祝孩子们天天健康快乐!

 找回密码
 注册

搜索
热搜: 儿童 教育 英语
楼主: dawnch
打印 上一主题 下一主题

When The Dawn Comes——当黎明来临时

[复制链接]
11#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-11 01:53:13 | 只看该作者
原帖由 etjy2007 于 2007-7-9 14:17 发表
江湖这个也太那个了, 虫妈的光辉全被你挡住了, 该减肥了



自家的兄弟,不计较滴~~~
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

12#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-11 16:19:59 | 只看该作者
芝加哥时间,二OO 七年七月十一日,凌晨三点零四分。
终于做完了美国历史的研究项目。
一点感觉都没有,完全是在码字凑paper。明天有东西交就行了。
不是零分就行了。
这个summer的两门课我真是一点激情都没有。
太累了。


晚上九点半把项目做了一半,从图书馆回来,竟然发现寂寞得不得了。邮箱里连个垃圾邮件也没有。寂寞得连个念想都没有。
这种的时候连垃圾邮件都令人想念!

强迫自己闭眼半小时,根本没睡着。十一点半,起来洗澡,换个精神好写作业。
十二点,正式登场。
主要是做BIBLIOGRAPHY,先把格式弄清楚,那些个作者,书名,版权时间,出版社名字和地址。。。。。。这是国外标准的引经据典的格式,我还是不习惯。
一边查找一边修改自己的文章。
真是狗屁文章,一点感觉都没有。
赶紧做完,一眼都不要再看。
三点,完事了。

明晚还有一个演讲,稿子还没写。
等过了历史这一关,明天下午再说吧。

想起中午在图书馆碰到打了个招呼的那位教授,心里越想越不是滋味。。。。。。
估计很长时间都不能和韩国脱敏了。
唉。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。!

当一个三个孩子的父亲到底是什么滋味?

明天,明天!明天的早餐在哪里?
不管了,明天一早先冲到学校图书馆打印文稿再说。
想起今晨星巴克的冰咖啡配cake loaf,舒服。。。。。。。。。。!

[ 本帖最后由 dawnch 于 2007-7-11 16:45 编辑 ]

评分

参与人数 3威望 +14 金币 +14 收起 理由
hq1966 + 10 + 10
走啊走 + 2 + 2 喜欢看老虫码字^_^
月下小楼 + 2 + 2

查看全部评分

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

13#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-13 11:17:10 | 只看该作者
星期四晚上九点是个值得庆祝的时刻。

一周的课程就在这个时候结束。
这一周,花了两个晚上赶写history 的research project,四十八小时内只睡了六、七个小时。
项目赶完了,马上准备公共演讲课的课堂演讲。
中午历史课一下课,跑到学校basement里的饭堂,要了一份beef stew,一份hot dog,一杯soda,一包chips,给自己打好经济基础。
后面一桌是几个中国学生,大声地谈着广东人什么都吃的事情。
不认识,也没有兴趣加入他们。

吃完后,发现饭堂是个不错的读书地方,可以边吃东西边看书,在图书馆就不可以。
于是,在饭桌上把演讲稿起草了一遍,然后跑到五楼图书馆,一边打字,一边修改讲稿,和要交给老师的提纲。
真好,三点钟,把什么都做完了,打印出来,连忙冲去红线地铁站去summer camp接虫子。

今晚就是我的演讲。
给自己鼓劲:快了,快了,过了今晚,就什么都过去了。
迟到了几分钟进教室。
教授正在说怎么只有这几个人登记今晚的演讲(凡准备当晚演讲的同学都要把自己的名字按顺序写到白板上)。
话音未落,我直接背着背包走到白板前,在第五位,大写地写下自己的名字。

我喜欢五这个数字,五方佛。

把演讲由昨晚拖到今晚,就是要寻找火花。
果然,在今天的历史课上走神,终于为我的演讲稿找到一个闪光点:
上帝没有给予阿甘高智商,同样也没有给他足够的智商去见异思迁。我们没有必要去学习阿甘的低智商,但我们却可以学习阿甘的专注。
只要是演讲的内容是我喜欢的,我一定会把激情带进演讲里。

带着高涨的心情,无比自信地上了演讲台。状态极好。
演讲的时候,我看清楚了在座每个人的表情,还有教授闪烁的目光。
精彩之处,还有听众的回应——尽管我讲的不是什么新鲜的话题——《阿甘正传》。

