【Native Speaker每日综合训练—45系列】【45-08】文史哲 Ferguson

油桃F

内容：油桃F 编辑：油桃F

Stay tuned to our latest post! Follow us here ---> http://weibo.com/u/3476904471

Part I: Speaker

Obama Has Failed Places Like Ferguson

Source: NPR
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/29/367362424/columnist-obama-has-failed-places-like-ferguson

[Rephrase 1, 3:20]

油桃F

Part II: Speed

Ferguson message: Justice system unfair to minorities
BY Raul A. Reyes | November 27, 2014

[Time 2]
(CNN) -- A little over two days. That's how long the grand jury deliberated before deciding not to bring an indictment against Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9. St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch announced the grand jury had heard more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses before reaching its decision, which he said was supported by physical evidence.

Sadly, the grand jury's failure to return an indictment of Wilson was not surprising. But don't blame the grand jury; blame McCulloch. He oversaw the proceedings and bears responsibility for their outcome.

McCulloch compromised the Ferguson grand jury proceedings from the start. He resisted calls to recuse himself, saying, "I have absolutely no intention of walking away from duties and the responsibilities entrusted in me by the people of this community." However, the community would have been better served if he had stepped aside.

McCulloch's father was a police officer killed in a shootout with an African-American suspect. His brother, uncle and cousin served with the St. Louis Police Department, and his mother worked there for 20 years as a clerk. Newsweek noted McCulloch's "long history of siding with the police." For the sake of impartiality, McCulloch should have let a special prosecutor take over the case.

The grand jury only needed to find "probable cause" to charge Wilson. That's one of the lowest legal standards in our justice system, below "beyond a reasonable doubt" (required for a criminal conviction) and "preponderance of the evidence" (the standard in a civil trial). The fact that McCulloch did not get an indictment for a killing that shocked the nation raises questions about whether he really wanted an indictment.

"We will be presenting absolutely everything to this grand jury," McCulloch said in August. Yet in grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor typically shows the minimal amount of evidence necessary to establish that a trial is merited. By dumping so much evidence on the grand jury, McCulloch may have overwhelmed them and led them to the wrong conclusion. In the process, he's opened himself to charges that he was acting to protect Wilson.
[358 words]

[Time 3]
Consider McCulloch's time frame for the grand jury, which The New York Times described as "prolonged and exhaustive." Grand juries routinely return criminal indictments in a matter of days. But the Ferguson proceedings dragged on for months, putting a burden on the jurors to recall everything and then decide wisely. Another red flag was that this lengthy process was riddled with leaks, all of which supported Wilson's account of the events.

Worse, McCulloch declined to recommend charges to the grand jury. Prosecutors normally walk a jury through the charges they are seeking, breaking them down and explaining why they are deserved. McCulloch instead left the Ferguson grand jury to sort through terms such as "voluntary manslaughter" and "involuntary manslaughter in the second degree" on their own -- making it more likely that they would not seek an indictment.

In fact, McCulloch could have brought charges directly against Wilson, circumventing the grand jury. He chose not to do so, which is a troubling indicator of his interest in aggressively prosecuting this case.

Sure, there are conflicting accounts of what transpired between Wilson and Michael Brown. Was Wilson in fear for his life, as he told investigators, when he and Brown struggled for his gun? Did Brown have his hands up when he was fatally shot? We will never know, because there will be no trial. That's a tragedy for the Brown family and an affront to the fundamental American value that we all are equal under the law.

The grand jury's decision has implications far beyond Ferguson. Gallup polling has found that African-Americans have less confidence in the criminal justice system than white Americans, while a W.W. Kellogg Foundation report found that 68% of Latinos report being worried about police brutality. Wilson walking free will likely reinforce the views among communities of color that our justice system is unfair. And when significant segments of our population lose faith in our justice system, our democracy is weakened.

The Ferguson decision reflects poorly on prosecutor McCulloch. His flawed grand jury proceedings ensured that justice was not served for Michael Brown.
[347 words]

Source: CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/24/opinion/reyes-ferguson-grand-jury

Ferguson shows failure at every level
BY Jason Johnson | November 28, 2014

[Time 4]
(CNN) -- No one paying attention to the events in Ferguson, Missouri, since August will be surprised by the grand jury decision last week to not indict Officer Darren Wilson.

