天涯部落

小圈子,大声音!呼朋引伴网聚部落!

创建新部落?

嘉兴去皱纹哪家好

楼主:管知识 时间:2018年08月21日 00:28:29 点击:0 回复:0
脱水模式给他打赏只看楼主阅读设置
Edward M. KennedyFaith, Truth and Tolerance in America[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.]Thank you very much Professor Kombay for that generous introduction. And let me say, that I never expected to hear such kind words from Dr. Falwell. So in return, I have an invitation of my own. On January 20th, 1985, I hope Dr. Falwell will say a prayer at the inauguration of the next Democratic President of the ed States. Now, Dr. Falwell, I’m not exactly sure how you feel about that. You might not appreciate the President, but the Democrats certainly would appreciate the prayer.Actually, a number of people in Washington were surprised that I was invited to speak here -- and even more surprised when I accepted the invitation. They seem to think that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a Kennedy to come to the campus of Liberty Baptist College. In honor of our meeting, I have asked Dr. Falwell, as your Chancellor, to permit all the students an extra hour next Saturday night before curfew. And in return, I have promised to watch the Old Time Gospel Hour next Sunday morning.I realize that my visit may be a little controversial. But as many of you have heard, Dr. Falwell recently sent me a membership in the Moral Majority -- and I didn't even apply for it. And I wonder if that means that I'm a member in good standing. [Falwell: Somewhat]Somewhat, he says. This is, of course, a nonpolitical speech which is probably best under the circumstances. Since I am not a candidate for President, it would certainly be inappropriate to ask for your support in this election and probably inaccurate to thank you for it in the last one. I have come here to discuss my beliefs about faith and country, tolerance and truth in America. I know we begin with certain disagreements; I strongly suspect that at the end of the evening some of our disagreements will remain. But I also hope that tonight and in the months and years ahead, we will always respect the right of others to differ, that we will never lose sight of our own fallibility, that we will view ourselves with a sense of perspective and a sense of humor. After all, in the New Testament, even the Disciples had to be taught to look first to the beam in their own eyes, and only then to the mote in their neighbor’s eyes.I am mindful of that counsel. I am an American and a Catholic; I love my country and treasure my faith. But I do not assume that my conception of patriotism or policy is invariably correct, or that my convictions about religion should command any greater respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society. I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim a monopoly on it?There are those who do, and their own words testify to their intolerance. For example, because the Moral Majority has worked with members of different denominations, one fundamentalist group has denounced Dr. Falwell for hastening the ecumenical church and for "yoking together with Roman Catholics, Mormons, and others." I am relieved that Dr. Falwell does not regard that as a sin, and on this issue, he himself has become the target of narrow prejudice. When people agree on public policy, they ought to be able to work together, even while they worship in diverse ways. For truly we are all yoked together as Americans, and the yoke is the happy one of individual freedom and mutual respect.But in saying that, we cannot and should not turn aside from a deeper and more pressing question -- which is whether and how religion should influence government. A generation ago, a presidential candidate had to prove his independence of undue religious influence in public life, and he had to do so partly at the insistence of evangelical Protestants. John Kennedy said at that time: “I believe in an America where there is no religious bloc voting of any kind.” Only twenty years later, another candidate was appealing to a[n] evangelical meeting as a religious bloc. Ronald Reagan said to 15 thousand evangelicals at the Roundtable in Dallas: “ I know that you can’t endorse me. I want you to know I endorse you and what you are doing.”To many Americans, that pledge was a sign and a symbol of a dangerous breakdown in the separation of church and state. Yet this principle, as vital as it is, is not a simplistic and rigid command. Separation of church and state cannot mean an absolute separation between moral principles and political power. The challenge today is to recall the origin of the principle, to define its purpose, and refine its application to the politics of the