint? It is, for one thing, entirely unclear what the title is trying to communicate. In what sense is Star Trek, the long-running television show about space travelers and their encounters with grammatically unenlightened residents of other planetary systems, “into darkness”? Copy-Editing the Culture might understand if the film were titled Star Trek in Darkness: This would be a version of the show performed with no lighting, an eccentric but feasible idea. Are there missing words—an implied verb, for example? The grammatical convention is to mark such elisions with a comma: Star Trek Going Into Darkness could become, conceivably, Star Trek, Into Darkness, describing a situation in which the show Star Trek begins with lighting but gradually loses it (an even more intriguing premise). Or perhaps the film’s creators intend Star Trek to be understood as a verb—to Star Trek—turning the title into an imperative: “Star Trek into darkness!” they urge viewers, as one might be enjoined to tango into darkness, down a dim Argentine street. (Copy-Editing the Culture once spent an evening during his wild-running years tangoing to dramatic readings from The Elements of Style; the memory of that sultry summer night—“The shape of our language is not rigid”—lingers in all its bliss.) In this construction, the title would command the viewer to begin Star Trek-ing (watching the show) in order to make his or her consciousness go dark. Copy-Editing the Culture does not understand what makes that an inviting premise for a movie.
Or perhaps the phrase “Star Trek” in the movie’s title does not, in fact, refer to the television show. Perhaps those two words are meant to function individually. This interpretation resolves certain problems but creates others. If trek is a verb—“We trek into darkness”—what, precisely, is going on with the apparent subject of the sentence, star? Why is it not plural, to match the verb form: Stars Trek Into Darkness? In what curious pidgin is this movie written? Or if trek is a noun—“His trek into darkness”—where is the article or pronoun that would give the title sense: A Star Trek Into Darkness? And what, for that matter, is a star trek? If it does involve stars, how can it be dark? Have the stars collapsed? Wouldn’t it be more descriptive, then, to call the film A Trek Into a Black Hole?
Copy-Editing the Culture is not alone in his concern for these and similarly frightening matters. Awake last night and robbed of love, he ventured onto his modest computer system and found that the Wikipedia page for the film has become a battle ground for grammatical debate. Certain Wikipedia users maintain that the into in the title should be capitalized; others are certain that it should be lowercase. Their fervor is misplaced (whether four-letter prepositions such as into ought to be capitalized varies by style standard; there is no universally correct answer) but honorable. The outrage is just what Copy-Editing the Culture needed last night to feel, maybe, a little less alone.
（752） |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-2-17 22:46:19
收藏
收藏
楼主
