補習-Elie Wiesel - The Perils of Indifference (1999)

Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate, Elie Wiesel, gave this impassioned
speech in the East Room of the White House on April 12, 1999, as part of the
Millennium Lecture series, hosted by President Bill Clinton and First Lady
Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In the summer of 1944, as a teenager in Hungary, Elie Wiesel, along with his
father, mother and sisters, were deported by the Nazis to Auschwitz
extermination camp in occupied Poland. Upon arrival there, Wiesel and his father
were selected by SS Dr. Josef Mengele for slave labor and wound up at the nearby
Buna rubber factory.

Daily life included starvation rations of soup and bread, brutal discipline,
and a constant struggle against overwhelming despair. At one point, young Wiesel
received 25 lashes of the whip for a minor infraction.

In January 1945, as the Russian Army drew near, Wiesel and his father were
hurriedly evacuated from Auschwitz by a forced march to Gleiwitz and then via an
open train car to Buchenwald in Germany, where his father, mother, and a younger
sister eventually died.

Wiesel was liberated by American troops in April 1945. After the war, he
moved to Paris and became a journalist then later settled in New York. Since
1976, he has been Andrew Mellon Professor in the Humanities at Boston
University. He has received numerous awards and honors including the 1986 Nobel
Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He was also the Founding
Chair of the United States Holocaust Memorial. Wiesel has written over 40 books
including Night, a harrowing chronicle of his Holocaust experiences, first
published in 1960.

At the White House lecture, Wiesel was introduced by Hillary Clinton who
stated, It was more than a year ago that I asked Elie if he would be willing to
participate in these Millennium Lectures...I never could have imagined that when
the time finally came for him to stand in this spot and to reflect on the past
century and the future to come, that we would be seeing children in Kosovo
crowded into trains, separated from families, separated from their homes, robbed
of their childhoods, their memories, their humanity.

Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, members of Congress, Ambassador Holbrooke,
Excellencies, friends: Fifty-four years ago to the day, a young Jewish boy from
a small town in the Carpathian Mountains woke up, not far from Goethe's beloved
Weimar, in a place of eternal infamy called Buchenwald. He was finally free, but
there was no joy in his heart. He thought there never would be again.

Liberated a day earlier by American soldiers, he remembers their rage at what
they saw. And even if he lives to be a very old man, he will always be grateful
to them for that rage, and also for their compassion. Though he did not
understand their language, their eyes told him what he needed to know -- that
they, too, would remember, and bear witness.

And now, I stand before you, Mr. President -- Commander-in-Chief of the army
that freed me, and tens of thousands of others -- and I am filled with a
profound and abiding gratitude to the American people.

Gratitude is a word that I cherish. Gratitude is what defines the humanity of
the human being. And I am grateful to you, Hillary -- or Mrs. Clinton -- for
what you said, and for what you are doing for children in the world, for the
homeless, for the victims of injustice, the victims of destiny and society. And
I thank all of you for being here.

We are on the threshold of a new century, a new millennium. What will the
legacy of this vanishing century be? How will it be remembered in the new
millennium? Surely it will be judged, and judged severely, in both moral and
metaphysical terms. These failures have cast a dark shadow over humanity: two
World Wars, countless civil wars, the senseless chain of assassinations --
Gandhi, the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Sadat, Rabin -- bloodbaths in Cambodia
and Nigeria, India and Pakistan, Ireland and Rwanda, Eritrea and Ethiopia,
Sarajevo and Kosovo; the inhumanity in the gulag and the tragedy of Hiroshima.
And, on a different level, of course, Auschwitz and Treblinka. So much violence,
so much indifference.

What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means no difference. A strange
and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and
dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil.

What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is
there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view
indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep
one's sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world
around us experiences harrowing upheavals?

Of course, indifference can be tempting -- more than that, seductive. It is
so much easier to look away from victims. It is so much easier to avoid such
rude interruptions to our work, our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all,
awkward, troublesome, to be involved in another person's pain and despair. Yet,
for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbor are of no consequence.
And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible
anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the other to an abstraction.

Over there, behind the black gates of Auschwitz, the most tragic of all
prisoners were the Muselmanner, as they were called. Wrapped in their torn
blankets, they would sit or lie on the ground, staring vacantly into space,
unaware of who or where they were, strangers to their surroundings. They no
longer felt pain, hunger, thirst. They feared nothing. They felt nothing. They
were dead and did not know it.

Rooted in our tradition, some of us felt that to be abandoned by humanity
then was not the ultimate. We felt that to be abandoned by God was worse than to
be punished by Him. Better an unjust God than an indifferent one. For us to be
ignored by God was a harsher punishment than to be a victim of His anger. Man
can live far from God -- not outside God. God is wherever we are. Even in
suffering? Even in suffering.

