为您找到与艾玛沃特森联合国演讲稿he for she相关的共200个结果:
艾玛·沃特森(Emma Watson),1990年4月15日出生于法国巴黎,英国女演员。以下是读文网小编整理了艾玛沃森联合国演讲稿,希望你喜欢。
Emma Watson: Gender equality is your issue too
艾玛 沃森:性别平等也关乎你
Speech by UN Women Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson at a special event for the HeForShe campaign, United Nations Headquarters, New York, 20 September 2014
联合国妇女亲善大使艾玛?沃森在2014年9月20日纽约联合国总部为“他为她”运动举行的特别活动上的演讲
Today we are launching a campaign called “HeForShe.”
I am reaching out to you because I need your help. We want to end gender inequality—and to do that we need everyone to be involved.
This is the first campaign of its kind at the UN: we want to try and galvanize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for gender equality. And we don’t just want to talk about it, but make sure it is tangible.
今天,我们启动了一项名为“他为她”的运动。
我向你伸出手,因为我需要你的帮助。我们希望终结性别不平等——为此,我们需要所有人都参与其中。
这是联合国同类运动中的第一项:我们希望努力并激励尽可能多的男人和男孩倡导性别平等。而且希望这(性别平等)不只是空谈,而是确确实实的看得见摸得着。
I was appointed six months ago and the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop.
For the record, feminism by definition is: “The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”
六个月前,我被任命为联合国妇女亲善大使。而随着我谈论女权主义越多,我越发现,“争取女性权益”太容易被当作是“憎恨男人”的同义词。如果说有一件事是我确实知道的,那就是,这样的误解必须停止。
必须郑重声明,女权主义的定义是:“相信男性和女性应该拥有平等权利和机会。它是性别间政治、经济和社会平等的理论。”
I started questioning gender-based assumptions when at eight I was confused at being called “bossy,” because I wanted to direct the plays we would put on for our parents—but the boys were not.
When at 14 I started being sexualized by certain elements of the press.
When at 15 my girlfriends started dropping out of their sports teams because they didn’t want to appear “muscly.”
When at 18 my male friends were unable to express their feelings.
8岁时,我开始质疑某些基于性别的假设。我不明白,为什么我想在为家长上演的戏剧里担任导演,就会被说成“专横”,而男孩们则不会;
14岁时,我开始被媒体报道的某些元素性别化;
15岁时,我的女性朋友们开始退出各自的运动队,因为她们不希望显得“肌肉发达”;
18岁时,我的男性朋友们无法表达他们的感受。
I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.
Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive.
Why is the word such an uncomfortable one?
我认为自己是一名女权主义者,这(身份认定)对我来说并不难。但我最近的调查发现,女权主义已经成为一个不受欢迎的词。
显然,我成了那些言辞看起来过于强势、过于激进、孤立、反男性、不吸引人的女性行列中的一员。
为什么这个词如此令人不安?
I am from Britain and think it is right that as a woman I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decision-making of my country. I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as men. But sadly I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights.
No country in the world can yet say they have achieved gender equality.
我来自英国,我认为身为女性,我应该和男性同行获得一样的报酬。我认为我应该自己为自己的身体做决定。我认为应该有女性代表我参与政治,以及我的国家的决策制定。我认为在社会上,我应该和男性获得相同的尊重。但遗憾的是,世界上没有一个国家能使所有的女性都能获得上述权利。
世界上没有一个国家能说,他们已经实现了性别平等。
These rights I consider to be human rights but I am one of the lucky ones. My life is a sheer privilege because my parents didn’t love me less because I was born a daughter. My school did not limit me because I was a girl. My mentors didn’t assume I would go less far because I might give birth to a child one day. These influencers were the gender equality ambassadors that made who I am today. They may not know it, but they are the inadvertent feminists who are. And we need more of those. And if you still hate the word—it is not the word that is important but the idea and the ambition behind it. Because not all women have been afforded the same rights that I have. In fact, statistically, very few have been.
这些权利,我认为是每个人都该享有,然而(事实是)我只是众多幸运儿中的一个。我的生活是完完全全的特例,因为我的父母没有因为我生为女儿而减少对我的爱,我的学校没有因为我是女孩而限制我,我的导师没有因为我将来可能要生孩子而认为我会走不远。这些影响了我的人,都是性别平等大使,是他们造就了今天的我。他们也许并不知道,但他们是无心的女权主义者。而我们现在,则需要更多这样的人。所以,如果你仍然憎恨这个词——重要的不是这个词,而是它背后的想法和抱负。因为并不是所有女性都能够享有我所拥有的权利。事实上,从统计数据看,真的非常少。
When at 14 I started being sexualized by certain elements of the press.
When at 15 my girlfriends started dropping out of their sports teams because they didn’t want to appear “muscly.”
When at 18 my male friends were unable to express their feelings.
