- 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
|
Dear大家，五一快乐呀！
今天的文章是这样的：1、2是一篇，3、4是一篇，5和extension是一篇
SPEED
【TIME 1】
The Lady, or theTiger?
Long ago, in the very olden time, there lived a powerful king. Some of his ideas were progressive. But others caused people to suffer.
One of the king's ideas was a public arena as an agent of poetic justice. Crime was punished, or innocence was decided, by the result of chance. When a person was accused of a crime, his future would be judged in the public arena.
All the people would gather in this building. The king sat high up on his ceremonial chair. He gave a sign. A door under him opened. The accused person stepped out into the arena. Directly opposite the king were two doors. They were side by side, exactly alike. The person on trial had to walk directly to these doors and open one of them. He could open whichever door he pleased.
If the accused man opened one door, out came a hungry tiger, the fiercest in the land. The tiger immediately jumped on him and tore him to pieces as punishment for his guilt. The case of the suspect was thus decided.
Iron bells rang sadly. Great cries went up from the paid mourners. And the people, with heads hanging low and sad hearts, slowly made their way home. They mourned greatly that one so young and fair, or so old and respected, should have died this way.
(226)
【TIME 2】
But, if the accused opened the other door, there came forth from it a woman, chosen especially for the person. To this lady he was immediately married, in honor of his innocence. It was not a problem that he might already have a wife and family, or that he might have chosen to marry another woman. The king permitted nothing to interfere with his great method of punishment and reward.
Another door opened under the king, and a clergyman, singers, dancers and musicians joined the man and the lady. The marriage ceremony was quickly completed. Then the bells made cheerful noises. The people shouted happily. And the innocent man led the new wife to his home, following children who threw flowers on their path.
This was the king's method of carrying out justice. Its fairness appeared perfect. The accused person could not know which door was hiding the lady. He opened either as he pleased, without having knowing whether, in the next minute, he was to be killed or married.
Sometimes the fierce animal came out of one door. Sometimes it came out of the other.
This method was a popular one. When the people gathered together on one of the great trial days, they never knew whether they would see a bloody killing or a happy ending. So everyone was always interested. And the thinking part of the community would bring no charge of unfairness against this plan. Did not the accused person have the whole matter in his own hands?
(252)
【TIME 3】
Citizen Bomber
If the Boston Marathon bombing had taken place 70 to 90 years ago, alleged bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would have been stripped of his American citizenship in addition to being imprisoned or executed for his crimes. In the first decades of the 20th century, naturalized citizens like Tsarnaev were routinely deprived of their citizenship for committing radical, "un-American" activities that took place after their naturalization. Citizenship in those years was understood as a benefit offered by a country in exchange for its citizens’ obedience to the laws of the land, always with the threat that certain actions could lead to its loss. It’s an approach the Supreme Court later rejected in the name of equal rights.
Congress established a uniform naturalization procedure for the first time in 1790. For more than a century, 5,000 different courts had the power to naturalize, using varying forms and fees. In 1906, the Naturalization Act reduced the number of courts, imposed a uniform fee and form, and provided for a process of denaturalization in the federal courts.
Anarchists, socialists, and opponents to the World War I soon began losing their citizenship by the dozens, later joined by communists and Nazis. This began in 1918, when courts started to consider whether citizens swore their oath of allegiance to the United States with a "mental reservation" if they acted against their adopted home after being naturalized. The courts assumed that the loyalty of naturalized Americans should increase with the passage of time. So they were especially likely to strip citizenship from a naturalized American whose perceived act of disloyalty took place after he was naturalized.
(268)
【TIME 4】
This was the state of the law until 1943 when Wendell Willkie, a lawyer who had been the Republican nominee for president in 1940, took the case of William Schneiderman to the Supreme Court. Schneiderman was the secretary of the Communist Party of California; he had been denaturalized by lower federal courts for both the concealment of his Communist affiliation and for his “lack of attachment” to the Constitution when he was naturalized in 1927. WiIlkie argued that the exercise of a citizen's freedom of thought—even by a foreign-born American Communist years after his naturalization—did not mean that he’d done anything fraudulent at the moment of naturalization. Schneiderman had not lied: He’d never been asked if he was a Communist, and being a Communist did not bar an immigrant from being naturalized in 1927. Willkie won. The court decided that denaturalization could occur only for acts that took place beforehand and that could be demonstrated through clear and convincing evidence.
The Supreme Court reinforced the rights of naturalized citizens in 1967. Writing for the majority in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk, Justice Hugo Black said the 14th Amendment guaranteed protection for “every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship.” When the 14th Amendment states that, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens of the United States,” it makes citizenship an absolute right. The same is not true of “life, liberty, or property”; citizens can be deprived of each if they are afforded “due process of law.”