明天是高兴的一天,没有课,可以安心的享用星巴克的咖啡,配着好吃的点心。
然后为G教授和C教授准备一堂中文课。
我很享受近来他们的表现,以及这种随意交谈讨论的上课状态。

上周G教授提到了中国法律书面与实际执行的距离的问题。
我讲了一大通,他们听得云里雾里。
重新整理一下,换个角度明天再谈。

[ 本帖最后由 dawnch 于 2007-7-13 11:26 编辑 ]

评分

参与人数 1威望 +10 金币 +10 收起 理由
hq1966 + 10 + 10

查看全部评分

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

14#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-14 07:44:59 | 只看该作者
今天下课后,与Prof. G谈了一下。向他了解他们作中国研究,是如何取得资料的,是否有什么正式的获取研究资料的渠道。

他说:他们是通过个人关系获得对中国的信息的,学院之间正式的渠道是没有的。即使是获得的一些官方的文件、法规,不见得有什么价值。再一个渠道,就是和那些中国学生的交谈。

他认为主要是语言障碍。因此,他们的研究都是处于面上的研究,非常general,由于信息资料的缺少,无法作深入细致的研究。

另外,CHO提到比较法课,美国、欧洲的学生比较不care这个课,中国学生就比较care,特别是philip,给他的印象非常深。

其实,上次讲到的问题,为什么中国法律书面与实际不一样。这个问题其实有一个非常简单的答案。

其实这个问题的产生就是因为 Heuristic Distances。他们所以为的法律,就是立法机关所制定的那些authority的文件或者什么。他们的理解,相当于是狭义的法律。

但在中国,执法当中,还要包括国务院制定的行政法规、其它地方机关制定的地方性法规和规章。这是广义的法律。也正因此,我们在使用“法律”这个词的同时,还创造了一个涵义更模糊的词“法律依据”。

甚至,在具体办案过程中,还需要知道某个执行机关对某个具体问题的操作的态度、主审法官的个人的观点和取向。这两点,虽然不算是法律体系里的东西,但这些因素确实会在实践当中有影响。

但是,这些层次的信息,他们是无法获得的。他们获得的,是那些面上的文件。由于缺失了细节上的信息,他们当然会有中国的实际法律与书面法律不一样,如此强烈的感觉了。

其实,要获取对中国法律全面的认识,就算是中国人也是有困难的。没有一本法规集是足够全面细致;也没有哪个教授能对实践当中的问题个案了如指掌;而且还有大量的有用的信息是存在于那些个环节当中的关键点上。这种情况就象是中国没有一个有效的“使用说明书”,没有一个法律能够让人们DIY地明明白白去操作。

因此,国外的人,他们再reach out,也很难达到对中国法律实际准确的了解。

评分

参与人数 1威望 +10 金币 +10 收起 理由
hq1966 + 10 + 10

查看全部评分

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

15#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-16 10:58:21 | 只看该作者
Last week, Prof. Gerber asked me a legal question, “Why it seems difficult to get the national legislation actually enforced in China?”
Because I have NO language in this area, so I had better cope with this assignment in the simplest way.

Besides the laws enacted by The National People's Congress and its Standing Committee, broad-sense law includes constitution, administrative regulations and rules, and regional provincial (local) regulations and rules, which could be used as laws in practice, even though they are not real laws.
It is a universal knowledge in China.
Theoretically, according to the constitution, regional provincial regulations and rules must not contravene the constitution and the laws and upper level administrative rules and regulations.
But who could ensure this?

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress exercises the functions and powers to annul those administrative rules and regulations, decisions or orders that contravene the Constitution or the law.
As far as I know, the National People's Congress or its standing committee is not always a strong role, and sometimes, it is so easy to give an illusion that they work under somebody.
As to the Supreme Court, local courts, or the Procuratorates in various local levels, Prof. Cho must know how they work. I need not to say.

It is not easy to keep tidy in a numerous and jumbled laws world, especially in a condition that lack of a really powerful and efficacious implement and supervision.

To handle cases, it is not enough for a lawyer is only expert in laws, regulations, and rules, because there are a bunch of elements actually influential in the realistic world. If a lawyer does not know a certain government department’s attitude or orientation towards a certain factor in a certain issue, this lawyer almost could not move a single step.

China is like a giant Jigsaw, and there are too many people occupy a part of piece in their hands. To an outsider, it is very difficult to build up a landscape.