8岁时,我开始质疑某些基于性别的假设。我不明白,为什么我想在为家长上演的戏剧里担任导演,就会被说成“专横”,而男孩们则不会;
14岁时,我开始被媒体报道的某些元素性别化;
15岁时,我的女性朋友们开始退出各自的运动队,因为她们不希望显得“肌肉发达”;
18岁时,我的男性朋友们无法表达他们的感受。
I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.
Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive.
Why is the word such an uncomfortable one?
我认为自己是一名女权主义者,这(身份认定)对我来说并不难。但我最近的调查发现,女权主义已经成为一个不受欢迎的词。
显然,我成了那些言辞看起来过于强势、过于激进、孤立、反男性、不吸引人的女性行列中的一员。
为什么这个词如此令人不安?
I am from Britain and think it is right that as a woman I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decision-making of my country. I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as men. But sadly I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights.
No country in the world can yet say they have achieved gender equality.
我来自英国,我认为身为女性,我应该和男性同行获得一样的报酬。我认为我应该自己为自己的身体做决定。我认为应该有女性代表我参与政治,以及我的国家的决策制定。我认为在社会上,我应该和男性获得相同的尊重。但遗憾的是,世界上没有一个国家能使所有的女性都能获得上述权利。
世界上没有一个国家能说,他们已经实现了性别平等。
These rights I consider to be human rights but I am one of the lucky ones. My life is a sheer privilege because my parents didn’t love me less because I was born a daughter. My school did not limit me because I was a girl. My mentors didn’t assume I would go less far because I might give birth to a child one day. These influencers were the gender equality ambassadors that made who I am today. They may not know it, but they are the inadvertent feminists who are. And we need more of those. And if you still hate the word—it is not the word that is important but the idea and the ambition behind it. Because not all women have been afforded the same rights that I have. In fact, statistically, very few have been.
这些权利,我认为是每个人都该享有,然而(事实是)我只是众多幸运儿中的一个。我的生活是完完全全的特例,因为我的父母没有因为我生为女儿而减少对我的爱,我的学校没有因为我是女孩而限制我,我的导师没有因为我将来可能要生孩子而认为我会走不远。这些影响了我的人,都是性别平等大使,是他们造就了今天的我。他们也许并不知道,但他们是无心的女权主义者。而我们现在,则需要更多这样的人。所以,如果你仍然憎恨这个词——重要的不是这个词,而是它背后的想法和抱负。因为并不是所有女性都能够享有我所拥有的权利。事实上,从统计数据看,真的非常少。
When at 14 I started being sexualized by certain elements of the press.
When at 15 my girlfriends started dropping out of their sports teams because they didn’t want to appear “muscly.”
When at 18 my male friends were unable to express their feelings.
8岁时,我开始质疑某些基于性别的假设。我不明白,为什么我想在为家长上演的戏剧里担任导演,就会被说成“专横”,而男孩们则不会;
14岁时,我开始被媒体报道的某些元素性别化;
15岁时,我的女性朋友们开始退出各自的运动队,因为她们不希望显得“肌肉发达”;
18岁时,我的男性朋友们无法表达他们的感受。
I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.
Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive.
Why is the word such an uncomfortable one?
我认为自己是一名女权主义者,这(身份认定)对我来说并不难。但我最近的调查发现,女权主义已经成为一个不受欢迎的词。
显然,我成了那些言辞看起来过于强势、过于激进、孤立、反男性、不吸引人的女性行列中的一员。
为什么这个词如此令人不安?
I am from Britain and think it is right that as a woman I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decision-making of my country. I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as men. But sadly I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights.
No country in the world can yet say they have achieved gender equality.
我来自英国,我认为身为女性,我应该和男性同行获得一样的报酬。我认为我应该自己为自己的身体做决定。我认为应该有女性代表我参与政治,以及我的国家的决策制定。我认为在社会上,我应该和男性获得相同的尊重。但遗憾的是,世界上没有一个国家能使所有的女性都能获得上述权利。
世界上没有一个国家能说,他们已经实现了性别平等。
These rights I consider to be human rights but I am one of the lucky ones. My life is a sheer privilege because my parents didn’t love me less because I was born a daughter. My school did not limit me because I was a girl. My mentors didn’t assume I would go less far because I might give birth to a child one day. These influencers were the gender equality ambassadors that made who I am today. They may not know it, but they are the inadvertent feminists who are. And we need more of those. And if you still hate the word—it is not the word that is important but the idea and the ambition behind it. Because not all women have been afforded the same rights that I have. In fact, statistically, very few have been.
这些权利,我认为是每个人都该享有,然而(事实是)我只是众多幸运儿中的一个。我的生活是完完全全的特例,因为我的父母没有因为我生为女儿而减少对我的爱,我的学校没有因为我是女孩而限制我,我的导师没有因为我将来可能要生孩子而认为我会走不远。这些影响了我的人,都是性别平等大使,是他们造就了今天的我。他们也许并不知道,但他们是无心的女权主义者。而我们现在,则需要更多这样的人。所以,如果你仍然憎恨这个词——重要的不是这个词,而是它背后的想法和抱负。因为并不是所有女性都能够享有我所拥有的权利。事实上,从统计数据看,真的非常少。
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
接下来由读文网小编为大家推荐英语演讲稿:A Time for Choosing,希望对你有所帮助!
Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.
I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."
But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.
As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down -- [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.#p#副标题#e#
In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."
Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming -- that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.
Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.
At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.
Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.
They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.
Now -- so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -- and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs -- do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.
But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.#p#副标题#e#
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things -- we're never "for" anything.
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?
Barry Goldwater thinks we can.
At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.
In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?
I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.
I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So.governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.
Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.
Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.
Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.
But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.
Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.
Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men -- that we're to choose just between two personalities.
Well what of this man that they would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.
This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.
An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.
During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.
We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.
Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.
Thank you very much.
浏览量:3
下载量:0
时间:
以下是读文网小编给大家整理的布莱尔演讲 联合国大会演讲稿,希望能帮到你!
Mr. President and Colleagues,
The UN must come of age. It must become the visible and credible expression of the globalisation of politics. The modern world insists we are dependent on each other. We work with each other or we suffer in isolation.
The principles of the UN have always had a moral force. Today they receive the sharper impulse of self-interest.
The terrorist attacks in Britain on 7 July have their origins in an ideology born thousands of miles from our shores.
The proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons will never be halted outside of an international consensus to do so.
Failed states, as we know to our cost, fail us all. The protection of the environment, the promotion of international trade: we can do nothing without effective action together.
And when we look with revulsion, as we should, at the misery of the millions who die in Africa and elsewhere through preventable famine, disease and conflict, the urgency to act is driven not just by conscience but by an inner sense that one day, if we refuse to act, we will reap a dire reward from our refusal.
What's more, humanity today is confident of its common values. Give people the chance and they always vote for freedom; always prefer tolerance to prejudice, will never willingly accept the suppression of human rights and governance by extremism.
So the challenge is clear; the values clear; the self-interest in upholding them together also clear.
What must now be clear is that the UN can be the instrument of achieving the global will of the people.
It must give leadership on terrorism. There is not and never can be any justification, any excuse, any cause that accepts the random slaughter of th innocent. Wherever it happens, whoever is responsible, we stand united I condemnation.
The United Nations must strengthen its policy against non-proliferation; in particular, how to allow nations to develop civil nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.
The new Human Rights Council must earn the world's respect not its contempt.
The United Nations Peace-building Commission must become the means of renewing nations, where war and the collapse of proper systems of government have left them ravaged and their people desolate.
For the first lime at this Summit we are agreed that states do not have the right to do what they will within their own borders, but that we, in the name of humanity, have a common duty to protect people where their own governments will not.
Stalking this summit, like a spectre, are the Millennium Development goals.
The struggle against global poverty will define our moral standing in the eyes of the future.
The G8 in Scotland shows how we redeem it. I have heard people describe the outcomes of this Summit as modest, No summit requiring unanimity from 190 nations can be more than modest.
But if we did what we have agreed on doubling aid, on opening up trade, on debt relief, on HI V/AIDS and malaria, on conflict prevention so that never again would the world stand by, helpless when genocide struck, our modesty would surprise.
There would be more democracy, less oppression. More freedom, less terrorism. More growth, less poverty. The effect would be measured in the lives of millions of people who will never hear these speeches or read our statements.
But it would be the proper vocation of political leadership; and the United Nations would live up to its name. So let us do it.
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
下面读文网小编给大家分享大学英语演讲稿:Caring For Nature,欢迎阅读:
What is nature? It’s everything that exists in the world independently of people, such as pants and animals, earth and rocks, and the weather.
Now more and more people are focusing on the nature. It is no doubt that the nature is important to every human being. No nature, no life. Because of the supplies of the nature, we have lived happily for a long time. And we started to gain every thing available from the nature. And this lasted so long a time. Today, people have discovered that the nature around is getting worse and worse.
What is threatening the nature? Air and water pollution, overharvesting of plant and animal species, overpopulation and so on. Overpopulation is the biggest source of pollution. Let’s take overpopulation as an example.
What does overpopulation feel like? When we move slowly through the city in a tazi. When we enter a crowded slum district. When the temperature is high and when the air is thick with dust and smoke. The streets are crowded with people. The streets seem alive with people. People eating. People washing. People talking. People sleeping. People visiting each other, arguing and screaming. People relieving themselves. People pushing their hands through the taxi windows, begging. People leading animals. People, people, people, people. As we drive slowly through the crowd, sounding the taxi’s horn, the dust, heat, noise and cooking fires made it like a scene from hell! I admit, frightening.
To the nature, overpopulation is a big problem. More people, more pollution. And the big population is threatening the nature every second.
The rapid rise in world population is not creating problems only for the developing countries. The whole world faces the problem that raw materials are being used up at an increasing rate and food production can not keep up with the population increase. People in rich countries make the heaviest demands on the world’s resources, its food, fuel and land, and cause the most pollution. A baby born in the United States will use in his lifetime 30 times more of the world’s resources than a baby born in India. Unless all the countries of the world take united action to deal with the population explosion there will be more and more people fighting for a share of less and less land, food and fuel, and the future will bring poverty, misery and war to us all.