In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being
inhuman. Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger
can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony, one does
something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice
that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may
elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it. Indifference
elicits no response. Indifference is not a response.

Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end. And, therefore, indifference
is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor -- never his
victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political
prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees -- not to
respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark
of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity we
betray our own.

Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment. And this is one of
the most important lessons of this outgoing century's wide-ranging experiments
in good and evil.

In the place that I come from, society was composed of three simple
categories: the killers, the victims, and the bystanders. During the darkest of
times, inside the ghettoes and death camps -- and I'm glad that Mrs. Clinton
mentioned that we are now commemorating that event, that period, that we are now
in the Days of Remembrance -- but then, we felt abandoned, forgotten. All of us
did.

And our only miserable consolation was that we believed that Auschwitz and
Treblinka were closely guarded secrets; that the leaders of the free world did
not know what was going on behind those black gates and barbed wire; that they
had no knowledge of the war against the Jews that Hitler's armies and their
accomplices waged as part of the war against the Allies.

If they knew, we thought, surely those leaders would have moved heaven and
earth to intervene. They would have spoken out with great outrage and
conviction. They would have bombed the railways leading to Birkenau, just the
railways, just once.

And now we knew, we learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State
Department knew. And the illustrious occupant of the White House then, who was a
great leader -- and I say it with some anguish and pain, because, today is
exactly 54 years marking his death -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt died on April
the 12th, 1945, so he is very much present to me and to us.

No doubt, he was a great leader. He mobilized the American people and the
world, going into battle, bringing hundreds and thousands of valiant and brave
soldiers in America to fight fascism, to fight dictatorship, to fight Hitler.
And so many of the young people fell in battle. And, nevertheless, his image in
Jewish history -- I must say it -- his image in Jewish history is flawed.

The depressing tale of the St. Louis is a case in point. Sixty years ago, its
human cargo -- maybe 1,000 Jews -- was turned back to Nazi Germany. And that
happened after the Kristallnacht, after the first state sponsored pogrom, with
hundreds of Jewish shops destroyed, synagogues burned, thousands of people put
in concentration camps. And that ship, which was already on the shores of the
United States, was sent back.

I don't understand. Roosevelt was a good man, with a heart. He understood
those who needed help. Why didn't he allow these refugees to disembark? A
thousand people -- in America, a great country, the greatest democracy, the most
generous of all new nations in modern history. What happened? I don't
understand. Why the indifference, on the highest level, to the suffering of the
victims?

But then, there were human beings who were sensitive to our tragedy. Those
non-Jews, those Christians, that we called the Righteous Gentiles, whose
selfless acts of heroism saved the honor of their faith. Why were they so few?
Why was there a greater effort to save SS murderers after the war than to save
their victims during the war?

Why did some of America's largest corporations continue to do business with
Hitler's Germany until 1942? It has been suggested, and it was documented, that
the Wehrmacht could not have conducted its invasion of France without oil
obtained from American sources. How is one to explain their indifference?

And yet, my friends, good things have also happened in this traumatic
century: the defeat of Nazism, the collapse of communism, the rebirth of Israel
on its ancestral soil, the demise of apartheid, Israel's peace treaty with
Egypt, the peace accord in Ireland. And let us remember the meeting, filled with
drama and emotion, between Rabin and Arafat that you, Mr. President, convened in
this very place. I was here and I will never forget it.

And then, of course, the joint decision of the United States and NATO to
intervene in Kosovo and save those victims, those refugees, those who were
uprooted by a man whom I believe that because of his crimes, should be charged
with crimes against humanity. But this time, the world was not silent. This
time, we do respond. This time, we intervene.

Does it mean that we have learned from the past? Does it mean that society
has changed? Has the human being become less indifferent and more human? Have we
really learned from our experiences? Are we less insensitive to the plight of
victims of ethnic cleansing and other forms of injustices in places near and
far? Is today's justified intervention in Kosovo, led by you, Mr. President, a
lasting warning that never again will the deportation, the terrorization of
children and their parents be allowed anywhere in the world? Will it discourage
other dictators in other lands to do the same?

What about the children? Oh, we see them on television, we read about them in
the papers, and we do so with a broken heart. Their fate is always the most
tragic, inevitably. When adults wage war, children perish. We see their faces,
their eyes. Do we hear their pleas? Do we feel their pain, their agony? Every
minute one of them dies of disease, violence, famine. Some of them -- so many of
them -- could be saved.

And so, once again, I think of the young Jewish boy from the Carpathian
Mountains. He has accompanied the old man I have become throughout these years
of quest and struggle. And together we walk towards the new millennium, carried
by profound fear and extraordinary hope.