Today, a naturalized American can be stripped of citizenship only if facts emerge that would have initially warranted denial of his application—never for actions committed after the naturalization. This frames the fate of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. He will probably be deprived of his liberty and, perhaps, his life. Even if condemned to death, however, Tsarnaev will face his sentence as an American citizen. Each citizen—even the most troubling—preserves his status. For the court, safeguarding the rights of each naturalized American ensures the dignity and rights of all.
（348）
【TIME 5】
The Family, A Miniature of Society
THE most ancient of all societies, and the only one that is natural, is the family: and even so the children remain attached to the father only so long as they need him for their preservation. As soon as this need ceases, the natural bond is dissolved. The children, released from the obedience they owed to the father, and the father, released from the care he owed his children, return equally to independence. If they remain united, they continue so no longer naturally, but voluntarily; and the family itself is then maintained only by convention.
This common liberty results from the nature of man. His first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes to himself; and, as soon as he reaches years of discretion, he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself, and consequently becomes his own master.
The family then may be called the first model of political societies: the ruler corresponds to the father, and the people to the children; and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for their own advantage. The whole difference is that, in the family, the love of the father for his children repays him for the care he takes of them, while, in the State, the pleasure of commanding takes the place of the love which the chief cannot have for the peoples under him.
Grotius denies that all human power is established in favour of the governed, and quotes slavery as an example. His usual method of reasoning is constantly to establish right by fact.[1] It would be possible to employ a more logical method, but none could be more favourable to tyrants.
It is then, according to Grotius, doubtful whether the human race belongs to a hundred men, or that hundred men to the human race: and, throughout his book, he seems to incline to the former alternative, which is also the view of Hobbes. On this showing, the human species is divided into so many herds of cattle, each with its ruler, who keeps guard over them for the purpose of devouring them.
As a shepherd is of a nature superior to that of his flock, the shepherds of men, i.e., their rulers, are of a nature superior to that of the peoples under them. Thus, Philo tells us, the Emperor Caligula reasoned, concluding equally well either that kings were gods, or that men were beasts.
(412)
EXTENSION
The reasoning of Caligula agrees with that of Hobbes and Grotius. Aristotle, before any of them, had said that men are by no means equal naturally, but that some are born for slavery, and others for dominion.
Aristotle was right; but he took the effect for the cause. Nothing can be more certain than that every man born in slavery is born for slavery. Slaves lose everything in their chains, even the desire of escaping from them: they love their servitude, as the comrades of Ulysses loved their brutish condition.[2] If then there are slaves by nature, it is because there have been slaves against nature. Force made the first slaves, and their cowardice perpetuated the condition.
I have said nothing of King Adam, or Emperor Noah, father of the three great monarchs who shared out the universe, like the children of Saturn, whom some scholars have recognised in them. I trust to getting due thanks for my moderation; for, being a direct descendant of one of these princes, perhaps of the eldest branch, how do I know that a verification of titles might not leave me the legitimate king of the human race? In any case, there can be no doubt that Adam was sovereign of the world, as Robinson Crusoe was of his island, as long as he was its only inhabitant; and this empire had the advantage that the monarch, safe on his throne, had no rebellions, wars, or conspirators to fear.
(245)
OBSTACLE
The Modern AmericanFarmerToday’s new farmers aren’tjust white hipsters
A new magazine hit newsstands last week, and, given the state of print media, that fact alone is notable. But the launch of this magazine also reflects a significant shift in American culture. Its cover resembles that of a design publication: It’s matte-printed on thick paper stock, and it features an arty photograph of a rooster so close up as to appear life-size. The bird’s deep red comb against the dramatic black background directs readers’ eyes upward to where, in an elegant font, the magazine’s title appears: Modern Farmer.
What kind of person is a modern farmer? That question has been on my mind since I walked last fall into the first meeting of New York City’s Farm Beginnings—a class taught, implausibly, in an old office building amid the concrete canyons of lower Manhattan. Nearly three dozen aspiring farmers gathered every other Saturday over four months to participate in a U.S. Department of Agriculture-funded program to support new farmers. Each developed a business plan, most in preparation to buy or lease land within 200 miles of New York City to meet the requirements for selling at the city’s greenmarkets. The majority of students were minorities and first-generation Americans, immigrants both newly arrived and long established, in their 30s, 40s, and 50s (a fact that sheds light on why the National Young Farmers’ Coalition defines “young” in farming as anyone who has been doing it for less than 10 years). And they reinforced how the dominant stereotypes of farmers—either a white, rural corn farmer in a state that starts with the letter “I” (the kind hailed in Dodge’s much-lauded “So God Made a Farmer” Super Bowl ad), or a hip, white, urban grower on the East or West coast (the kind of person to whom Modern Farmer seems to be marketed)—fail to convey the diverse reality of the country’s changing agricultural landscape.