For most of the developing countries, it is a good idea to control the population growth. For example, China has carried out birth control for years. And this plan has a great effect on the world population.
If the population continues to increase, if the air and water continue to be polluted, if we don’t do something to protect wild-plant and wildlife species will be declining. Species and biological communities have difficulty adapting to change. Economic opportunities and the quality of life of future generations are also put at risk. By protecting nature, we protect ourselves.
Let’s unite together, hand in hand we stand all across the land.
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
There was an elder who traveled all around the world to introduce China for bidding Olympic games. That special hard experience had rooted in his mind. After hearing the good news that China succeeded in the bid for hosting the 29th Olympic Games, he was so excited that he could not stop shedding tears, saying I had been waiting for the day since 1993, the happiest thing finally happened to China. The man is Mr. HeZhenliang, who has devoted his rest life to Chinese Olympic Games. It is with his spirit, passion, courage and strong sense of patriotism to China that we are taking our next step into the world.
Ladies and gentlemen, now I have a question for all of you who are sitting here. Do you still remember that memorable scene? Yes or no? Please put out your hands, let me see how many? Wow, a lot of people. The unforgettable moment is still lingering in your mind clearly.
At 10:08 P.M. on July 13th, 2001, Mr. Samaranch, the former President of the International Olympic Committee, announced in Moscow that the sponsoring city of the 29th Olympiad will be the city of Beijing. Just at the same time in China, the excitement rippled through the Olympic conference room into Beijing, into the city and into the whole nation. The Chinese, abroad or at home, celebrated the successful great moment in various ways, like hugging each other, jumping, yelling, crying, drinking, singing, dancing and parading on the streets in the midnight. Modern China, a product of 5000 years of civilization and history, with her spirit of hard work and perseverance, finally shook hands with the Olympic games, fulfilling the long expected dream.
Now many Chinese are trying their best to do what they can do for the upcoming games. They learn English to communicate with foreigners. They get rid of bad habits to protect environments. They are eager to be volunteers to serve the Olympic Games. They introduce great Chinese tradition, culture and civilization to the world people. They apply for the torchbearers to carry on the message “share the peace, share the Olympics”.
At the moment when one-year countdown has marked, our Chinese people are getting ready for this big event. The Beijing Olympic committee organization is keeping the promise made in the bid. Under the guidance of the concept of the green Olympic, the tech-Olympic and the people’s Olympic, the 29th Olympic games will strengthen the communication, enhance the cooperation, and shorten the distance between China and the world.
Once again, I want to emphasize one point “national participation”. Like us, a common citizen, we strongly realize the responsibility of our own: planting more trees to cover the space, driving less to relieve the traffic jam, making full use of energy to reduce the pollution and so on. All these actions will not only improve our living environments, but also benefit our coming generation.
Next year in August 8th, Beijing will witness the world’s greatest sporting event, will bring Olympic values to one-fifth of the world’s population, will be one of the most exciting projects in Olympic history. Beijing, a main attraction to tourists, will stretch hands to give the world people a warm welcome, and all the guests will be impressed deeply by China’s state-of-the-art venues, comfortable city environments, enthusiastic volunteers and overwhelming public interest.
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
关于100字的禁毒演讲稿(内容格式15篇)
演讲稿应该使用简洁明了、生动形象、有感染力的语言和文风,让听众易于理解和接受。优秀的关于100字的禁毒演讲稿要怎么写?下面给大家整理关于100字的禁毒演讲稿,希望对大家能有帮助。
大家好,我是二年级11班的张__。
在蓝天白云下,在灿烂阳光下,无数人在尽情享受着如花的生命,然而在我们绚烂的生命之花旁边,却有另一朵看似娇艳却带着毒害的花——罂粟,鸦片这种毒品,就是用罂粟汁熬制而成的,它会让人上瘾、损害健康,甚至会危及生命。
在19世纪三四十年代,英国将鸦片大量运输到中国,严重的影响了中国人民的身心健康,当时的中国,士兵没有战斗力、田地荒芜……自上而下,社会处于一片混乱之中。林则徐领导的禁烟运动——虎门销烟,给英国侵略者以沉重的打击,也由此引发了鸦片战争,中华民族开始了一百多年屈辱、苦难、探索、斗争的历程。
正是在中国共产党领导下,中国人民赢得了独立、自由和解放,过上了现在的幸福生活,但有些人并不懂得珍惜。
我听说过这样几个故事:他,年仅15岁,已经是第三次进戒毒所了。每当毒瘾发作时,他浑身颤抖,涕泪横流,痛苦不堪,用手使劲扯头发,用头猛烈撞墙,吃不下饭,喝不下水,骨瘦如柴,失去了上学的大好时光。另一位年仅18岁的吸毒者想戒毒,用手铐把自己的左手拷在铁床上,仅仅过了一天,她就忍受不了毒性的摧残,竟用菜刀剁下了自己的左手,她不顾一切地跳下楼去找毒品。结果,就这样结束了自己年轻而又宝贵的生命。还有一个吸毒者,为了满足自己的毒瘾,变卖了自己所有值钱的东西,他开始四处行骗,骗不到便偷,偷不到便抢,结果等待他的却是铁窗生涯……
毒品,它是一把杀人不见血的刀,是一个吃人不吐骨头的白色恶魔。被毒品像魔鬼一样附身而演出的一幕幕惨痛悲剧何止这三个人!