Elie Wiesel - April 12, 1999

補習-Daniel O'Connell - Justice for Ireland (1836)

Daniel O'Connell (1775-1847) was a great Irish statesman, called the
Liberator of Ireland. He led a movement that successfully forced the British to
pass the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, allowing Roman Catholics to become
members of the British House of Commons.

Until 1800, Ireland had its own separate Parliament which included many
Catholic members. However, the British Act of Union abolished local political
control by establishing the United Kingdom of England and Ireland. King George
III permitted only Church of England Irish to participate in the British
Parliament, which had a centuries-old history of discrimination against
Catholics.

This left the majority of Irish Catholics without proper representation.
O'Connell worked to pressure the British to end this discrimination.

In 1828 he even ran for Parliament and received a huge margin of Irish votes.
Although he could not be seated, his victory favorably impressed the British
prime minister and reform finally occurred in 1829 with the passage of the
Catholic Emancipation Act. O'Connell then became a full fledged member of the
House of Commons and an eloquent spokesman for the Irish cause. He succeeded in
getting more reforms enacted improving the treatment of the Irish.

On February 4, 1836, he gave this speech in the House of Commons calling for
equal justice.

It appears to me impossible to suppose that the House will consider me
presumptuous in wishing to be heard for a short time on this question,
especially after the distinct manner in which I have been alluded to in the
course of the debate. If I had no other excuse, that would be sufficient; but I
do not want it; I have another and a better -- the question is one in the
highest degree interesting to the people of Ireland. It is, whether we mean to
do justice to that country -- whether we mean to continue the injustice which
has been already done to it, or to hold out the hope that it will be treated in
the same manner as England and Scotland. That is the question. We know what lip
service is; we do not want that. There are some men who will even declare that
they are willing to refuse justice to Ireland; while there are others who,
though they are ashamed to say so, are ready to consummate the iniquity, and
they do so.

England never did do justice to Ireland -- she never did. What we have got of
it we have extorted from men opposed to us on principle -- against which
principle they have made us such concessions as we have obtained from them. The
right honorable baronet opposite [Sir Robert Peel] says he does not distinctly
understand what is meant by a principle. I believe him. He advocated religious
exclusion on religious motives; he yielded that point at length, when we were
strong enough to make it prudent for him to do so.

Here am I calling for justice to Ireland; but there is a coalition tonight --
not a base unprincipled one -- God forbid! -- it is an extremely natural one; I
mean that between the right honorable baronet and the noble lord the member for
North Lancashire [Lord Stanley]. It is a natural coalition, and it is impromptu;
for the noble lord informs us he had not even a notion of taking the part he has
until the moment at which he seated himself where he now is. I know his candor;
he told us it was a sudden inspiration which induced him to take part against
Ireland. I believe it with the most potent faith, because I know that he
requires no preparation for voting against the interests of the Irish people.
[Groans.] I thank you for that groan -- it is just of a piece with the rest. I
regret much that I have been thrown upon arguing this particular question,
because I should have liked to have dwelt upon the speech which has been so
graciously delivered from the throne today -- to have gone into its details, and
to have pointed out the many great and beneficial alterations and amendments in
our existing institutions which it hints at and recommends to the House. The
speech of last year was full of reforms in words, and in words only; but this
speech contains the great leading features of all the salutary reforms the
country wants; and if they are worked out fairly and honestly in detail, I am
convinced the country will require no further amelioration of its institutions,
and that it will become the envy and admiration of the world. I, therefore, hail
the speech with great satisfaction.

It has been observed that the object of a king's speech is to say as little
in as many words as possible; but this speech contains more things than words --
it contains those great principles which, adopted in practice, will be most
salutary not only to the British Empire, but to the world. When speaking of our
foreign policy, it rejoices in the cooperation between France and this country;
but it abstains from conveying any ministerial approbation of alterations in the
domestic laws of that country which aim at the suppression of public liberty,
and the checking of public discussion, such as call for individual reprobation,
and which I reprobate as much as any one. I should like to know whether there is
a statesman in the country who will get up in this House and avow his approval
of such proceedings on the part of the French government. I know it may be done
out of the House amid the cheers of an assembly of friends; but the government
have, in my opinion, wisely abstained from reprobating such measures in the
speech, while they have properly exulted in such a union of the two countries as
will contribute to the national independence and the public liberty of Europe.