present.The founders of our nation had long and bitter experience with the state, as both the agent and the adversary of particular religious views. In colonial Maryland, Catholics paid a double land tax, and in Pennsylvania they had to list their names on a public roll -- an ominous precursor of the first Nazi laws against the Jews. And Jews in turn faced discrimination in all of the thirteen original Colonies. Massachusetts exiled Roger Williams and his congregation for contending that civil government had no right to enforce the Ten Commandments. Virginia harassed Baptist teachers, and also established a religious test for public service, writing into the law that no “popish followers” could hold any office.But during the Revolution, Catholics, Jews, and Non-Conformists all rallied to the cause and fought valiantly for the American commonwealth -- for John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill.” Afterwards, when the Constitution was ratified and then amended, the framers gave freedom for all religion, and from any established religion, the very first place in the Bill of Rights.Indeed the framers themselves professed very different faiths: Washington was an Episcopalian, Jefferson a deist, and Adams a Calvinist. And although he had earlier opposed toleration, John Adams later contributed to the building of Catholic churches, and so did George Washington. Thomas Jefferson said his proudest achievement was not the presidency, or the writing the Declaration of Independence, but drafting the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. He stated the vision of the first Americans and the First Amendment very clearly: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith. They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk. Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible. As President Eisenhower warned in 1953, “Don’t join the book burners...the right to say ideas, the right to record them, and the right to have them accessible to others is unquestioned -- or this isn’t America.” And if that right is denied, at some future day the torch can be turned against any other book or any other belief. Let us never forget: Today’s Moral Majority could become tomorrow’s persecuted minority.The danger is as great now as when the founders of the nation first saw it. In 1789, their fear was of factional strife among dozens of denominations. Today there are hundreds -- and perhaps even thousands of faiths -- and millions of Americans who are outside any fold. Pluralism obviously does not and cannot mean that all of them are right; but it does mean that there are areas where government cannot and should not decide what it is wrong to believe, to think, to , and to do. As Professor Larry Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars has written, “Law in a non-theocratic state cannot measure religious truth, nor can the state impose it."The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives. The failure of Prohibition proves the futility of such an attempt when a majority or even a substantial minority happens to disagree. Some questions may be inherently individual ones, or people may be sharply divided about whether they are. In such cases, like Prohibition and abortion, the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state. But there are other questions which are inherently public in nature, which we must decide together as a nation, and where religion and religious values can and should speak to our common conscience. The issue of nuclear war is a compelling example. It is a moral issue; it will be decided by government, not by each individual; and to give any effect to the moral values of their creed, people of faith must speak directly about public policy. The Catholic bishops and the Reverend Billy Graham have every right to stand for the nuclear freeze, and Dr. Falwell has every right to stand against it.There must be standards for the exercise of such leadership, so that the obligations of belief will not be debased into an opportunity for mere political advantage. But to take a stand at all when a question is both properly public and truly moral is to stand in a long and honored tradition. Many of the great evangelists of the 1800s were in the forefront of the abolitionist movement. In our own time, the Reverend William Sloane Coffin challenged the morality of the war in Vietnam. Pope John XXIII renewed the Gospel’s call to social justice. And Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was the greatest prophet of this century, awakened our nation and its conscience to the evil of racial segregation. Their words have blessed our world. And