评分

参与人数 1威望 +10 金币 +10 收起 理由
hq1966 + 10 + 10

查看全部评分

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

16#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-18 10:47:32 | 只看该作者
非常精彩的演讲!

Mario Matthew Cuomo
1984 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address

"A Tale of Two Cities"
delivered 16 July 1984 in San Francisco




[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio. (2)]
Thank you very much.
On behalf of the great Empire State and the whole family of New York, let me thank you for the great privilege of being able to address this convention. Please allow me to skip the stories and the poetry and the temptation to deal in nice but vague rhetoric. Let me instead use this valuable opportunity to deal immediately with the questions that should determine this election and that we all know are vital to the American people.
Ten days ago, President Reagan admitted that although some people in this country seemed to be doing well nowadays, others were unhappy, even worried, about themselves, their families, and their futures. The President said that he didn't understand that fear. He said, "Why, this country is a shining city on a hill." And the President is right. In many ways we are a shining city on a hill.
But the hard truth is that not everyone is sharing in this city's splendor and glory. A shining city is perhaps all the President sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well. But there's another city; there's another part to the shining the city; the part where some people can't pay their mortgages, and most young people can't afford one; where students can't afford the education they need, and middle-class parents watch the dreams they hold for their children evaporate.
In this part of the city there are more poor than ever, more families in trouble, more and more people who need help but can't find it. Even worse: There are elderly people who tremble in the basements of the houses there. And there are people who sleep in the city streets, in the gutter, where the glitter doesn't show. There are ghettos where thousands of young people, without a job or an education, give their lives away to drug dealers every day. There is despair, Mr. President, in the faces that you don't see, in the places that you don't visit in your shining city.
In fact, Mr. President, this is a nation -- Mr. President you ought to know that this nation is more a "Tale of Two Cities" than it is just a "Shining City on a Hill."
Maybe, maybe, Mr. President, if you visited some more places; maybe if you went to Appalachia where some people still live in sheds; maybe if you went to Lackawanna where thousands of unemployed steel workers wonder why we subsidized foreign steel. Maybe -- Maybe, Mr. President, if you stopped in at a shelter in Chicago and spoke to the homeless there; maybe, Mr. President, if you asked a woman who had been denied the help she needed to feed her children because you said you needed the money for a tax break for a millionaire or for a missile we couldn't afford to use.
Maybe -- Maybe, Mr. President. But I'm afraid not. Because the truth is, ladies and gentlemen, that this is how we were warned it would be. President Reagan told us from the very beginning that he believed in a kind of social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. "Government can't do everything," we were told, so it should settle for taking care of the strong and hope that economic ambition and charity will do the rest. Make the rich richer, and what falls from the table will be enough for the middle class and those who are trying desperately to work their way into the middle class.
You know, the Republicans called it "trickle-down" when Hoover tried it. Now they call it "supply side." But it's the same shining city for those relative few who are lucky enough to live in its good neighborhoods. But for the people who are excluded, for the people who are locked out, all they can do is stare from a distance at that city's glimmering towers.
It's an old story. It's as old as our history. The difference between Democrats and Republicans has always been measured in courage and confidence. The Republicans -- The Republicans believe that the wagon train will not make it to the frontier unless some of the old, some of the young, some of the weak are left behind by the side of the trail. "The strong" -- "The strong," they tell us, "will inherit the land."
We Democrats believe in something else. We democrats believe that we can make it all the way with the whole family intact, and we have more than once. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees -- wagon train after wagon train -- to new frontiers of education, housing, peace; the whole family aboard, constantly reaching out to extend and enlarge that family; lifting them up into the wagon on the way; blacks and Hispanics, and people of every ethnic group, and native Americans -- all those struggling to build their families and claim some small share of America. For nearly 50 years we carried them all to new levels of comfort, and security, and dignity, even affluence. And remember this, some of us in this room today are here only because this nation had that kind of confidence. And it would be wrong to forget that.
So, here we are at this convention to remind ourselves where we come from and to claim the future for ourselves and for our children. Today our great Democratic Party, which has saved this nation from depression, from fascism, from racism, from corruption, is called upon to do it again -- this time to save the nation from confusion and division, from the threat of eventual fiscal disaster, and most of all from the fear of a nuclear holocaust.
That's not going to be easy. Mo Udall is exactly right -- it won't be easy. And in order to succeed, we must answer our opponent's polished and appealing rhetoric with a more telling reasonableness and rationality.