Years are coming over me, but my heart is as young and as ready as ever in
the service of my country, of which I glory in being the pensionary and the
hired advocate. I stand in a situation in which no man ever stood yet -- the
faithful friend of my country -- its servant -- its stave, if you will -- I
speak its sentiments by turns to you and to itself. I require no £20,000,000 on
behalf of Ireland -- I ask you only for justice: will you -- can you -- I will
not say dare you refuse, because that would make you turn the other way. I
implore you, as English gentlemen, to take this matter into consideration now,
because you never had such an opportunity of conciliating. Experience makes
fools wise; you are not fools, but you have yet to be convinced. I cannot forget
the year 1825. We begged then as we would for a beggar's boon; we asked for
emancipation by all that is sacred amongst us, and I remember how my speech and
person were treated on the Treasury Bench, when I had no opportunity of reply.
The other place turned us out and sent us back again, but we showed that justice
was with us. The noble lord says the other place has declared the same
sentiments with himself; but he could not use a worse argument. It is the very
reason why we should acquiesce in the measure of reform, for we have no hope
from that House -- all our hopes are centered in this; and I am the living
representative of those hopes. I have no other reason for adhering to the
ministry than because they, the chosen representatives of the people of England,
are anxiously determined to give the same measure of reform to Ireland as that
which England has received. I have not fatigued myself, but the House, in coming
forward upon this occasion. I may be laughed and sneered at by those who talk of
my power; but what has created it but the injustice that has been done in
Ireland? That is the end and the means of the magic, if you please -- the
groundwork of my influence in Ireland. If you refuse justice to that country, it
is a melancholy consideration to me to think that you are adding substantially
to that power and influence, while you are wounding my country to its very
heart's core; weakening that throne, the monarch who sits upon which, you say
you respect; severing that union which, you say, is bound together by the
tightest links, and withholding that justice from Ireland which she will not
cease to seek till it is obtained; every man must admit that the course I am
taking is the legitimate and proper course -- I defy any man to say it is not.
Condemn me elsewhere as much as you please, but this you must admit. You may
taunt the ministry with having coalesced me, you may raise the vulgar cry of
Irishman and Papist against me, you may send out men called ministers of God to
slander and calumniate me; they may assume whatever garb they please, but the
question comes into this narrow compass. I demand, I respectfully insist: on
equal justice for Ireland, on the same principle by which it has been
administered to Scotland and England. I will not take less. Refuse me that if
you can.

Daniel O'Connell - February 4, 1836

補習-Elizabeth Cady Stanton - The Destructive Male (1868)

I urge a sixteenth amendment, because 'manhood suffrage,' or a man's
government, is civil, religious, and social disorganization. The male element is
a destructive force, stern, selfish, aggrandizing, loving war, violence,
conquest, acquisition, breeding in the material and moral world alike discord,
disorder, disease, and death. See what a record of blood and cruelty the pages
of history reveal! Through what slavery, slaughter, and sacrifice, through what
inquisitions and imprisonments, pains and persecutions, black codes and gloomy
creeds, the soul of humanity has struggled for the centuries, while mercy has
veiled her face and all hearts have been dead alike to love and hope!

The male element has held high carnival thus far; it has fairly run riot from
the beginning, overpowering the feminine element everywhere, crushing out all
the diviner qualities in human nature, until we know but little of true manhood
and womanhood, of the latter comparatively nothing, for it has scarce been
recognized as a power until within the last century. Society is but the
reflection of man himself, untempered by woman's thought; the hard iron rule we
feel alike in the church, the state, and the home. No one need wonder at the
disorganization, at the fragmentary condition of everything, when we remember
that man, who represents but half a complete being, with but half an idea on
every subject, has undertaken the absolute control of all sublunary matters.

People object to the demands of those whom they choose to call the
strong-minded, because they say 'the right of suffrage will make the women
masculine.' That is just the difficulty in which we are involved today. Though
disfranchised, we have few women in the best sense; we have simply so many
reflections, varieties, and dilutions of the masculine gender. The strong,
natural characteristics of womanhood are repressed and ignored in dependence,
for so long as man feeds woman she will try to please the giver and adapt
herself to his condition. To keep a foothold in society, woman must be as near
like man as possible, reflect his ideas, opinions, virtues, motives, prejudices,
and vices. She must respect his statutes, though they strip her of every
inalienable right, and conflict with that higher law written by the finger of
God on her own soul.

She must look at everything from its dollar-and-cent point of view, or she is
a mere romancer. She must accept things as they are and make the best of them.
To mourn over the miseries of others, the poverty of the poor, their hardships
in jails, prisons, asylums, the horrors of war, cruelty, and brutality in every
form, all this would be mere sentimentalizing. To protest against the intrigue,
bribery, and corruption of public life, to desire that her sons might follow
some business that did not involve lying, cheating, and a hard, grinding
selfishness, would be arrant nonsense.

In this way man has been molding woman to his ideas by direct and positive
influences, while she, if not a negation, has used indirect means to control
him, and in most cases developed the very characteristics both in him and
herself that needed repression. And now man himself stands appalled at the
results of his own excesses, and mourns in bitterness that falsehood,
selfishness, and violence are the law of life. The need of this hour is not
territory, gold mines, railroads, or specie payments but a new evangel of
womanhood, to exalt purity, virtue, morality, true religion, to lift man up into
the higher realms of thought and action.