who now wishes they had been silent? Who would bid Pope John Paul [II] to quiet his voice against the oppression in Eastern Europe, the violence in Central America, or the crying needs of the landless, the hungry, and those who are tortured in so many of the dark political prisons of our time?President Kennedy, who said that “no religious body should seek to impose its will,” also urged religious leaders to state their views and give their commitment when the public debate involved ethical issues. In drawing the line between imposed will and essential witness, we keep church and state separate, and at the same time we recognize that the City of God should speak to the civic duties of men and women.There are four tests which draw that line and define the difference.First, we must respect the integrity of religion itself.People of conscience should be careful how they deal in the word of their Lord. In our own history, religion has been falsely invoked to sanction prejudice -- even slavery -- to condemn labor unions and public spending for the poor. I believe that the prophecy, ”The poor you have always with you” is an indictment, not a commandment. And I respectfully suggest that God has taken no position on the Department of Education -- and that a balanced budget constitutional amendment is a matter of economic analysis, and not heavenly appeals.Religious values cannot be excluded from every public issue; but not every public issue involves religious values. And how ironic it is when those very values are denied in the name of religion. For example, we are sometimes told that it is wrong to feed the hungry, but that mission is an explicit mandate given to us in the 25th chapter of Matthew.Second, we must respect the independent judgments of conscience.Those who proclaim moral and religious values can offer counsel, but they should not casually treat a position on a public issue as a test of fealty to faith. Just as I disagree with the Catholic bishops on tuition tax credits -- which I oppose -- so other Catholics can and do disagree with the hierarchy, on the basis of honest conviction, on the question of the nuclear freeze.Thus, the controversy about the Moral Majority arises not only from its views, but from its name -- which, in the minds of many, seems to imply that only one set of public policies is moral and only one majority can possibly be right. Similarly, people are and should be perplexed when the religious lobbying group Christian Voice publishes a morality index of congressional voting records, which judges the morality of senators by their attitude toward Zimbabwe and Taiwan. Let me offer another illustration. Dr. Falwell has written -- and I e: “To stand against Israel is to stand against God.” Now there is no one in the Senate who has stood more firmly for Israel than I have. Yet, I do not doubt the faith of those on the other side. Their error is not one of religion, but of policy. And I hope to be able to persuade them that they are wrong in terms of both America’s interest and the justice of Israel’s cause.Respect for conscience is most in jeopardy, and the harmony of our diverse society is most at risk, when we re-establish, directly or indirectly, a religious test for public office. That relic of the colonial era, which is specifically prohibited in the Constitution, has reappeared in recent years. After the last election, the Reverend James Robison warned President Reagan no to surround himself, as president before him had, “with the counsel of the ungodly.” I utterly reject any such standard for any position anywhere in public service. Two centuries ago, the victims were Catholics and Jews. In the 1980s the victims could be atheists; in some other day or decade, they could be the members of the Thomas Road Baptist Church. Indeed, in 1976 I regarded it as unworthy and un-American when some people said or hinted that Jimmy Carter should not be president because he was a born again Christian. We must never judge the fitness of individuals to govern on the bas[is] of where they worship, whether they follow Christ or Moses, whether they are called “born again” or “ungodly.” Where it is right to apply moral values to public life, let all of us avoid the temptation to be self-righteous and absolutely certain of ourselves. And if that temptation ever comes, let us recall Winston Churchill’s humbling description of an intolerant and inflexible colleague: “There but for the grace of God goes God.”Third, in applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate.In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts. Critics may oppose the nuclear freeze for what they regard