We must win this case on the merits. We must get the American public to look past the glitter, beyond the showmanship to the reality, the hard substance of things. And we'll do it not so much with speeches that sound good as with speeches that are good and sound; not so much with speeches that will bring people to their feet as with speeches that will bring people to their senses. We must make -- We must make the American people hear our "Tale of Two Cities." We must convince them that we don't have to settle for two cities, that we can have one city, indivisible, shining for all of its people.
Now, we will have no chance to do that if what comes out of this convention is a babel of arguing voices. If that's what's heard throughout the campaign, dissident sounds from all sides, we will have no chance to tell our message. To succeed we will have to surrender some small parts of our individual interests, to build a platform that we can all stand on, at once, and comfortably -- proudly singing out. We need -- We need a platform we can all agree to so that we can sing out the truth for the nation to hear, in chorus, its logic so clear and commanding that no slick Madison Avenue commercial, no amount of geniality, no martial music will be able to muffle the sound of the truth.
And we Democrats must unite. We Democrats must unite so that the entire nation can unite, because surely the Republicans won't bring this country together. Their policies divide the nation into the lucky and the left-out, into the royalty and the rabble. The Republicans are willing to treat that division as victory. They would cut this nation in half, into those temporarily better off and those worse off than before, and they would call that division recovery.
Now, we should not -- we should not be embarrassed or dismayed or chagrined if the process of unifying is difficult, even wrenching at times. Remember that, unlike any other Party, we embrace men and women of every color, every creed, every orientation, every economic class. In our family are gathered everyone from the abject poor of Essex County in New York, to the enlightened affluent of the gold coasts at both ends of the nation. And in between is the heart of our constituency -- the middle class, the people not rich enough to be worry-free, but not poor enough to be on welfare; the middle class -- those people who work for a living because they have to, not because some psychiatrist told them it was a convenient way to fill the interval between birth and eternity. White collar and blue collar. Young professionals. Men and women in small business desperate for the capital and contracts that they need to prove their worth.
We speak for the minorities who have not yet entered the mainstream. We speak for ethnics who want to add their culture to the magnificent mosaic that is America. We speak -- We speak for women who are indignant that this nation refuses to etch into its governmental commandments the simple rule "thou shalt not sin against equality," a rule so simple --
I was going to say, and I perhaps dare not but I will. It's a commandment so simple it can be spelled in three letters: E.R.A.
We speak -- We speak for young people demanding an education and a future. We speak for senior citizens. We speak for senior citizens who are terrorized by the idea that their only security, their Social Security, is being threatened. We speak for millions of reasoning people fighting to preserve our environment from greed and from stupidity. And we speak for reasonable people who are fighting to preserve our very existence from a macho intransigence that refuses to make intelligent attempts to discuss the possibility of nuclear holocaust with our enemy. They refuse. They refuse, because they believe we can pile missiles so high that they will pierce the clouds and the sight of them will frighten our enemies into submission.
Now we're proud of this diversity as Democrats. We're grateful for it. We don't have to manufacture it the way the Republicans will next month in Dallas, by propping up mannequin delegates on the convention floor. But we, while we're proud of this diversity, we pay a price for it. The different people that we represent have different points of view. And sometimes they compete and even debate, and even argue. That's what our primaries were all about. But now the primaries are over and it is time, when we pick our candidates and our platform here, to lock arms and move into this campaign together.
If you need any more inspiration to put some small part of your own difference aside to create this consensus, then all you need to do is to reflect on what the Republican policy of divide and cajole has done to this land since 1980. Now the President has asked the American people to judge him on whether or not he's fulfilled the promises he made four years ago. I believe, as Democrats, we ought to accept that challenge. And just for a moment let us consider what he has said and what he's done.
Inflation -- Inflation is down since 1980, but not because of the supply-side miracle promised to us by the President. Inflation was reduced the old-fashioned way: with a recession, the worst since 1932. Now how did we -- We could have brought inflation down that way. How did he do it? 55,000 bankruptcies; two years of massive unemployment; 200,000 farmers and ranchers forced off the land; more homeless -- more homeless than at any time since the Great Depression in 1932; more hungry, in this world of enormous affluence, the United States of America, more hungry; more poor, most of them women. And -- And he paid one other thing, a nearly 200 billion dollar deficit threatening our future.
Now, we must make the American people understand this deficit because they don't. The President's deficit is a direct and dramatic repudiation of his promise in 1980 to balance the budget by 1983. How large is it? The deficit is the largest in the history of the universe. It -- President Carter's last budget had a deficit less than one-third of this deficit. It is a deficit that, according to the President's own fiscal adviser, may grow to as much 300 billion dollars a year for "as far as the eye can see." And, ladies and gentlemen, it is a debt so large -- that is almost one-half of the money we collect from the personal income tax each year goes just to pay the interest. It is a mortgage on our children's future that can be paid only in pain and that could bring this nation to its knees.
