考研英語閱讀材料匯編之社會類(4)

復(fù)習(xí)緊張，焦頭爛額？逆風(fēng)輕襲，來跨考秋季集訓(xùn)營，幫你尋方法，定方案！ 了解一下>>

閱讀是考研英語的重要題型之一，也是保障英語成績的關(guān)鍵題目。因此，考研學(xué)子們要充分重視英語閱讀，除了平時多多閱讀英語雜志、報紙外，還需要針對閱讀進(jìn)行專項訓(xùn)練。小編整理了關(guān)于考研英語閱讀題源的系列文章——考研英語閱讀材料匯編之社會類(4)，請參考!

Abdicate and Capitulate

It is extraordinary how President Bush has streamlined the Senate confirmation process. As we have seen most recently with the vote to confirm Michael Mukasey as attorney general, about all that is left of "advice and consent" is the "consent" part.

Once upon a time, the confirmation of major presidential appointments played out on several levels-starting, of course, with politics. It was assumed that a president would choose like-minded people as cabinet members and for other jobs requiring Senate approval. There was a presumption that he should be allowed his choices, all other things being equal.

Before George W. Bush's presidency, those other things actually counted. Was the nominee truly qualified, with a professional background worthy of the job? Would he discharge his duties fairly and honorably, upholding his oath to protect the Constitution? Even though he answers to the president, would the nominee represent all Americans? Would he or she respect the power of Congress to supervise the executive branch, and the power of the courts to enforce the rule of law?

In less than seven years, Mr. Bush has managed to boil that list down to its least common denominator: the president should get his choices. At first, Mr. Bush was abetted by a slavish Republican majority that balked at only one major appointment-Harriet Miers for Supreme Court justice, and then only because of doubts that she was far enough to the right.

The Democrats, however, also deserve a large measure of blame. They did almost nothing

while they were in the minority to demand better nominees than Mt. Bush was sending up. And now that they have attained the majority, they are not doing any better.

On Thursday, the Senate voted by 53 to 40 to confirm Mr. Mukasey even though he would not answer a simple question: does he think waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning used to extract information from a prisoner, is torture and therefore illegal?

Democrats offer excuses for their sorry record, starting with their razor-thin majority. But it is often said that any vote in the Senate requires more than 60 votes-enough to overcome a filibuster. So why did Mr. Mukaey get by with only 53 votes? Given the success the Republicans have had in blocking action when the Democrats cannot muster 60 votes, the main culprit appears to be the Democratic leadership, which seems uninterested in or incapable of standing up to Mr. Bush.

Senator Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat who turned the tide for this nomination, said that if the Senate did not approve Mr. Mukasey, the president would get by with an interim appointment who would be under the sway of "the extreme ideology of Vice President Dick Cheney". He argued that Mr. Mukasey could be counted on to reverse the politicization of the Justice Department that occurred under Alberto Gonzales, and that Mr. Mukasey’s reticence about calling waterboarding illegal might well become moot, because the Senate was considering a law making clear that it is illegal.

That is precisely the sort of cozy rationalization that Mr. Schumer and his colleagues have used so many times to back down from a confrontation with Mr. Bush. The truth is, Mr. Mukasey is already in the grip of that "extreme ideology". If he were not, he could have answered the question about waterboarding.

Mr. Bush said Mr. Mukasey could not do so because it would reveal classified information about Central Intelligence Agency interrogation techniques. That is nonsense. Mr. Mukasey was not asked if CIA jailers have used waterboarding on prisoners, something he could be expected to know nothing about. He was simply asked if ,as a general matter, waterboarding is illegal.

It was not a difficult question. Waterboarding is specifically banned by the Army Field Manual, and it is plainly illegal under the federal Anti-Torture Act, federal assault statutes, the Detainee Treatment Act, the Convention against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. It is hard to see how any nominee worthy of the position of attorney general could fail to answer "yes".

The real reason the White House would not permit Mr. Mukasey to answer was the risk to federal officials who carried out Mr. Bush's orders to abuse and torture prisoners after the 9/11 attacks: the tight answer could have exposed them to criminal sanctions.

The rationales that accompanied the vote in favor of Mr. Mukasey were not reassuring. The promise of a law banning waterboarding is no comfort. It is unnecessary, and even if it passes, Mr. Bush seems certain to veto it. In fact, it would play into the administration's hands by allowing it to argue that torture is not currently illegal.

The claim that Mr. Mukasey will depoliticize the Justice Department loses its allure when you consider that he would not commit himself to enforcing Congressional subpoenas in the United States attorneys' scandal.

All of this leaves us wondering whether Mr. Schumer and other Democratic leaders were more focused on the 2008 elections than on doing their constitutional duty. Certainly being made to look weak on terrorism might make it harder for them to expand their majority

We are not suggesting the Democrats reject every presidential appointee, or that the president's preferences not be taken into account. But Democrats have done precious little to avoid the kind of spectacle the world saw last week: the Senate giving the job of attorney general, chief law enforcement officer in the world's oldest democracy, to a man who does not even have the integrity to take a stand against torture.