同学们,我们是祖国的未来,民族的希望,社会发展的新生力量,而毒品正是阻碍我们建设祖国的绊脚石。因此让我们记住:
一、了解毒品基本知识、接受禁毒法律法规教育,懂得吸毒一口,掉进虎口的道理。
二、树立正确的人生观,不盲目追求享受,追求刺激,赶时髦。
三、不听信毒品能治病,毒品能解除痛苦和烦恼,毒品能给人带来快乐等各种花言巧语。
四、不结交吸毒贩毒行为的人,如果发现亲朋好友中有吸毒贩毒行为的人,一要劝阻,二要远离,三要报告公安机关。
同学们,请牢记:吸毒只会引人走向深渊,陷入死亡。毒品千万沾不得,千万碰不得,它害人!毁家!祸国!6月26日是国际禁毒日,拒绝毒品从我做起,珍爱生命是每个人的责任!
我的演讲完毕!谢谢大家!
浏览量:3
下载量:0
时间:
健康的演讲稿(范文格式15篇)
演讲稿应该使用简洁明了、生动形象、有感染力的语言和文风,让听众易于理解和接受。优秀的健康的演讲稿是什么样的?下面给大家带来健康的演讲稿,供大家参考。
尊敬的各位老师、亲的们:
大家好!我是七(1)班的沈雪婷,今天我演讲的题目是:“健康成长”。
“健康”就是“健壮安康”。是指一个人在身体、精神和社会等方面都处于良好的状态。健康是人生最宝贵的财富;健康是生命存在的最佳状态。人人都向往健康,但要做到健康,可不是一件容易的事。良好的社会环境健壮的体魄,美好的心灵,高尚的道德情操,丰富的文化知识是构筑健康的重要条件。良好的`社会环境是健康的关键。
我们经常在电视上看到,许多国家仍然发生着战争、暴 乱,动荡不安的社会给人们造成无尽的苦难,死亡、流血 事 件经常发生,人们生活在惊恐不安之中。在非洲的一些地方贫穷和饥饿正在加剧,人们生活困苦,营养不良,挣扎在死亡边缘。对于他们来说,没有“健康”可言。我常常为自己生活在当代中国感到真正的幸运,感到无比的幸福.
健壮的体魄是健康的基础。青少年要养成良好的生活和卫生习惯,不挑食,讲究卫生,不喝酒,不抽烟,给疾病无可乘之机。同时,要加强运动。常言道“生命在于运动”,青少年时期是人生最重要的时期,体育锻炼能大大促进青少年的生长发育。我们的身体就像是一部“机器”,小胳膊“健康不仅是指躯体没有疾病,还要具备心理健康和良好的社会适应能力”。因此,我们要从德、智、体、美、劳等多方面培养自小腿要经常运转,才能保持良好的生机和活力。让我们快乐健康的成长吧!
谢谢大家!
浏览量:3
下载量:0
时间:
时间的演讲稿模板怎么写(15篇范例)
演讲稿是一种带有宣传性和鼓动性的应用文体,经常使用各种修辞手法和艺术手法,具有较强的感染力。时间的演讲稿模板怎么写怎么写才规范?下面给大家分享时间的演讲稿模板怎么写,希望对大家有所帮助。
时间是停着的还是走着的。为什么我还是在原处茫然地找寻着自己?
――题记
独自彷徨在这白茫茫的雨季,天静静的暗着,慢慢沉下去,缓缓地张开沉睡已久的双眼,我已习惯在这寂寞的雨中找寻自己。雨,轻轻地打着我的脸,夹着泪带着寒,我的`心却被空虚溢满,明明该记些什么的,现在只是空白,我的故事再也记不起,一切都释然了我的心丢在了哪里?竟然不留一丝痕迹,只剩孤寂。
一直偏执的喜欢童话中的故事,曾几何时,也幻想自己就是一个公主,也学着月光下踮着脚尖,翩翩起舞。我梦见:一个美丽的森林,星光摇曳,芦花飞舞在河畔,月光轻轻托着我的裙角,轻风撩起我的长发,我嬉戏地追逐着一闪一闪的萤火虫,飞翔了我记得那时的我是有翅膀的,雪白雪白的翅膀也沉醉在那片记忆的森林。从此,我害怕醒来,害怕失去后的落寞,茫然不知所措。让我怎样捡拾这破碎的画面?