But beyond the fact that the racial make-up of a jurysignificantly impacts the final results, and that police are far too rarely held accountable for shooting men of color in this country, there was something else that made this ruling feel inevitable: the unmitigated failure of government at civic, local, state and yes, even national level. Sadly, the decision represents everything that is wrong with America today.

In high school, you learn that one of the greatest things about America is how multiple levels of government and society work together to solve problems. Civil society made up of churches and volunteer groups work with local government, which gets help from the state government, which itself works in concert with and sometimes independent of the federal government. But in Ferguson, nothing seemed to be working. Indeed, the poor local civil society response to Ferguson was one of the reasons why Brown's tragic death and the subsequent social unrest occurred.

In the best-case scenario, community leaders would have banded together following the shooting and developed a long-term political and protest plan to pressure for change. But that didn't happen.

I attended local meetings where the white community in Ferguson pretended that nothing happened, huge church meetings were held where few African-Americans were invited, and the passive/aggressive "I Love Ferguson" campaign acted as a racial dog whistle that everyone could hear.
[256 words]

[Time 5]
Meanwhile, despite a documented history of police harassment, the local black community in Ferguson was pretty disorganized as well. Much of the organizational leadership had to come from outside of Ferguson because the community was so beat down that there was a dearth of strong local voices in the area. Part of the reason why Ferguson Missouri broke into riots and every celebrity from rapper Nelly to Iyanla Vanzant descended upon the area was because there was a vacuum of local leadership to funnel anger and vocalize demands.

And although Ferguson Mayor James Knowles obviously didn't realize he'd end up in the national spotlight when he took office in April, that doesn't excuse his weak response as unrest overtook the city.

Several local mayors that I spoke to from neighboring towns said Knowles ignored their advice in the aftermath of the shooting. And it is unclear why Knowles failed to demand that the local police promptly release a police report, which is standard procedure in any shooting.

The county getting involved didn't make things any better, and placing Robert McCulloch in charge of the prosecution, a man who was seen as having strong local connections to police, was bound to leave residents skeptical. And local civic groups who reportedly collected over 3,000 new voter registrations after the shooting were allegedly quiet when a report emerged claiming that the St. Louis County Elections Board had dramatically revised down the number of registrations, with the boardreportedly saying that it was simply a "mistake."

The state level government was no better. In fact, Gov. Jay Nixon's administration gave a lesson on how not to govern. A short list of his failures? Failing to send trained National Guard to Ferguson the moment that political unrest was apparent, failing to appoint a special prosecutor for the case when clearly the County Prosecutor's objectivity had been called into question, and then declaring a state of emergency a week before the grand jury even announced their decision. Both symbolically and in practical terms, he was a failure all around.
[342 words]

[Time 6]
Finally, at the federal level, President Barack Obama's spectacular failure in the entire Ferguson saga has been well-documented anddebated.

The fairest conclusion to draw is that he did little or nothing to help the men and women suffering in Ferguson, instead blathering on in two speeches about respectability politics. True, Obama dispatched Attorney General Eric Holder to Ferguson as protests unfolded in August, and the fact that the Department of Justice is investigating Ferguson is clearly welcome. But that is a slow and overall less than satisfying process.

After all, it's been two years since Trayvon Martin was killed and the DOJ hasn't produced any indictments there yet. There's no reason to think that the wheels of justice in Ferguson will move any faster. On top of this, there is the disturbing fact that the single solution that Obama offered, (which I suggested at the time) that the 1033 Program allowing local police to get military surplus for free, with no supervision, be reviewed by the federal government seems to have died a slow and ignominious death.

Why do I point all of these things out?

Because whatever you think of the decision not to indict Darren Wilson for shooting Brown, basic government functions such as voter registration, police transparency, review of controversial programs, selecting objective prosecutors and community engagement are basic government functions that should have worked far better in response. If any of these entities at any level were functioning properly, the violence in Ferguson could have been largely prevented and the public would have a lot more faith in the grand jury decision that came out today. Instead, the lack of an indictment is yet another reflection of our broken government.