as moral reasons. They have every right to argue that any negotiation with the Soviets is wrong, or that any accommodation with them sanctions their crimes, or that no agreement can be good enough and therefore all agreements only increase the chance of war. I do not believe that, but it surely does not violate the standard of fair public debate to say it. What does violate that standard, what the opponents of the nuclear freeze have no right to do, is to assume that they are infallible, and so any argument against the freeze will do, whether it is false or true.The nuclear freeze proposal is not unilateral, but bilateral -- with equal restraints on the ed States and the Soviet Union. The nuclear freeze does not require that we trust the Russians, but demands full and effective verification. The nuclear freeze does not concede a Soviet lead in nuclear weapons, but recognizes that human beings in each great power aly have in their fallible hands the overwhelming capacity to remake into a pile of radioactive rubble the earth which God has made. There is no morality in the mushroom cloud. The black rain of nuclear ashes will fall alike on the just and the unjust. And then it will be too late to wish that we had done the real work of this atomic age -- which is to seek a world that is neither red nor dead.I am perfectly prepared to debate the nuclear freeze on policy grounds, or moral ones. But we should not be forced to discuss phantom issues or false charges. They only deflect us form the urgent task of deciding how best to prevent a planet divided from becoming a planet destroyed.And it does not advance the debate to contend that the arms race is more divine punishment than human problem, or that in any event, the final days are near. As Pope John said two decades ago, at the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “We must beware of those who burn with zeal, but are not endowed with much sense... we must disagree with the prophets of doom, who are always forecasting disasters, as though the end of the earth was at hand.” The message which echoes across the years is very clear: The earth is still here; and if we wish to keep it, a prophecy of doom is no alternative to a policy of arms control.Fourth, and finally, we must respect the motives of those who exercise their right to disagree.We sorely test our ability to live together if we ily question each other’s integrity. It may be harder to restrain our feelings when moral principles are at stake, for they go to the deepest wellsprings of our being. But the more our feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they are, the greater is our obligation to grant the sincerity and essential decency of our fellow citizens on the other side.Those who favor E.R.A [Equal Rights Amendment] are not “antifamily” or “blasphemers.” And their purpose is not “an attack on the Bible.” Rather, we believe this is the best way to fix in our national firmament the ideal that not only all men, but all people are created equal. Indeed, my mother, who strongly favors E.R.A., would be surprised to hear that she is anti-family. For my part, I think of the amendment’s opponents as wrong on the issue, but not as lacking in moral characterI could multiply the instances of name-calling, sometimes on both sides. Dr. Falwell is not a “warmonger.” And “liberal clergymen” are not, as the Moral Majority suggested in a recent letter, equivalent to “Soviet sympathizers.” The critics of official prayer in public schools are not “Pharisees”; many of them are both civil libertarians and believers, who think that families should pray more at home with their children, and attend church and synagogue more faithfully. And people are not sexist because they stand against abortion, and they are not murderers because they believe in free choice. Nor does it help anyone’s cause to shout such epithets, or to try and shout a speaker down -- which is what happened last April when Dr. Falwell was hissed and heckled at Harvard. So I am doubly grateful for your courtesy here this evening. That was not Harvard’s finest hour, but I am happy to say that the loudest applause from the Harvard audience came in defense of Dr. Falwell’s right to speak.In short, I hope for an America where neither "fundamentalist" nor "humanist" will be a dirty word, but a fair description of the different ways in which people of good will look at life and into their own souls.I hope for an America where no president, no public official, no individual will ever be deemed a greater or lesser American because of religious doubt -- or religious belief.I hope for an America where the power of faith will always burn