Now don't take my word for it -- I'm a Democrat. Ask the Republican investment bankers on Wall Street what they think the chances of this recovery being permanent are. You see, if they're not too embarrassed to tell you the truth, they'll say that they're appalled and frightened by the President's deficit. Ask them what they think of our economy, now that it's been driven by the distorted value of the dollar back to its colonial condition. Now we're exporting agricultural products and importing manufactured ones. Ask those Republican investment bankers what they expect the rate of interest to be a year from now. And ask them -- if they dare tell you the truth -- you'll learn from them, what they predict for the inflation rate a year from now, because of the deficit.
Now, how important is this question of the deficit. Think about it practically: What chance would the Republican candidate have had in 1980 if he had told the American people that he intended to pay for his so-called economic recovery with bankruptcies, unemployment, more homeless, more hungry, and the largest government debt known to humankind? If he had told the voters in 1980 that truth, would American voters have signed the loan certificate for him on Election Day? Of course not! That was an election won under false pretenses. It was won with smoke and mirrors and illusions. And that's the kind of recovery we have now as well.
But what about foreign policy? They said that they would make us and the whole world safer. They say they have. By creating the largest defense budget in history, one that even they now admit is excessive -- by escalating to a frenzy the nuclear arms race; by incendiary rhetoric; by refusing to discuss peace with our enemies; by the loss of 279 young Americans in Lebanon in pursuit of a plan and a policy that no one can find or describe.
We give money to Latin American governments that murder nuns, and then we lie about it. We have been less than zealous in support of our only real friend -- it seems to me, in the Middle East -- the one democracy there, our flesh and blood ally, the state of Israel. Our -- Our policy -- Our foreign policy drifts with no real direction, other than an hysterical commitment to an arms race that leads nowhere -- if we're lucky. And if we're not, it could lead us into bankruptcy or war.
Of course we must have a strong defense! Of course Democrats are for a strong defense. Of course Democrats believe that there are times that we must stand and fight. And we have. Thousands of us have paid for freedom with our lives. But always -- when this country has been at its best -- our purposes were clear. Now they're not. Now our allies are as confused as our enemies. Now we have no real commitment to our friends or to our ideals -- not to human rights, not to the refuseniks, not to Sakharov, not to Bishop Tutu and the others struggling for freedom in South Africa.
We -- We have in the last few years spent more than we can afford. We have pounded our chests and made bold speeches. But we lost 279 young Americans in Lebanon and we live behind sand bags in Washington. How can anyone say that we are safer, stronger, or better?
That -- That is the Republican record. That its disastrous quality is not more fully understood by the American people I can only attribute to the President's amiability and the failure by some to separate the salesman from the product.
And, now -- now -- now it's up to us. Now it's up to you and to me to make the case to America. And to remind Americans that if they are not happy with all that the President has done so far, they should consider how much worse it will be if he is left to his radical proclivities for another four years unrestrained. Unrestrained.
Now, if -- if July -- if July brings back Ann Gorsuch Burford -- what can we expect of December? Where would -- Where would another four years take us? Where would four years more take us? How much larger will the deficit be? How much deeper the cuts in programs for the struggling middle class and the poor to limit that deficit? How high will the interest rates be? How much more acid rain killing our forests and fouling our lakes?
And, ladies and gentlemen, please think of this -- the nation must think of this: What kind of Supreme Court will we have?
Please. [beckons audience to settle down]
We -- We must ask ourselves what kind of court and country will be fashioned by the man who believes in having government mandate people's religion and morality; the man who believes that trees pollute the environment; the man that believes that -- that the laws against discrimination against people go too far; a man who threatens Social Security and Medicaid and help for the disabled. How high will we pile the missiles? How much deeper will the gulf be between us and our enemies? And, ladies and gentlemen, will four years more make meaner the spirit of the American people? This election will measure the record of the past four years. But more than that, it will answer the question of what kind of people we want to be.
We Democrats still have a dream. We still believe in this nation's future. And this is our answer to the question. This is our credo:
We believe in only the government we need, but we insist on all the government we need.
We believe in a government that is characterized by fairness and reasonableness, a reasonableness that goes beyond labels, that doesn't distort or promise to do things that we know we can't do.
We believe in a government strong enough to use words like "love" and "compassion" and smart enough to convert our noblest aspirations into practical realities.