可我还是醒了,醒后还是寻找;我不知除了就这样寻找外还能做些什么?在完成一个循环,一种规则?我害怕光,害怕在阳光中连自己最后一丝防线也会崩溃!心一点一点地被撕碎,我一起以为自己很勇敢,其实我很无知、很固执。为了维持我所谓的勇敢,我真的很累很累,感觉就像掉在一个自己所设的陷阱里,我拼命的挣扎、呼喊,却忘记了自己明明是可以救自己,我不知道,我什么时候开始了欺骗自己。
我一直很努力走出这层黑暗,这令人压抑的大气圈,但地球终究是圆的,再怎么做也逃不出命运黑色的嘲弄。结果,在原本该结束的地方出发,又回到了出发的地点结束;得到的与失去的,遇到的与错过的,一切都充满意义又毫无意义。像是见过,又慢慢变得模糊
未知湖畔,芦花在月光中微摆,遥遥星空远不可及,总在无比的空荡中,一次次地迷失自己。
后记:不知何时春风绿了大地,不知何时秋风带走了生机,梦想碎了一地记忆。岁月点点滴滴,填不满,改变不了,时间留下的伤痛。我忽然想起了郑愁予的我不是归人,是个过客,这是个没有诗也没有童话的季节。
浏览量:3
下载量:0
时间:
演讲稿400字左右书香伴我成长(2篇通用)
演讲者需要深入了解听众的需求、兴趣和认知水平,针对性地撰写演讲稿,以更好地引起听众的共鸣和反响。那要怎么写演讲稿400字左右书香伴我成长呢?这里提供一些演讲稿400字左右书香伴我成长,希望对大家能有所帮助。
各位尊敬的老师,亲爱的同学:
大家下午好!
今天我要演讲的主题是书香伴我行。
古往今来,没有哪一位名人不爱读书的,而不爱读书的人一定没有伟大的成就。
我爱读书,因为书能丰富我的知识;我爱读书,因为书能使我懂得敌人的道理;我爱读书因为书能帮我树立远大的目标。品书时,我会因卖火柴的小女孩而伤心。会因皇后的阴险狡诈而愤怒。我敬佩周恩来,____等人的爱国情怀。我懂的得了愚蠢,我讨厌愚蠢的国王,我嘲讽契诃夫笔下的“变色龙”……
一个家庭要是没有了书,就如没有一颗星星的夜晚,没有一条鱼的河流。一个人要是不爱书,生活的乐趣就大大减少了,那个人就像一具死尸,什么都不如。
书是人类智慧的结晶,是人类思想的宝库。读书可以让我们的未知领域不断缩小,读书可以让我们领略人生的真谛。有句话是这么说的:“秀才不出门,便知天下事”。读书可以让我们不用出门都能了解天下奇事:埃及金字塔的灿烂文化,浩瀚的海洋世界……
在看书时,我时而化为游客,在书的世界里尽情游览;我时而变成小鱼,在书的海洋里尽情遨游。
同学们,让我们一起读书吧!拥有书我们就拥有整个世界!
浏览量:6
下载量:0
时间:
学宪法讲宪法演讲稿一百字(15篇范文参考)
演讲稿是在一定的场合,面对一定的听众,演讲人围绕着主题讲话的文稿。这里给大家分享学宪法讲宪法演讲稿一百字,方便大家写学宪法讲宪法演讲稿一百字时参考。
尊敬的老师、亲爱的同学们:
大家早上好!
我今天演讲的题目是《学宪法讲宪法》。
首先,我想问大家一个问题:在你们心中什么是法律?老师说,法律是明媚的阳光。阳光照耀之处,耕地、河流、森林、草原、湿地、野生动物等等都有相应的法律保护着,法律的保护使天更蓝、草更绿、水更清,大自然更加和谐。妈妈说,法律是一件安全的外套。人从一生下来开始,法律就对幼儿、小孩受教育、婚姻、生命财产不受侵害、社会医疗保障、老年抚养等等都作了明确的规定,法律的保护让我们快乐地成长,安全地拥有,幸福地生活。
爸爸说,法律是行动的指针。像我们开口不能骂人,伸手不能打人一样,我们的言行都要受到法律的约束,同时也受到法律的保护。大人们每做一项工作,每签订一个合约,都要涉及到很多法律条款,法律使我的保护们的社会运行有序,和谐相处,健康发展。
哦,原来法律并不遥远,它就像空气、水、或面包一样,时时刻刻在我们身边,须臾不曾离开。当有人故意毁坏公共场所的座椅,打碎路灯时;当有人骗取他人财物,甚至偷窃时;当有人走路不靠右侧通行,随意破坏交通规则时;当有人破坏草坪、花卉,随意污染环境时;当有人私自拆毁他人信件,污蔑他人时;当有人携带易燃易爆品乘车坐船时这些不都是我们身边的违法行为吗?这其中有你吗?有你的家人吗?