Farm Beginnings is one of several educational initiatives serving a growing interest in farming. Aspiring farmers vie for coveted apprenticeships at Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture, whose annual Young Farmers Conference gathers some 250 beginning farmers to learn sustainable farm practices (and last fall sold out in less than two days). And Farm School NYC, a two-year-long certificate program that features courses on propagation, crop planning, irrigation, animal husbandry, and more, attracted so many applicants in its first two years that its selectivity rate matched that of an Ivy League college.
When the first Farm Beginnings class convened, among its students were a few fitting the hipster stereotype: young, white, Brooklyn-based, wearing ’80s vintage glasses, and working in fashion or design. But they were outnumbered. When students introduced themselves, they cited countries of origin such as Haiti, Guyana, Sierra Leone, Ecuador, India, Turkey, China, Hong Kong, and Canada, prompting one woman—a spoken word performer from Staten Island—to exclaim, “We have the whole world here!”
But unlike programs that seek to help new immigrants launch agricultural businesses, this class attracted many highly educated and long-established first-generation Americans. Among my classmates was Suresh Murugiyan, a software engineer in his 40s, who emigrated from India in 2000 and lives in Queens. His father, also an engineer, had been the first in the family to forgo a life of farming and move to a city. But as a child, Murugiyan often visited his grandparents, most memorably during the annual Tamil agricultural festival of Pongal, and as a result he has long felt the urge to farm. “It is something I want to do,” he says, “something I want to do which my ancestors did.” As he learned about organic farming—and realized the market potential of a South Asian community that, like many others, is becoming more conscious about eating healthy, locally grown food—Murugiyan understood that the small-scale, greenhouse-based farming he finds appealing could be economically viable in the suburbs of New York City. Another classmate, a Turkish emigrant who runs a grocery store in Brooklyn, wants to farm not only because he sees firsthand the demand for such artisanal products as chestnuts but also because he wants to share with his new countrymen the taste and quality of the produce he ate as a child. After 20 years in the U.S., he has saved the capital to buy farmland in New Jersey.
American-born minorities made up a decent portion of Farm Beginnings students, too. Some class members described a desire to restore African-American traditions: to help bring black farmers back from the brink of extinction, reconnect urban youth with agrarian values, and reclaim farming from its association with slavery and sharecropping. Says Michelle Hughes, former director of Farm Roots at GrowNYC and the class co-instructor, “They’re looking to reconnect with where their food comes from and with nature. And because African-Americans have that history—the stigma of the soil—it’s healing.”
Many came to agriculture through an interest in food systems and social justice. They included young men and women who believe organically grown local food should be available to people of all races and income levels. Such activists believe the U.S. food system needs to get out from under the control of multinational corporations, and that a warming planet demands sustainable, regional food systems. To make these things happen, they seek careers in farming.
The students in New York City’s first Farm Beginnings class represent a new chapter of an enduring American story. Immigrants and ethnic minorities have always gone into farming—some against their will, some willingly. But in an important way, this is a different version of that story. When software engineers from India and social justice activists from the South Bronx want to enter agriculture, something has changed in American culture. Farming’s new cachet is impossible to deny—and its appeal is more widespread than many cynics believe.
Modern Farmer, to its credit, acknowledges that renewed interest in agriculture isn’t limited to upper-middle-class coastal progressives (even if they dominate the community-supported agriculture membership to whom half the first issue’s print run was distributed for free). Among three American growers profiled in the first issue, only one conforms to that stereotype: Mark Firth, a former Brooklyn restaurateur who now owns a farm and a restaurant in Massachusetts. The other two look a lot like the people I met in Farm Beginnings: Juan Murillo, the son of a former farm laborer, who grows fruit and vegetables organically on a half-acre of land he leases through the Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association in Monterey County, Calif., and Kelvin Graddick, a 24-year-old African-American with a computer science degree who revived a farmers cooperative in Georgia founded by his grandparents. The only farming demographic missing from Modern Farmer’s pages, in fact, is the rural, Midwestern old guard.
It remains to be seen whether any farmer will subscribe to a magazine that, at first glimpse, looks like an over-the-top romanticization of agriculture (and one that’s probably too expensive for many actual farmers to buy). Some of the farmers I know have expressed skepticism about its usefulness to them even as they admire its prettiness. The magazine’s deputy editor, Reyhan Harmanci, acknowledged in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle that the magazine’s “core audience probably won’t be farmers, necessarily.” But even as the magazine’s assumptions about its readers may hew to stereotypes about urban foodies—there’s a how-to on growing cocktail ingredients, and a fashion spread featuring a $320 sunhat from Barneys—its representations of farmers are, thankfully, rightly diverse.
（1244）
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-4-28 23:04:15
收藏
收藏