We believe in encouraging the talented, but we believe that while survival of the fittest may be a good working description of the process of evolution, a government of humans should elevate itself to a higher order.
We -- Our -- Our government -- Our government should be able to rise to the level where it can fill the gaps that are left by chance or by a wisdom we don't fully understand. We would rather have laws written by the patron of this great city, the man called the "world's most sincere Democrat," St. Francis of Assisi, than laws written by Darwin.
We believe -- We believe as Democrats, that a society as blessed as ours, the most affluent democracy in the world's history, one that can spend trillions on instruments of destruction, ought to be able to help the middle class in its struggle, ought to be able to find work for all who can do it, room at the table, shelter for the homeless, care for the elderly and infirm, and hope for the destitute. And we proclaim as loudly as we can the utter insanity of nuclear proliferation and the need for a nuclear freeze, if only to affirm the simple truth that peace is better than war because life is better than death.
We believe in firm -- We believe in firm but fair law and order.
We believe proudly in the union movement.
We believe in a -- We believe -- We believe in privacy for people, openness by government.
We believe in civil rights, and we believe in human rights.
We believe in a single -- We believe in a single fundamental idea that describes better than most textbooks and any speech that I could write what a proper government should be: the idea of family, mutuality, the sharing of benefits and burdens for the good of all, feeling one another's pain, sharing one another's blessings -- reasonably, honestly, fairly, without respect to race, or sex, or geography, or political affiliation.
We believe we must be the family of America, recognizing that at the heart of the matter we are bound one to another, that the problems of a retired school teacher in Duluth are our problems; that the future of the child -- that the future of the child in Buffalo is our future; that the struggle of a disabled man in Boston to survive and live decently is our struggle; that the hunger of a woman in Little Rock is our hunger; that the failure anywhere to provide what reasonably we might, to avoid pain, is our failure.
Now for 50 years -- for 50 years we Democrats created a better future for our children, using traditional Democratic principles as a fixed beacon, giving us direction and purpose, but constantly innovating, adapting to new realities: Roosevelt's alphabet programs; Truman's NATO and the GI Bill of Rights; Kennedy's intelligent tax incentives and the Alliance for Progress; Johnson's civil rights; Carter's human rights and the nearly miraculous Camp David Peace Accord.
Democrats did it -- Democrats did it and Democrats can do it again. We can build a future that deals with our deficit. Remember this, that 50 years of progress under our principles never cost us what the last four years of stagnation have. And we can deal with the deficit intelligently, by shared sacrifice, with all parts of the nation's family contributing, building partnerships with the private sector, providing a sound defense without depriving ourselves of what we need to feed our children and care for our people. We can have a future that provides for all the young of the present, by marrying common sense and compassion.
We know we can, because we did it for nearly 50 years before 1980. And we can do it again, if we do not forget -- if we do not forget that this entire nation has profited by these progressive principles; that they helped lift up generations to the middle class and higher; that they gave us a chance to work, to go to college, to raise a family, to own a house, to be secure in our old age and, before that, to reach heights that our own parents would not have dared dream of.
That struggle to live with dignity is the real story of the shining city. And it's a story, ladies and gentlemen, that I didn't read in a book, or learn in a classroom. I saw it and lived it, like many of you. I watched a small man with thick calluses on both his hands work 15 and 16 hours a day. I saw him once literally bleed from the bottoms of his feet, a man who came here uneducated, alone, unable to speak the language, who taught me all I needed to know about faith and hard work by the simple eloquence of his example. I learned about our kind of democracy from my father. And I learned about our obligation to each other from him and from my mother. They asked only for a chance to work and to make the world better for their children, and they -- they asked to be protected in those moments when they would not be able to protect themselves. This nation and this nation's government did that for them.
And that they were able to build a family and live in dignity and see one of their children go from behind their little grocery store in South Jamaica on the other side of the tracks where he was born, to occupy the highest seat, in the greatest State, in the greatest nation, in the only world we would know, is an ineffably beautiful tribute to the democratic process.
And -- And ladies and gentlemen, on January 20, 1985, it will happen again -- only on a much, much grander scale. We will have a new President of the United States, a Democrat born not to the blood of kings but to the blood of pioneers and immigrants. And we will have America's first woman Vice President, the child of immigrants, and she -- she -- she will open with one magnificent stroke, a whole new frontier for the United States.
Now, it will happen. It will happen if we make it happen; if you and I make it happen. And I ask you now, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, for the good of all of us, for the love of this great nation, for the family of America, for the love of God: Please, make this nation remember how futures are built.
Thank you and God bless you.