It is a sad day for America when a whole nation -- and in fact the world -- can watch this country eat its own citizens in fire and tear gas. And it's a failure that falls on every single level of society.
[327 words]

Source: CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/24/opinion/johnson-ferguson-grand-jury

油桃F

Part III: Obstacle

Ferguson from Afar
By Mary L. Dudziak | August 21, 2014

[Paraphrase 7]
As the turmoil in Ferguson, Missouri, unfolds, questions about the United States’ commitment to human rights are once more headlining news coverage around the world. The uncomfortable international spotlight on such domestic problems should not be surprising. American racial inequality regularly dominated foreign news coverage during the 1950s and 1960s. U.S. policymakers were eventually forced to respond, in part to protect America’s image abroad. As it reflects on how to handle the protests in Ferguson, the Obama administration would do well to consider the fact that, in previous decades, federal intervention was eventually needed to protect both civil rights and U.S. foreign relations.

The killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager, by a police officer -- and the resulting protests -- have been front-page news in many countries. On August 20, Saudi Arabia’s Al Watanand the Kuwait Times published the same shocking photograph of an officer in riot gear pointing a rifle at a woman on the ground. The United Arab Emirates’ Gulf News featured white law enforcement officers in military-style gear holding high-powered rifles. Coverage of the events in Ferguson has been particularly extensive in Turkey, too. And news services across Europe, Africa, and South America have followed the story. Of particular note, the unrest in Ferguson was featured prominently on Russian state television, reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s extensive coverage of American race discrimination during the Cold War. And in China, commentary in Xinhua, the state news agency, suggested that Ferguson shows that a “racial divide still remains a deeply rooted chronic disease that keeps tearing U.S. society apart.”

Many foreign writers covering the story charge the United States with hypocrisy. The United States has “assaulted almost 200 countries across the world for their so-called poor human rights records,” Li Li, a reporter for Xinhua, recently wrote. But “what the United States needs to do is to concentrate on solving its own problems rather than always pointing fingers at others.” Similarly, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei took to Twitter to criticize the U.S. human rights record, posting photos from Ferguson alongside historic images of racial segregation and using the hashtag #Ferguson. Criticism from Khamenei and Chinese sources might be expected, but history shows that violations of rights in the United States generally becomes a justification for other nations to ignore human rights in their own backyards. Flagrant race discrimination, moreover, undermines U.S. efforts to appeal to the hearts and minds of peoples of the world.

To historians of the United States during the Cold War years, the global reaction to Ferguson is familiar. Protest against American racism and segregation was a world story in the 1950s and 1960s. Consider what happened in 1963. Civil rights demonstrators focused protest efforts on Birmingham, Alabama, a city with endemic segregation. City leaders responded by getting a court injunction against protest marches. The protests continued, however, and marchers were arrested. Then, in early May, children staged a peaceful march and were met with Police Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor’s high-powered fire hoses, which flattened the marchers against buildings and knocked them down. Images of a police dog lunging at a young man in the grip of a police officer soon appeared in newspapers across the United States and around the world.

In the Soviet Union, Birmingham was depicted as a particularly dramatic example of racism, but race had already long been a theme in Soviet anti-American propaganda. The Soviets, realizing that knowledge about American segregation was widespread, used it extensively. A 1963 cartoon featured an African American student blocked from entering a school by an angry Bull Connor, with Ku Klux Klansmen, racist signs, and burning crosses in the background. American diplomats at the time were concerned that propaganda on race was effective because it was often based on actual news stories.

In the rest of the world, particularly in Africa and Asia, the straightforward reporting out of Birmingham was also extremely damaging. The United States had put much effort into promoting the narrative that the United States was on the road to racial equality and that the progress from slavery to freedom was evidence of the superiority of democracy. Birmingham undermined that argument. Shortly after the town erupted in violence, the U.S. Information Agency reported that “substantial improvement over the past two years in Nigerian public understanding of progress in U.S. race relations is being rapidly eroded.” The U.S. embassy in Accra, Ghana, noted that the United States had “definitely lost ground” because of the crisis. When African leaders met for the first time to form the Organization of African Unity, less than three weeks after the march, they passed a resolution expressing concern and calling on the United States to “put an end to these intolerable mal-practices which are likely seriously to deteriorate relations between the African peoples and Governments … and the United States of America.”