brightly, but where no modern Inquisition of any kind will ever light the fires of fear, coercion, or angry division.I hope for an America where we can all contend freely and vigorously, but where we will treasure and guard those standards of civility which alone make this nation safe for both democracy and diversity.Twenty years ago this fall, in New York City, President Kennedy met for the last time with a Protestant assembly. The atmosphere had been transformed since his earlier address during the 1960 campaign to the Houston Ministerial Association. He had spoken there to allay suspicions about his Catholicism, and to answer those who claimed that on the day of his baptism, he was somehow disqualified from becoming President. His speech in Houston and then his election drove that prejudice from the center of our national life. Now, three years later, in November of 1963, he was appearing before the Protestant Council of New York City to reaffirm what he regarded as some fundamental truths. On that occasion, John Kennedy said: “The family of man is not limited to a single race or religion, to a single city, or country...the family of man is nearly 3 billion strong. Most of its members are not white and most of them are not Christian.” And as President Kennedy reflected on that reality, he restated an ideal for which he had lived his life -- that “the members of this family should be at peace with one another.”That ideal shines across all the generations of our history and all the ages of our faith, carrying with it the most ancient dream. For as the Apostle Paul wrote long ago in Romans: “If it be possible, as much as it lieth in you, live peaceable with all men.”I believe it is possible; the choice lies within us; as fellow citizens, let us live peaceable with each other; as fellow human beings, let us strive to live peaceably with men and women everywhere. Let that be our purpose and our prayer, yours and mine -- for ourselves, for our country, and for all the world. 200806/41006Dwight D. Eisenhower: Farewell Address [AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio. (2)]Good evening, my fellow Americans.First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.Three days from now, after half century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor. This evening, I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.Like every other -- Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling -- on my part -- of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or iness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insiduous [insidious] in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only. A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, y for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.Until the latest of our world conflicts, the ed States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all ed States cooperations -- corporations.Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many fast frustrations -- past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certaint agony of disarmament -- of the battlefield.Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.So, in this, my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust in that -- in that -- in that service you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibility; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the sources -- scourges of poverty, disease, and ignorance will be made [to] disappear from the earth; and that in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.Thank you, and good night.200606/7538亲,你们想拥有一口流利的英语口语吗?你们想像世界名人一样拥有敏锐的智慧、滔滔不绝的口才吗?在这里,大家不但可以聆听抑扬顿挫的英文,而且还可以学习到名人的过人之处,相信会受益匪浅的!听,他们来了......164435

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.从今天开始,我们必须跌倒后爬起来,拍拍身上的泥土,重新开始工作,重塑美国。For everywhere we look, there is work to be done.我目之所及,都有工作有待完成。The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.国家的经济情况要求我们采取大胆且快速的行动,我们的确是要行动,不仅是要创造就业,更要为(下一轮经济)增长打下新的基础。We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.我们将造桥铺路,为企业铺设电网和数字线路,将我们联系在一起。We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technologys wonders to raise healthcares quality and lower its cost.我们将回归科学,运用科技的奇迹提高医疗质量,降低医疗费用。We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.我们将利用风能、太阳能和土壤驱动车辆,为工厂提供能源。And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.我们将改革中小学以及大专院校,以适应新时代的要求。All this we can do. And all this we will do.这一切,我们都能做到,而且我们都将会做到。Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans.现在,有一些人开始质疑我们的野心是不是太大了,他们认为我们的体制承载不了太多的宏伟计划。Their memories are short.他们是健忘了。For they have forgotten what this country has aly done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.