评分

参与人数 1威望 +10 金币 +10 收起 理由
hq1966 + 10 + 10

查看全部评分

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

17#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-19 07:03:22 | 只看该作者
两部宪法的前言,比较一下,有什么感觉?

就说最简单的一点:
美国宪法直言不讳地说明,制定宪法的目的是“我们自己及我们後代能安享自由带来的幸福”。而且,在这一句话的前言,“我们”这个词出现了三次。

再看我国的宪法,制定宪法的目的和作用的陈述并不清楚。
象最后一段中的一句“本宪法以法律的形式确认了中国各族人民奋斗的成果”,而这是怎么样的“成果”?这是谁的利益,制定宪法是为了谁的利益?洋洋上千字的前言隐讳其辞。


美国宪法(中文)

  序言

  我们美利坚合众国的人民,为了组织一个更完善的联邦,树立正义,保障国内的安宁,建立共同的国防,增进全民福利和确保我们自己及我们後代能安享自由带来的幸福,乃为美利坚合众国制定和确立这一部宪法。

--------------------------------------

中华人民共和国宪法

序 言

  中国是世界上历史最悠久的国家之一。中国各族人民共同创造了光辉灿烂的文化,具有光荣的革命传统。

  一八四0年以后,封建的中国逐渐变成半殖民地、半封建的国家。中国人民为国家独立、民族解放和民主自由进行了前仆后继的英勇奋斗。

  二十世纪,中国发生了翻天覆地的伟大历史变革。

  一九一一年孙中山先生领导的辛亥革命,废除了封建帝制,创立了中华民国。但是,中国人民反对帝国主义和封建主义的历史任务还没有完成。

  一九四九年,以毛泽东主席为领袖的中国共产党领导中国各族人民,在经历了长期的艰难曲折的武装斗争和其他形式的斗争以后,终于推翻了帝国主义、封建主义和官僚资本主义的统治,取得了新民主主义革命的伟大胜利,建立了中华人民共和国。从此,中国人民掌握了国家的权力,成为国家的主人。

  中华人民共和国成立以后,我国社会逐步实现了由新民主主义到社会主义的过渡。生产资料私有制的社会主义改造已经完成,人剥削人的制度已经消灭,社会主义制度已经确立。工人阶级领导的、以工农联盟为基础的人民民主专政,实质上即无产阶级专政,得到巩固和发展。中国人民和中国人民解放军战胜了帝国主义、霸权主义的侵略、破坏和武装挑衅,维护了国家的独立和安全,增强了国防。经济建设取得了重大的成就,独立的、比较完整的社会主义工业体系已经基本形成,农业生产显著提高。教育、科学、文化等事业有了很大的发展,社会主义思想教育取得了明显的成效。广大人民的生活有了较大的改善。

  中国新民主主义革命的胜利和社会主义事业的成就,都是中国共产党领导中国各族人民,在马克思列宁主义、毛泽东思想的指引下,坚持真理,修正错误,战胜许多艰难险阻而取得的。今后国家的根本任务是集中力量进行社会主义现代化建设。中国各族人民将继续在中国共产党领导下,在马克思列宁主义、毛泽东思想指引下,坚持人民民主专政,坚持社会主义道路,不断完善社会主义的各项制度,发展社会主义民主,健全社会主义法制,自力更生,艰苦奋斗,逐步实现工业、农业、国防和科学技术的现代化,把我国建设成为高度文明、高度民主的社会主义国家。