We ask woman's enfranchisement, as the first step toward the recognition of
that essential element in government that can only secure the health, strength,
and prosperity of the nation. Whatever is done to lift woman to her true
position will help to usher in a new day of peace and perfection for the
race.

In speaking of the masculine element, I do not wish to be understood to say
that all men are hard, selfish, and brutal, for many of the most beautiful
spirits the world has known have been clothed with manhood; but I refer to those
characteristics, though often marked in woman, that distinguish what is called
the stronger sex. For example, the love of acquisition and conquest, the very
pioneers of civilization, when expended on the earth, the sea, the elements, the
riches and forces of nature, are powers of destruction when used to subjugate
one man to another or to sacrifice nations to ambition.

Here that great conservator of woman's love, if permitted to assert itself,
as it naturally would in freedom against oppression, violence, and war, would
hold all these destructive forces in check, for woman knows the cost of life
better than man does, and not with her consent would one drop of blood ever be
shed, one life sacrificed in vain.

With violence and disturbance in the natural world, we see a constant effort
to maintain an equilibrium of forces. Nature, like a loving mother, is ever
trying to keep land and sea, mountain and valley, each in its place, to hush the
angry winds and waves, balance the extremes of heat and cold, of rain and
drought, that peace, harmony, and beauty may reign supreme. There is a striking
analogy between matter and mind, and the present disorganization of society
warns us that in the dethronement of woman we have let loose the elements of
violence and ruin that she only has the power to curb. If the civilization of
the age calls for an extension of the suffrage, surely a government of the most
virtuous educated men and women would better represent the whole and protect the
interests of all than could the representation of either sex alone.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton - 1868

補習-Fact Sheet: Immigration Fact Check: Responding to Key
Myths

May 22, 2007

1. MYTH: Ending the current green card backlog would result in 900,000 new
residents per year on top of current numbers.

• FACT: The current proposal aims to end the green card backlog in eight
  years. However, this does not mean that 3.5 to 4 million people over the current
  number will be admitted into the country. The backlog will be cleared in two
  ways:

1. 240,000 green cards are being shifted from other priorities within the
   existing green card pool. This is important – it does not represent an increase
   in the number of green cards given, it is simply a reallocation of green cards
   that are authorized for issuance within the current system.

1. Separately, the number of green cards will be temporarily increased by
   200,000 for each of the eight years after the enactment of the bill. This is an
   increase, but it does not mean 200,000 applicants plus their spouses and
   children. It is 200,000 new people total.

• FACT: About 15 percent of family-based green card recipients are already
  residing in the U.S. on temporary visas or illegally. Thus, only about 170,000
  additional individuals per year are entering the country.

2. MYTH: The border security and employer enforcement triggers can be waived.
It has been asserted that the bill contains the following language: b)
Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only if the President certifies
within 180 days of enactment that the border security and other measures
described in such subsection can be completed within 18 months of enactment,
subject to the necessary appropriations.

• FACT: This is false. This language is not in the bill currently, but was in
  an earlier draft. Instead, the bill contains a sense of Congress that all
  triggers can be met in 18 months. All triggers must be met before the guest
  worker program or the Z visa program could begin.

3. MYTH: Z visa applicants (current undocumented) do not have to pay
fines.

• FACT: Z visa applicants will have to pay a $1,000 fine for heads of
  households and an additional $500 fine for each dependent (spouses and
  children). There will also be a processing fee of up to $1,500 and a $500 state
  impact assistance fee. The $1,000 is not the cost of the visa, but rather a fine
  for having broken the law. The processing fee will take care of the costs of the
  visa. The fines and fees are not the only hurdle – applicants must be employed,
  pass background checks, pay processing fees, and agree to meet accelerated
  English and civics requirements to get their Z visas.

• FACT: A Z visa holder wishing to remain in the country under their Z visa
  indefinitely would still have to renew their visa every four years. Renewing the
  Z visa means more processing fees (again, up to $1,500 each time). The financial
  liability for Z visa holders starts to add up very quickly if holders choose to
  remain in this status instead of pursuing Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status.
  

4. MYTH: DHS only has only one day to complete background checks.

• FACT: Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status is a multi-step
  process that includes thorough background checks with no guarantees. It can be
  broken down into three parts: probationary period, Z status, and LPR.
  

  
  

  1. Probationary Period. The undocumented worker comes out of the shadows to
  acknowledge they have broken the law. In order to obtain probationary status,
  they must show they are employed and pass a preliminary background check. There
  is a provision in the bill that says DHS has one day to find a disqualifying
  factor, but that is not the end of the process. That is a very short term way of
  ensuring that if someone comes out of the shadows and admits their illegality,
  they will not be deported while the process is ongoing and can continue working
  while the full background check is completed. At any time if something pops up,
  the applicant becomes deportable, and will never have a chance at Z status and
  certainly not LPR status.

