Australia continued the fight to end Japan’s annual whale hunts，warning that its plan to kill humpback whales in Antarctica could （ ）outrage.
A.spark B.lead C.result D.involve
有疑问？点此联系我们
收藏该题
查看答案
Australia continued the fight to end Japan’s annual whale hunts，warning that its plan to kill humpback whales in Antarctica could （ ）outrage.
Culture is transmitted largely by language and by the necessity for people in close contact to cooperate. The more extensive the communications network，the greater the exchange of ideas and beliefs and the more alike people become—in toleration of diversity if nothing else. Members of a culture or a nation are generally in closer contact with one another than with members of other cultures or nations. They become more like each other and more unlike others. In this way，there develops “national character，” which is the statistical tendency for a group of people to share values and follow similar behavior patterns.Frequently，the members of one culture will interpret the “national characteristics” of another group in terms of their own values. For example，the inhabitants of a South Pacific island may be considered “lazy” by citizens of some industrialized nations. On the other hand，it may be that the islanders place a great value on social relationships but little value on “productivity，” and crops grow with little attention. The negative connotation of the label “lazy” is thus unjustified from the point of view of the island culture.Stereotypes，such as “lazy”，“inscrutable，” and “dishonest” give people the security of labels with which to react to others in a superficial way，but they are damaging to real understanding among members of different cultures. People react more to labels than to reality. A black American Peace Corps volunteer，for instance，is considered and called a white man by black Africans. The “we-they” distinction applies to whatever characteristic the “we” have and the “they” do not have—and the characteristics attributed to the “they” are usually ones with a negative value.The distinction becomes most obvious in times of conflict. For this reason，it is often suggested the only thing that might join all men together on this planet would be an invasion from outer space. “We，” the earthlings, would then fight “them，” the outsiders.Given the great diversities—real and imagined—among people of the world，is there any foundation for hope that someday all men might join together to form a single and legitimate world government? The outcome will probably depend on the political evolution of mankind.1.What makes people more tolerant of diversity between different groups?2.“National character” is built among people who（ ）.3.To some industrialized nations，the mentioned South Pacific islanders are （ ）.4.With stereotypes，people tend to（ ）.5.What is true about the black American Peace Corps volunteer?6.It is possible to form a single and legitimate world government only when （ ） .
She showed us her arms, and we saw with hornet that her skin was（ ）where she had been beaten.
Smith insisted on arguing with the referee although the other players tried to （ ） him.
The U.S. energy policy is about the last thing I wanted to write about this month since I pretty much wrote oil that our government would tend lo it anytime soon. If you’ve lost track the last major energy bill was passed 13 years age.As it turns out, our political leaders still haven’t tended to it, although they passed an energy bill which the President signed. Technically, it’s bill; politically, it’s a bill of goods sold to the American public.Like any political football this issue got kicked up and down the field numerous times. Both the Democrats and Republicans put forth rhetoric that would make you think that they were out to save ourselves from ourselves.Take what Majority Leader Bill Frist said as an example: “We must take steps to reduce our dependence on foreign coiinlries and thereby enhance our energy security al home. Take a breath (editor’s note). “When we rely on other nations for more than half our oil supply，we simply put our security at risk. ”If you liked that one, chock out what the President said concerning the need for this energy bill. “Our dependence on foreign oil is like a foreign tax on the American dream, and the fax is growing every year. ’’Who’s going to argue with that? That’s damn good speech writing. But that’s what is said in front of the camera. It’s a different story when you get down to the stinky bowels of government. Case in point is the House-Senate conference committee. For context, realize that this country uses 20 million barrels of oil every day with the promise that it will continue to increase.Amazingly, some people on this committee woke up with a conscience one morning and peddled a measure to ask the President to reduce oil consumption by one million barrels of oil a day by 2015. But that moment of sensibility was overcome with a wave of political practicality. In other words, the President wasn’t about to let this idea fly. But why? The administration didn’t think there would be affordable technology to meet higher fuel-efficiency standards. That’s only 10 years away, you know.Without a strong policy, we basically leave it up to the car companies to sit around and dream up solutions. According to Massachusetts Representative Ed Markey，auto fuel economy peaked at 26.5 miles per gallon in 1986. Nineteen years is a long time to be sitting on your best year when fuel consumption is going up and our means to get it are going down.1.The author did not want to write about the U.S. energy policy that month because（ ）. 2.In Paragraph 2, the sentence “politically, it’s a bill of goods sold to the American public.” means （ ）.3.In Paragraph 6, the phrase “the stinky bowels” refers to （ ）.4.What was the President’s response to some people’s suggestion to reduce oil consumption?5.From the last paragraph, we can learn that （ ）.6.The author’s attitude towards U.S. government of energy policy is （ ）.
There are few things we Americans do that can truly be described as “national”. There’s Thanksgiving, the Super Bowl and, every four years, we elect a president. Sure, voters use a variety of criteria to select their favorite candidates. But it’s arguable that at heart the presidential election is a contest over whom we want to represent not just our nation but our idea of nationhood and who we are as a people.（1）.One way voters decide who we are as a nation is to decide who we are not. Remember what your high school civics teacher taught you? Your rights end right where someone else’s begin. （2）. The very act of asserting an identity involves distinguishing yourself. In politics, it sometimes involves delegitimizing （使失去合法或合理性）the opponent.（3）. Obama is trying to broaden our collective notion of the mainstream. On the one hand，his campaign is running television commercials in Iowa featuring his late mother, who was white. On the other，he touts his biracial, multicultural background as an advantage when it comes to representing the U. S. abroad.In another, not so distant, era, a white candidate like Hillary Clinton could simply have used race as a way to portray her black opponent as being beyond the mainstream.（4）. Instead，some elements of the Clinton campaign have seized on Obama’s ancestral ties to Islam --- the Illinois senator is a Christian and Americans’ wariness of the Muslim world as a way to associate him with something outside of “who we are as a nation”，a way to delegitimize his campaign to represent all Americans.Should all of this come as some sort of shock? No.（5）. But during this primary season，just remember you’re not only selecting your party’s presidential nominee. You’re also, in no small sense，being asked to decide, in national terms, who’s in and who’s out.