詞匯注解

重點單詞

assume /?'sju:m/

【文中釋義】v.推斷，假設(shè)

【大綱全義】v.假裝;假定,設(shè)想;承擔(dān),呈現(xiàn),采取

cabinet /'kæbinit/

【文中釋義】n.內(nèi)閣

【大綱全義】n.內(nèi)閣，內(nèi)閣會議;(帶玻璃門存物品的)櫥拒

supervise /'sju:p?vaiz/

【文中釋義】v. 監(jiān)督

【大綱全義】v.管理，監(jiān)督

court /k ?:t/

【文中釋義】n.法院

【大綱全義】n. 法院，法庭;宮廷，朝廷;院子;球場

slavish /’sleivi? /

【文中釋義】adj. 盲目的

【大綱全義】adj. 奴性的，卑屈的;無獨創(chuàng)性的;盲從的

simulate /'simjuleit/

【文中釋義】v.假裝

【大綱全義】v.模仿，模擬;假裝，冒充

extract / iks'trækt/

【文中釋義】v.獲取，提取

【大綱全義】v. /n.拔出，抽出;摘錄n.抽取物;精華;選集

razor / 'reiz?/

【文中釋義】 adj 像剃刀一樣薄的

【大綱全義】n..剃刀

sway /swei/

【文中釋義】v.支配

【大綱全義】v. (使)搖動;傾抖挽搖動;影響力

ideology /,aidi'?l?d?i/

【文中釋義】n. 意識形態(tài)

【大綱全義】n. 意識形態(tài)，(政治或社會的)思想意識

超綱單詞

presumption n.可能性 nominee n.被提名的人

honorably adv.體面地 denominator n.限度

abet v.慫蔥，教唆 filibuster n.阻撓(的人)

muster v.召集 culprit n.罪人，犯人

reticence n.沉默

重點段落譯文

以前，要確認(rèn)重要的總統(tǒng)委任，要經(jīng)過好幾道程序—當(dāng)然首先從政治開始。據(jù)推斷，總統(tǒng)將會選擇志趣相投的人擔(dān)任內(nèi)閣成員或者其他需要參議院批準(zhǔn)的職位。委任的確認(rèn)有一個前提就是他的提議要被通過，同時其他事情也是如此。

在喬治·布什當(dāng)總統(tǒng)之前，事實上，還涉及其他一些事情。有專業(yè)背景知識的提名者真的能夠勝任嗎?他會公正無私、正大光明地履行他的職責(zé)，履行保護(hù)憲法的誓言嗎?即使被提名的人符合總統(tǒng)的要求人選，他會代表所有美國人鳴?他或她會尊重國會監(jiān)督行政機構(gòu)的權(quán)力并尊重法院執(zhí)法的權(quán)力嗎?

在不到7年的時間里，布什先生已經(jīng)把上面這個列表縮減到了最低限度：總統(tǒng)應(yīng)該有選擇權(quán)。首先，布什先生在盲目的共和黨多數(shù)派的慫恿下在一個重要的任命即提名哈里特·邁爾斯擔(dān)任最高法院大法官前裹足不前，當(dāng)時僅僅因為有人懷疑她跟右翼離得足夠遠(yuǎn)。

然而民主黨很大程度上也應(yīng)該受到指責(zé)。當(dāng)他們受到少數(shù)人支持時，他們并沒有要求布什提名出更好的合適人選?，F(xiàn)在，他們已經(jīng)受到大眾的支持，但與以前相比，他們的做法幾乎毫無改善。

周四，參議院以53票對40票通過對麥卡錫先生的提名，即使他回答不了一個很簡單的問題：在他看來，用水刑—— 一種模擬溺水的方式來從囚犯口中獲取信息是酷刑，因此是違法的嗎?

民主黨人為他們不盡人意的做法尋找各種借口，往往多數(shù)情況下是站不住腳的。但我們常說，參議院的任何表決至少需要60票—這個數(shù)字足以說服阻撓的人。那為什么麥卡錫先生僅53票就通過呢?如果說民主黨不能召集到60票，是共和黨成功的阻撓行動在起作用那主要的罪人好像是民主黨的領(lǐng)袖，因為他好像毫無興趣或者沒有能力與布什先生對抗。

扭轉(zhuǎn)了提名局勢的紐約州民主黨人士參議員查爾斯·舒默說，如果參議院不通過總統(tǒng)對麥卡錫先生的提名，總統(tǒng)會在“副總統(tǒng)迪克·切尼的極端意識”支配下，用臨時委任蒙混過去。他認(rèn)為，麥卡錫先生會扭轉(zhuǎn)司法部在阿爾貝托·岡薩雷斯時期的政治局面，而他在水刑非法問題上的沉默可能會引發(fā)一場辯論，因為參議院正考慮出臺一部法律明確說明它的非法性。

希望各位考生能夠每天堅持閱讀，提高詞匯量和語感能力，為以后的系統(tǒng)復(fù)習(xí)打下堅實的基礎(chǔ)。最后提醒大家，夏季來臨，復(fù)習(xí)備考需注意防暑降溫。預(yù)?？佳谐晒?

相關(guān)推薦
復(fù)習(xí)指導(dǎo)	2017考研英語單詞中的詞根詞綴匯總	2017考研線性代數(shù)重點公式匯總
考研時間	跨考教育整理—2017年考研時間表	2016考研真題及答案解析
復(fù)試分?jǐn)?shù)線	34所自主劃線高校歷年考研復(fù)試分?jǐn)?shù)線	歷年考研國家線匯總（跨考教育整理）