  
  

  2. Z Status. If they have passed the hurdles above, the undocumented worker
  is considered for Z status. At this stage they must pay their $1,000 fine
  ($1,000 is just for a head of household – there is an additional fine of $500
  for each dependent) and processing fees; are subject to updated background
  checks to make sure they have not committed crimes while in probationary status;
  agree to meet English and civics standards as a condition of renewal; and show
  employment. There is no one day Treatment of applications in this process. One
  must complete or agree to all of the above before they are able to achieve Z
  status.

  
  

  3. LPR Status. Here, there is another $4,000 fine and more processing fees.
  More background checks are also conducted in order to make sure that the
  applicant has kept his or her record clean. The applicant will have had to have
  stayed employed and met the English and civics requirements. They will have to
  make an application from their home country, go to the back of the line, and
  demonstrate merit under the new green card points system. Then, and only then,
  will the undocumented worker obtain a green card.

  
  

  
  

5. MYTH: A Rasmussen poll shows Americans support an enforcement-only
approach.

• FACT: The plan proposed in Rasmussens poll does not include many of the
  components included in the actual plan. Rasmussen asked respondents: A different
  proposal has been made that also includes a fence along the Mexican border, more
  border patrol agents, strict penalties on anyone who hires illegal aliens. This
  proposal, however, would also offer illegal aliens a path to citizenship if they
  pay back taxes and other fines. Would you favor or oppose this proposal?
  

• FACT: The process is much more onerous than the text of Rasmussen's question
  suggests. In order to have an opportunity for citizenship, undocumented workers
  will have to pay a total of $5,000 in fines, pass multiple background checks,
  complete accelerated English and civics requirements, go back home to apply in
  their home country, demonstrate merit in the new merit-based green card system,
  AND go to the back of the line behind those who applied lawfully.

• FACT: A recent bi-partisan poll conducted by The Tarrance Group (R) and Lake
  Research (D) that did include more components of the plan found 75 percent of
  American voters said they would favor a plan that: provides resources to greatly
  increase border security; imposes much tougher penalties on employers who hire
  illegal workers; allows additional foreign workers to come to the U.S. to work
  for a temporary period; creates a system in which illegal immigrants could come
  forward and register, pay a fine, and receive a temporary work permit; and
  provides these temporary workers with a multi-year path to earned citizenship,
  if they get to the end of the line and meet certain requirements like living
  crime free, learning English, and paying taxes. Only 17 percent opposed this
  plan.

6. MYTH: The bill will impose a huge new tax on businesses that follow the
law.

• FACT: Companies are held liable if their contractors and subcontractors hire
  undocumented workers. However, the Department of Homeland Security will create
  systems to help ensure these burdens can be met by employers who want to follow
  the law through the Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS) and other
  procedures.

• FACT: This bill seeks to help employers verify the status of workers.
  Enforcement of the paperwork fines will be targeted against those employers
  trying to avoid the law and hire illegal workers. The law includes a provision
  for the Secretary of Homeland Security to send a pre-penalty notice where he
  believes there may be a violation, and the employer can avoid a penalty by
  showing mitigating circumstances (e.g., good faith compliance).

• FACT: This bill does not seek to put the sole responsibility for legal
  hiring practices on the government OR the private sector. The bill is designed
  to have participation from the business community so the government can easily
  determine which employers are knowingly violating the law.

7. MYTH: The bill does not crack down on employers who violate the law.

• FACT: In the bill, fines for hiring an illegal worker are $5,000 maximum per
  illegal worker for the first offense, $10,000 maximum per illegal worker for the
  second, and $25,000 maximum per illegal worker for the third.

補習-Address by the President to the Nation on the Way Forward in
Iraq

September 13, 2007

9:01 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. In the life of all free nations, there come
moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its
people. We are now at such a moment.

In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival.
Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to
topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If
Iraq's young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful
Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the
United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must
help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.

Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including
a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General
David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how
that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our
challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are
improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop
surge is working.

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the
foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they
need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation
to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs
for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help
prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in
meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops
home.

Since the surge was announced in January, it has moved through several
phases. First was the flow of additional troops into Iraq, especially Baghdad
and Anbar province. Once these forces were in place, our commanders launched a
series of offensive operations to drive terrorists and militias out of their
strongholds. And finally, in areas that have been cleared, we are surging
diplomatic and civilian resources to ensure that military progress is quickly
followed up with real improvements in daily life.

Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year,
an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al Qaeda. Some
cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our
losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local
people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al Qaeda, and they were
sick of it. So they asked us for help.

To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to
Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and coalition
troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population
centers. Today, a city where al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to
return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an
American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are
hiding. Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and
police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams, new jobs are
being created and local governments are meeting again.

These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a
difference. During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day, local Sunni leaders thanked
me for America's support. They pledged they would never allow al Qaeda to
return. And they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic
Iraq. The Sunni governor of Anbar province put it this way: Our tomorrow starts
today.

The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists
are driven out. They show al Qaeda that it cannot count on popular support, even
in a province its leaders once declared their home base. And they show the world
that ordinary people in the Middle East want the same things for their children
that we want for ours -- a decent life and a peaceful future.

In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly. Earlier today, one of the
brave tribal sheikhs who helped lead the revolt against al Qaeda was murdered.
In response, a fellow Sunni leader declared: We are determined to strike back
and continue our work. And as they do, they can count on the continued support
of the United States.

Throughout Iraq, too many citizens are being killed by terrorists and death
squads. And for most Iraqis, the quality of life is far from where it should be.
Yet General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report that the success in Anbar is
beginning to be replicated in other parts of the country.

One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets
were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today, most
of Baghdad's neighborhoods are being patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces who
live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening.
Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are
down. And ordinary life is beginning to return.

One year ago, much of Diyala province was a sanctuary for al Qaeda and other
extremist groups, and its capital of Baqubah was emerging as an al Qaeda
stronghold. Today, Baqubah is cleared. Diyala province is the site of a growing
popular uprising against the extremists. And some local tribes are working
alongside coalition and Iraqi forces to clear out the enemy and reclaim their
communities.

One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining
strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being
broken up, and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.

These gains are a tribute to our military, they are a tribute to the courage
of the Iraqi security forces, and they are the tribute to an Iraqi government
that has decided to take on the extremists.

Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving
reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of
tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks
-- and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.

Yet Iraq's national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they
have passed a budget. They're sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They're
allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq's military or receive government
pensions. Local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this
progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so
will national politics.

Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with Iraqi forces, they
have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month
since January. Yet ultimately, the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis
to maintain security gains. According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by
retired General Jim Jones, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable -- although
there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the national police.
Iraqi forces are receiving increased cooperation from local populations. And
this is improving their ability to hold areas that have been cleared.

Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the
point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He
has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 Marines scheduled to leave Anbar
province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to
bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops
by Christmas. And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop
levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.

General Petraeus also recommends that in December we begin transitioning to
the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil
society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security,
our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading
operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching
those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will
focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and
training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces.

I have consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of my national
security team, Iraqi officials, and leaders of both parties in Congress. I have
benefited from their advice, and I have accepted General Petraeus's
recommendations. I have directed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to
update their joint campaign plan for Iraq, so we can adjust our military and
civilian resources accordingly. I have also directed them to deliver another
report to Congress in March. At that time, they will provide a fresh assessment
of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need to meet
our national security objectives.

The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is return on
success. The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home.
And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the
troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.

Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home
from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our
security, and those who believe we should begin bringing our troops home, have
been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we
can begin seeing troops come home. The way forward I have described tonight
makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on
opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.

This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi
leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their
success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that
extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring
relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship
-- in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer
American troops.

The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States.
A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the
destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash
the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free
Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be
our partner in the fight against terror -- and that will make us safer here at
home.

Realizing this vision will be difficult, but it is achievable. Our military
commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for
the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.

If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be
emboldened. Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. Iran would
benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear
weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the
global energy supply. Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare. Democracy
movements would be violently reversed. We would leave our children to face a far
more dangerous world. And as we saw on September the 11th, 2001, those dangers
can reach our cities and kill our people.

Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we
should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos
and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must
defeat al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the
Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against
terrorists and extremists.

So tonight I want to speak to members of the United States Congress: Let us
come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for
providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me
in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the troop levels
he has asked for.

To the Iraqi people: You have voted for freedom, and now you are liberating
your country from terrorists and death squads. You must demand that your leaders
make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation. As you do, have
confidence that America does not abandon our friends, and we will not abandon
you.

To Iraq's neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq
are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your
own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic
and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means
the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.

To the international community: The success of a free Iraq matters to every
civilized nation. We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq
and the many others who are helping that young democracy. We encourage all
nations to help, by implementing the International Compact to revitalize Iraq's
economy, by participating in the Neighbors Conferences to boost cooperation and
overcome differences in the region, and by supporting the new and expanded
mission of the United Nations in Iraq.

To our military personnel, intelligence officers, diplomats, and civilians on
the front lines in Iraq: You have done everything America has asked of you. And
the progress I have reported tonight is in large part because of your courage
and hard effort. You are serving far from home. Our nation is grateful for your
sacrifices, and the sacrifices of your families.