As the crisis in Birmingham played out, many looked to U.S. President John F. Kennedy for action. As civil rights adviser Burke Marshall would later put it, Americans were left wondering, “Why didn’t he do something?” Ultimately, the president did do something. Namely, he sent Marshall to Birmingham, where he met with leaders from the civil rights movement and local government and businesses, and they worked out a compromise plan to desegregate the city and release jailed demonstrators. But by then Birmingham was more than a local crisis -- it was also a national and international one. Because of that, managing it required more.

The next month, Alabama Governor George **, who had pledged “segregation forever,” ignored a court order and barred two African American students from enrolling at the University of Alabama. This set off a new round of global and national criticism. Attorney General Robert Kennedy commented that continuing troubles were bad for the country and “bad for us around the world.” In an impassioned speech that June, John F. Kennedy called civil rights a critical moral issue. “We preach freedom around the world,” he said. “But are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is a land of the free except for the Negroes?”

Eventually, Kennedy answered his own question with a landmark civil rights bill, which set the stage for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When it was debated in Congress, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, the man in charge of implementing foreign policy, was one of the administration’s lead witnesses in support of it. International affairs, of course, was not the only -- or even the most important -- factor motivating civil rights reform in the United States. But U.S. leaders did come to see equal rights as crucial to the United States’ image abroad and to fighting the Cold War. And in the end, decisive action at home, which addressed, at least in part, segregation, disenfranchisement, and the brutal suppression of civil rights activists, did improve the United States’ image abroad. Rusk expressed his delight when the civil rights legislation was passed, saying, “this country is looked upon as the leader of those who wish to be free, and what we do here has an importance far beyond our borders.” Prime Minister Milton Obote of Uganda was “overjoyed” by the bill’s passage, and thought it would undercut communist criticism of the United States in Africa.

There are strong parallels in the Birmingham and Ferguson cases. In both contexts, dramatic images of excessive force used against African American civil rights protesters have captured attention around the world. But another moment in the saga of the American civil rights movement is just as instructive a comparison: the 1957¬–58 Little Rock crisis in Arkansas. After the U.S. Supreme Court declared segregation to be unconstitutional, a federal judge ordered that nine African American students be admitted to the city’s Central High School for the 1957–58 school year. In response, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called in the National Guard. Troopers barred the students from entering the school as large crowds of whites protested integration.

This showdown was a major international story, with daily foreign press coverage. Reflecting on an initial absence of leadership from President Dwight D. Eisenhower which contrasted with his tenacity as supreme commander of Allied forces in Western Europe during World War II, the London Times commented that “the sour joke is current: ‘If President Eisenhower were alive all this wouldn’t have happened.’”

The president ultimately did intervene, and in spite of a pledge never to use federal troops to enforce a desegregation order, he sent the 101st Airborne Division to do just that. “Our enemies are gloating over this incident and using it everywhere to misrepresent our whole nation,” Eisenhower said in a speech announcing his decision. Eisenhower’s delayed but decisive action was celebrated around the world, and was seen as demonstrating that, notwithstanding the actions of racist state governors, the federal government was on the side of justice.

But this story has a little-known epilogue. The state of Arkansas ultimately responded by passing a pupil placement law that, in essence, bureaucratized segregation by creating a cumbersome administrative process that few African Americans would be able to navigate. When a similar law from the state of North Carolina was up for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court declined, allowing it to stand. Other states relied on this practice, so that real integration existed in theory but not practice. The international press didn’t notice.