法律对于我们青少年而言,还只是一只模糊的蝴蝶,有时候违犯法律了还毫不知情。那些犯罪的人为什么犯了罪,罪在哪里都不知道,这是缺乏法律意识的一种表现。我们青少年首先要懂法、知法、守法,还要爱护法,多看一些法律方面的书籍,为自己的人生道路撑上一把健康的雨伞。
邓小平爷爷曾说:法制教育要从娃娃抓起。的确,我们青少年是祖国的未来,是祖国的希望,如果我们不从小培养法律意识,养成学法、知法、守法、用法、护法的好习惯,那么依法治国将永远是一句空话!
古人说的好:“勿以恶小而为之,勿以善小而不为。”我们千万不要因小错而酿成终生大错,成为社会的罪人啊!只要我们心中有法,你就会明白:什么事情可做,什么事情不可做,什么样的行为是受法律保护的,什么样的行为是法律所禁止的。
亲爱的同学们,我想大家已经清楚了,法律是一柄双刃剑,他既惩治坏人,也约束自己,他既赋予你权利,也让你肩负责任,它无时不在,无处不在,它就在我们身边,它就在我们心中。
我的演讲完毕,谢谢大家!
浏览量:4
下载量:0
时间:
交通安全日演讲稿800字(15篇)
交通安全日有助于倡导文明交通文化,强调礼让、宽容、互助的交通态度。通过文明交通文化的推广,可以缓解交通压力,提高交通效率,并改善交通氛围。下面是小编为大家带来的交通安全日演讲稿800字(15篇),希望大家能够喜欢!
尊敬的老师,亲爱的同学们:
大家好!
今天我要演讲的题目是《校园安全》。安全是什么?安全是我们学习的保障,是寻求知识的基础,是我们每个人奋斗在此的一切。没有安全,我们的生命就无从保障;没有安全,我们的学习就无从着手;没有安全,我们的和谐校园又从何谈起?
对于一个人来说,安全是一种幸福,而对于一个校园来说,则是我们学习生活中最重要、最基本的要求。安全既是人们生命健康的保障,也是一个和谐校园生存与发展的基石,更是社会稳定和经济发展的前提。
校园安全,涉及到学生生活和学习方面的安全隐患有许多,其中包括交通安全、食物安全、火灾火险、溺水、损伤甚至包括同学们的玩闹嬉戏中的意外事件等等。我们不但要有安全意识,更要有防范意识和防范。我们老师时刻都把学生的安全放在心中,希望大家尊重生命,远离意外伤害。同学们,请注意学习自我保护的,在日常的学习生活中要有安全意识,提高面对危险的逃生技能,在公共场所注意遵守秩序。在上学、放学的路上,请遵守交通规则,注意交通安全;课间要注意文明休息,不允许追打吵闹,要开展文明游戏,确保我们能够度过一个又一个轻松而又安全的课间。不要乱动教室电源插座和电器设备,上体育课和课外活动前要作好准备活动,要注意与他人合作,在各项运动中要注意运动安全,不要剧烈碰撞,以免撞伤或摔伤。注意饮食安全,不购买街边小摊上的不洁食物,防止食物中毒。在同学间遇到矛盾时,一定要冷静、理智,切忌用拳头代替说理,给自己和同学带来不良的后果。
同学们,生命只有一次。一次碰撞、一次都可能给脆弱的生命造成难以想象的危害,所以要保护自己的生命安全,要遵守最起码、最简单的规则和秩序。请记住:生命是美好的,生活是多姿多彩的,生命无价,要珍爱生命。我们一定要时刻加强安全意识,努力增强自我防范能力,做到警钟长鸣。让我们携起手来,与文明同行,共同营造安全环境,建设平安和谐的校园,为彼此撑起一片安全的天空。让学校成为我们安全的港湾。
我的演讲到此结束,谢谢大家!
浏览量:3
下载量:0
时间:
交通安全日宣传教育演讲稿(15篇)
交通安全日也是一个教育儿童交通安全知识的好机会。通过学校、家庭和社区的合作,可以向孩子们传递正确的交通安全观念,下面是小编为大家带来的交通安全日宣传教育演讲稿(15篇),希望大家能够喜欢!
尊敬的老师们,亲爱的同学们:
大家好!
我今天演讲的题目是《交通安全伴我行》。在我们的日常生活中,交通安全总是与我们齐头并进。人们希望安全度过每一天,但事实总是大相径庭。中国每天有280多人死于车祸,每年有10多万人死亡。血淋淋的事实摆在人们面前,人们不禁要问:“这是为什么?”
我想这是因为在这些行人和汽车司机眼里,红绿灯和交通安全是可以忽略不计的。他们可能真的很着急,但他们不知道的是,当行人闯红灯的时候,下一站可能是医院或者地狱宫。如果司机闯红灯,他可能会失去生活自由,伤害他人。这些悲剧的根源是他们不遵守交通规则,忽视交通安全,导致苦果。
为了避免悲剧,我们应该时刻牢记交通规则,无论做什么,我们都应该把安全放在第一位。例如,在繁忙的十字路口,红色、黄色和绿色信号灯挂在四周。这时,我们应该用红灯、黄灯等来停车。过马路前和绿灯一起走是安全的。和爸爸妈妈一起出行时,要提醒爸爸妈妈各行其道,靠右行驶,看清楚警示牌,这样才能安全出行,安全回家。你不能让你的生活变得微不足道。
交通安全就像一个警钟,悬挂在我们身后。这个警钟一直在响,仿佛在提醒我们遵守交通规则,把安全放在第一位。
愿我们每位同学快乐地成长,平安地生活!