  在我国,剥削阶级作为阶级已经消灭,但是阶级斗争还将在一定范围内长期存在。中国人民对敌视和破坏我国社会主义制度的国内外的敌对势力和敌对分子,必须进行斗争。

  台湾是中华人民共和国的神圣领土的一部分。完成统一祖国的大业是包括台湾同胞在内的全中国人民的神圣职责。

  社会主义的建设事业必须依靠工人、农民和知识分子,团结一切可以团结的力量。在长期的革命和建设过程中,已经结成由中国共产党领导的,有各民主党派和各人民团体参加的,包括全体社会主义劳动者、拥护社会主义的爱国者和拥护祖国统一的爱国者的广泛的爱国统一战线,这个统一战线将继续巩固和发展。中国人民政治协商会议是有广泛代表性的统一战线组织,过去发挥了重要的历史作用,今后在国家政治生活、社会生活和对外友好活动中,在进行社会主义现代化建设、维护国家的统一和团结的斗争中,将进一步发挥它的重要作用。

  中华人民共和国是全国各族人民共同缔造的统一的多民族国家。平等、团结、互助的社会主义民族关系已经确立,并将继续加强。在维护民族团结的斗争中,要反对大民族主义,主要是大汉族主义,也要反对地方民族主义。国家尽一切努力,促进全国各民族的共同繁荣。

  中国革命和建设的成就是同世界人民的支持分不开的。中国的前途是同世界的前途紧密地联系在一起的。中国坚持独立自主的对外政策,坚持互相尊重主权和领土完整、互不侵犯、互不干涉内政、平等互利、和平共处的五项原则,发展同各国的外交关系和经济、文化的交流;坚持反对帝国主义、霸权主义、殖民主义,加强同世界各国人民的团结,支持被压迫民族和发展中国家争取和维护民族独立、发展民族经济的正义斗争,为维护世界和平和促进人类进步事业而努力。

  本宪法以法律的形式确认了中国各族人民奋斗的成果,规定了国家的根本制度和根本任务,是国家的根本法,具有最高的法律效力。全国各族人民、一切国家机关和武装力量、各政党和各社会团体、各企业事业组织,都必须以宪法为根本的活动准则,并且负有维护宪法尊严、保证宪法实施的职责。

[ 本帖最后由 dawnch 于 2007-7-19 07:48 编辑 ]

评分

参与人数 1威望 +10 金币 +10 收起 理由
hq1966 + 10 + 10

查看全部评分

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

18#
发表于 2007-7-19 11:55:06 | 只看该作者
中国的随着革命需要经常修改, 50年的比人家二百年的改得多了去, 根本上需要改看形势吃饭的, 汗! 宪法.

评分

参与人数 1威望 +5 金币 +5 收起 理由
hq1966 + 5 + 5  汗

查看全部评分

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

19#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-19 22:36:38 | 只看该作者
这两天心里在一直盘旋着这段话。
这是林肯离开伊利诺斯州,启程去华盛顿就职时对家乡的父老乡亲所说的。

My Friends: No one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century and have passed from a young to an old man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. I now leave, not knowing when or whether ever I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. Without the assistance of that Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance, I cannot fail. Trusting in Him who can go with me, and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. To His care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell.


林肯在伊州的春田住了25年。春田离芝加哥只有三小时火车的路程。六月份我和虫子特意去拜谒了一次,很感人。

100_7938.jpg (814.04 KB, 下载次数: 0)

100_7938.jpg

评分

参与人数 1威望 +5 金币 +5 收起 理由
朵朵仔 + 5 + 5

查看全部评分

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

20#
 楼主| 发表于 2007-7-23 13:06:44 | 只看该作者
给Gerber和Cho准备最后一次中文课,自己先做了个范本,无意中竟表达了自己的心境:

我来自春天的大叶榕和白色的百合花
我来自后院里的挖蚯蚓和操场上的捉迷藏
我来自莫扎特的《朱比特》和贝多芬的《合唱》
我来自一杯星巴克咖啡和一片柠檬蛋搭

我来自暗夜的独坐与十字街头的彷徨
我来自肯特的744,善知识把我生命点亮
我来自青藏高原的月亮和芝加哥的风花雪和湖上风光
我来自站台上的离别和不得不的忧伤

原谅我带走了美丽之夏,
直到来年,她自会归来。

[ 本帖最后由 dawnch 于 2007-7-24 11:26 编辑 ]

评分

参与人数 1威望 +5 金币 +5 收起 理由
朵朵仔 + 5 + 5

查看全部评分

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

971|

小黑屋|手机版|新儿教资料网-祝孩子们天天健康快乐! ( 闽ICP备19010693号-1|广告自助中心  

闽公网安备 35052502000123号

GMT+8, 2025-5-9 08:54 , Processed in 0.118290 second(s), 40 queries , Redis On.

Powered by etjy.com! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表