Strong presidential leadership was needed to address earlier civil rights crises. It helped repair the damage to the American image, and undercut the argument that the United States was hypocritical in promoting human rights. Then, as now, protecting rights serves U.S. international relations. Whether it also leads to real justice in Ferguson, however, depends on a sustained effort once the foreign press has gone home.
[1631 words]

Source: foreignaffairs
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141929/mary-l-dudziak/ferguson-from-afar

daisy333

掌管 6        00:13:15.19        00:25:55.32
掌管 5        00:01:59.68        00:12:40.12
掌管 4        00:02:33.63        00:10:40.44
掌管 3        00:02:05.32        00:08:06.80
掌管 2        00:02:55.01        00:06:01.47
掌管 1        00:03:06.46        00:03:06.46

今天的阅读读起来好沉重。默默滚去查单词，再多了解一些美国历史

cesievan

谢谢整理～
11.30[obstacle]11:55
the chaos happened in Ferguson was the complex about the American human rights and their foreign relation
this events is very similar to the desegregation happened in Birmingham during the Cold War
the solution on Ferguson depend on the presidential leadership in the domestic

yukachii

TIME2  2’56’’
The grand jury decided not to bring indictment of the police, but there is no surprise to do that, we should blame MC.
The evidence MC interrupted the jury.
The background of MC( long history of siding of police)
The disadvantage of grand jury ( only to find a  reason)

TIME3 3’26’’
Three reasons: 1. Proceeding dragged on for months. 2. All of leaks 3. MC decided not to recommend a charge
In fact, MC chose to change jury’s views. This decision has profound implications.

TIME4 2’40’’
The unmitigated failure of government is very important. In F, what we  see is very different from what we learned in school.

TIME5 4’14’’
F is very disorganized. The F mayor K ignored the advice and demanded local police release a police report. And the state lead govern was no better.
A shot list of his failure.

TIME6 2’56’’
In dealing this problem, Obama has failures.
The reasons that author should point out :All entities should have good function.

Obstacle
The turmoil in F let people think about human right in USA.
Some news services pay attention to the story. And many of them charge USA with hypocrisy.
EG1: a similar event in history, and how the other countries responded.
EG2:how president E deal with a response. The story has a little-known end.
Today strong presidential leadership is needed. And the effect should depend on sustained efforts.

HaiqingYU

Thanks for sharing!
[Time 2] 02:35
M, a man long involved in police, shock the nation due to his open protection for W.
[Time 3] 02:35
This is a troubling case, for the process is long and M didn't give in indicator.
This is a conflicting case, but it has significance,for it serves as an evidence that African American suffer justice discrimination.
[Time 4] 01:53
The case of W in F represents the failure of all levels in the city. Different social communities don't work together as what should be.
[Time 5] 02:09
This case reflects the failure of all level: The failure of local black community to well organize; failure of the mayor; failure of the governor.
[Time 6] 01:50
The failure of Obama's function in this case.
If any of the entities mentioned above, the miss of indictment for W won't happen.
[Obstacle] 08:56
The case of F has an influence on American human rights and abroad image;
The similar case of B.
Strong leadership and sustained efforts are needed.  

smallchange306

speed
3'12
3'07
1'49
2'51
2'42
obstacle
11'06  
foregin news agency report and comment it
there are some commen with Fog and Brin in Cold War
-----(describe the event of Birm)
the world question the US 's humen right now
US gov need do sth to show the wold and chane the unfair things

obstacle文章其实难度不大，只是前面speed的加长版。但是因为加长所以读完之后回忆有困难~~~
当然了，Birm 的那段我也的确读的不太明白~~可能美国历史不熟悉吧~~

yatina

Speaker
A Columnist speaks his opinions about the Ferguson event. He thinks that President Obama did not totally involved in the event for not visiting Ferguson. He expected President and activits would do some changes.

Time2+3
Describe the whole processiong of Wilson event.
Explain the reasons of contradictions.
Show the right thing Mc could do to prevent.
Opinions of justice for African-American.

Time4+5+6
The F event is a failure in every level.
Several things exaggerate the event:
1.disorganized black communities
2.mayor's weak responses
3.Mc asked for the prosecution
4.state gov did not do anything better
5.President Obama did nothing help
Opinion: if any level do anything properly, the whole nation would not under fire and tear gas.

mozhiwanjia

油桃F 发表于 2014-11-30 21:46
Part III: Obstacle

Ferguson from Afar

掌管 5        00:15:57.52        00:39:08.81
掌管 4        00:07:15.78        00:23:11.29
掌管 3        00:02:56.00        00:15:55.50
掌管 2        00:07:35.33        00:12:59.50
掌管 1        00:05:24.16        00:05:24.16