Earlier this year, I received an email from the family of Army Specialist
Brandon Stout of Michigan. Brandon volunteered for the National Guard and was
killed while serving in Baghdad. His family has suffered greatly. Yet in their
sorrow, they see larger purpose. His wife, Audrey, says that Brandon felt called
to serve and knew what he was fighting for. And his parents, Tracy and Jeff,
wrote me this: We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win even if
it cost the life of our own son. Freedom is not free.

This country is blessed to have Americans like Brandon Stout, who make
extraordinary sacrifices to keep us safe from harm. They are doing so in a fight
that is just, and right, and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the
work they have begun.

Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It
is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance
freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.

Good night, and God bless America.

END 9:18 P.M. EDT

補習-訓練自己的想象力

補習-眼腦直映，閱讀提速

補習-演講用聲

聲音的操控，對一位演講者來說，是絕對重要的．

演講用聲，最理想的聲線是中聲區闊厚，因為這區共鳴，可以使聲音聽起來有實力和親和力，在中聲區發聲的同時，要在加強語氣時把高聲區混合用上，這樣子可以帶起了演講的神氣和吸引力，一直是一把溫厚的中聲區嗓音，講多了，會令人覺得沉悶．

香港行政長官董建華先生，他的聲音其實不錯，可惜他在發表演說時，沒有在適當的時候用上高聲音區，故此；他的長時間演說，就令觀眾聽得疲倦．

其實董特首多注意在講話時把口腔上顎一帶略抬高和略圓一點，并且感覺眼睛正在說話，這樣子可以帶出頭腔共鳴，如果有空練練嗓子開開腔口，都會令到說話時候，聲音因用到上共鳴，而令言語多增色彩和光澤．

唱歌很講究共鳴，講話同樣亦須用上高、中、低的聲區，這就是指演講用聲的抑、揚有度，頓、挫有法．

多鍛煉呼吸，可增強說話的穿透力，一邊呼氣一邊練音階，可以令聲音明亮一些．

補習-養成這些小習慣，擁有超常記憶力

養成這些小習慣，擁有超常記憶力

一、喚醒身體
　1、閉上眼睛吃飯。
　2、用手指分辨硬幣。
　3、戴上耳機上下樓梯。
　4、捏住鼻子喝咖啡。
　5、放開嗓子大聲朗讀。
　6、聞咖啡看魚的圖片。
　　　　
　二、尋求腦刺激
　7、到餐館點沒吃過的菜。
　8、把自己的錢花掉。
　9、專門繞遠路。
　10、用左手端茶杯。
　11、聽不同類型的歌曲。
　12、一天睡覺6小時。
　　　　
　三、積極鍛煉左右腦
　13、去陌生的地方散步。
　14、判斷自己是右腦型還是左腦型。
　15、用直覺作決斷。
　　　　
　四、補充腦營養
　16、甜食讓你變聰明。
　17、吃早餐能活化大腦。
　18、多咀嚼可以提高成績。
　　　　
　五、越運動腦子越好
　19、每天快走20分鐘。
　20、多做手指操。
　21、嘗試全新的運動。
　　　　
　六、改善腦活性 激發靈感
　22、記住每次成功的感覺
　23、對自己說肯定能行
　24、寫100自己喜歡的東西
　25、變換視角看問題
　26、一想到就說出來
　27、讓腦偶爾無聊一下
　28、看從來不看的電視節目
　29、親身體驗是腦最寶貴的財富
　30、做個傾聽者十分科學。
　　
　根據這本書，我總結了一些可以養成的小習慣：
　1、每當桌上滿是食物的時候，就閉著眼睛吃飯。
　2、經常用手指分辨硬幣（或象棋子也不錯）。
　3、戴上耳機上下樓梯。
　4、放開嗓子大聲朗讀。
　5、到餐館點沒吃過的菜。
　6、左手端茶杯。
　7、聽不同類型的歌。
　8、每天23：00前睡覺，5：00起床。（太殘酷了，但可以很好的把早晨的時間利用起來）
　9、在陌生的地方散步。
　10、每天吃點甜食（這個最喜歡）。
　11、吃早餐。
　12、多咀嚼。
　13、每天快走20分鐘。
　14、一天十次手指操。
　15、每季度學一項新運動。
　16、記錄成功的事。
　17、每天出門前對著鏡子里的自己微笑并說：我肯定能行。
　18、寫100個自己喜歡的東西，每天拿出來看看。
　19、站在對方的立場看問題。
　20、每周給自己半小時的無聊時間。
　21、每周看一到二次自己沒不看的節目。
　22、做個傾聽者。
　23、每天找個時間專門背一些東西。