他们已经忘了这个国家已经取得的成就;他们已经忘了当创造力与共同目标以及必要的勇气结合起来时,自由的美国人民所能发挥的能量。What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.这些怀疑论者的错误在于,他们没有意识到政治现实已经发生了变化,长期以来耗掉我们太多精力的陈腐政治论争已经不再适用。The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small,今天,我们的问题不在于政府的大小,but whether it works whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.而在于政府能否起作用,政府能否帮助家庭找到薪水合适的工作、给他们可以负担得起的医疗保障并让他们体面地退休。Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward.哪个方案能给与肯定的,我们就推进哪个方案。Where the answer is no, programs will end.哪个方案的是否定的,我们就选择终止。And those of us who manage the publics dollars will be held to account to spend wisely,而掌管纳税人税金的人应当承担起责任,合理出,reform bad habits and do our business in the light of day because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.摒弃陋习,磊落做事,这样才能在政府和人民之间重建至关重要的相互信任。Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill.我们面临的问题也不是市场好坏的问题。Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye,市场创造财富、拓展自由的能力无可匹敌,但是这场危机提醒我们,如果没有监管,the market can spin out of control and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favours only the prosperous.市场很可能就会失去控制,而且偏袒富人国家的繁荣无法持久。03/438433

[Nextpage视频演讲]The President and First Lady attend a performance at Ford's Theatre, where the President gives remarks honoring the historic venue.Download Video: mp4 (46MB) | mp3 (5MB) [Nextpage演讲文本]Hello, everybody. It is a pleasure to welcome all of you to the White House. I'm going to be very brief, because I know you're all looking forward to heading down the street a little bit later for a wonderful night -- and Michelle just mentioned, and the women are wearing heels. (Laughter.) That’s why I want to take a moment to thank all the performers for taking time out of their busy schedules to share their gifts with us and be part of this wonderful event. I also want to thank the Cabinet officials and members of Congress who are with us –- including Senator Reid. Thank you all for coming and for your support of this wonderful institution. (Applause.) Tonight is about celebrating the great work at Ford Theatre, what it’s done to preserve the legacy of our 16th President and highlight the importance of the arts and education in our own lives and in the life of our nation. In many ways, it’s impossible to separate the history of America from the history of its music and its spoken word. Soldiers have sung as they marched to war, and raised their voices again while laying a brother to rest. Lyrics on a page and voices on a stage have helped connect us across generations and across cultures, backgrounds and faiths. Our greatest leaders -– including Lincoln himself -– have drawn inspiration and courage from the arts. And on a personal level, they help each of us express the joys and hardships of life while bringing us closer to each other.This is especially true during moments of trial -- and we have had a lot of trials over the past year and a half. Right now we've got brothers and sisters in the Gulf Coast who are going through an incredibly difficult time in the face of a disaster unlike any that we’ve ever seen of late. I want to emphasize again that we're going to do everything we can in the weeks and months and years ahead to make things right. And I know everybody here feels the same way.But tonight we will celebrate not only music and song and performances, but we're also going to be celebrating the incredible legacy of the Ford’s Theatre -- celebrating some award recipients who are extraordinarily worthy and have done so much to help not just people in this country but all around the world.So, on behalf of Michelle and our entire family, I want to say how grateful I am that all of you are here. Thank you for support the theatre. We are looking forward to a wonderful evening. Good night. (Applause.) END201006/105719

  • 嘉兴美白祛斑哪家医院好
  • 嘉兴市固体硅胶隆鼻价格排名分类
  • 嘉兴去咖啡斑多少钱平安常识
  • 嘉兴市曙光医院祛眼袋多少钱
  • 桐乡去胎记多少钱乐视活动
  • 平湖市红十字会医院去疤多少钱飞度卫生嘉兴去颈纹哪家好
  • 同城健康嘉兴二院光子脱毛多少钱
  • 新华新闻嘉善县第一人民医院激光脱毛多少钱中医常识
  • 嘉兴润白颜价格
  • 浙江祛斑多少钱ask晚报
  • 浙江嘉兴唇部整形医院康泰媒体嘉兴玻尿酸除皱手术
  • 海宁上睑下垂矫正多少钱
  • 导医生活嘉兴拔牙多少钱
  • 海宁市第四人民医院做隆鼻手术多少钱
  • 华龙助手嘉兴曙光中西医医院去疤痕多少钱康大全
  • 同城面诊嘉兴脱毛最好的医院
  • 嘉兴关于狐臭怎么治疗好华龙问答嘉兴市注射丰唇一针多少钱
  • QQ咨询浙江新安国际医院激光祛斑多少钱爱问新闻
  • 嘉兴光子脱体毛美丽大夫
  • 嘉兴市第二医院美容中心
  • 嘉兴痤疮治疗医院
  • ask诊疗嘉兴曙光整形美容医院割双眼皮多少钱
  • 百科频道嘉兴市妇幼保健院整形美容
  • 嘉兴曙光中西医整形美容医院治疗色素痣怎么样普及口碑
  • 嘉兴市去抬头纹多少钱
  • 嘉兴祛除色素痣费用是多少
  • 嘉兴整形医院在线咨询
  • 嘉兴曙光医院玻尿酸玻尿酸价格咨询对话
  • 医报嘉兴点痣价格
  • 平湖做黑脸娃娃多少钱
  • 相关阅读
  • 瞒天过海!集体耕地上建厂房!村民:相关部门集体哑火(三)
  • 暮影战神武灵攻略大全
  • 唐嫣赵丽颖吴昕林允儿李易峰和谁最有感(图)
  • 酒类电商双罢斗
  • 南京查处违规补缴社保证明份购房证明被注销
  • 内蒙古自治区政协原副主席赵黎平一审被判处死刑
  • 近日李念与刚斩获年北京青年电影节影帝的巩峥出现在街边
  • 徐娇穿白袜撑伞古典韵味十足邻家有女初长成
  • 单机斗地主下载:首存优惠
  • 小学生作业本开口说话曝光盗伐林木团伙
  • 相关推荐

    发表回复

    请遵守天涯社区公约言论规则,不得违反国家法律法规