我的演讲到此结束,谢谢大家!
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
全国交通安全日演讲稿2023(15篇)
交通安全日通过各种宣传和教育活动,有助于提高社会大众对交通安全的认识和重视程度。这有助于改变人们的交通行为,使其更注重安全驾驶和出行,降低交通事故的发生率。下面是小编为大家带来的全国交通安全日演讲稿2023(15篇),希望大家能够喜欢!
同志们:
今天,我们在这里举行春运交通安全启动日活动,目的就是再动员、再部署,确保今年春运工作万无一失。昨天,县上召开了全县春运动员大会,对今年春运工作的组织领导、安全管理、部门协调、应急措施、市场监管等各方面都进行了部署。各部门要认真贯彻会议精神,切实做好今年春运交通安全工作,确保交通安全形势稳定有序。今年春运期间,影响我县道路交通安全的不利因素比较突出。一是春运客流高峰明显。学生流、民工流、探亲流易于形成叠加,单程运输突出,给运输工作带来难度。二是恶劣天气对交通安全影响较大。今年,天气变幻无常,春运期间冰雪天气会对道路交通安全畅通带来较大影响。三是交通安全隐患较多。春运期间,道路交通流量加大,违法违规行为增多,特别是客车超员、非客运车辆载人、超速行驶、酒后驾车、疲劳驾驶等严重违法突出,容易引发交通事故。上述不利因素,决定了今年春运交通安全工作将更加繁重,面临的形势将更加严峻。下面,我再强调几点:
一要加强组织领导。公安交警部门一把手要把做好春运交通安全管理工作作为当前的中心任务,集中精力抓好各项措施的落实,大队领导要亲自深入一线,带头到安全隐患多、事故多发的重点地区、重点路段进行现场指挥,重点检查警力部署和管理措施的落实情况,及时发现问题,及时督促整改,确保各项管理措施落实到位。
二要做到各项措施落实到位。各级、各部门要动员一切可以动员的力量,迅速投入到春运交通安全的源头管理、宣传教育、路面执法等各个环节,尽最大可能把工作做细做实,确保管理不失控。要进一步加大执法管理力度,从严查处各类严重交通违法行为,努力维护道路交通治安秩序的稳定。
三要加强各部门之间的协作配合。春运工作是一项系统工程,各部门、各单位要严格按照春运工作要求,明确目标、落实责任,构建全方位管理体系。春运期间,交警部门一定要加大对国道及重点县乡道路的路面巡逻力度,严格查纠客车超员、超速行驶、疲劳驾驶、酒后驾驶、无证驾驶等严重交通违法行为;要针对节日期间农村群众探亲访友活动集中、农村道路短途客运量集中的特点,加大对县乡道路交通秩序的整治,严格查纠三轮汽车、低速载货汽车和拖拉机违法载人交通违法行为,有效杜绝交通事故隐患,公路交通部门要采取有力措施,保障道路畅通、桥梁安全,及时清理道路路障,在危险路段设臵警示标志,做好抢险工程机械及融雪、融冰等物资储备,有效应对各类恶劣天气和突发事件。广电部门要通过广播、电视、网络等媒介开展行之有效的宣传教育活动,广泛深入地宣传春运交通安全措施、出行安全常识和注意事项,教育引导群众出行自觉做到不开不坐超员车和非客运车、无牌无证车,不携带易燃易爆和危险物品乘车,提高自我保护能力,共同维护春运安全。运管部门要加强春运期间客运市场的监管,坚决打击黑车市场,维护正常的营运秩序;各运输单位要加强客运车辆管理,加强客运车辆车主教育,切实做好车辆维护保养和清洁工作,确保运输车辆处于良好技术状态,为旅客提供安全、顺畅的乘车环境。
四要严格落实工作责任。春运期间,各相关责任部门要转变作风,以超常的工作,过硬的`措施,严肃的纪律,强化责任追究,确保各项措施的落实。对确因工作不力、造成后果的要严肃追究责任。
同志们,安全责任重于泰山,各级、各部门要按照县委、县政府的统一部署,立即行动起来,狠抓各项工作措施落实,确保春运交通安全形势稳定,道路通畅有序,努力为全县人民欢度春节创造安全和谐的道路交通环境。
最后,预祝我县春运交通安全管理工作取得圆满成功。
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
2023年交通安全日演讲稿(15篇)
交通安全日是为了强调和宣传交通安全意识,以减少交通事故、保障行人和驾驶员的生命安全而设立的特殊日子。下面是小编为大家带来的2023年交通安全日演讲稿(15篇),希望大家能够喜欢!
尊敬的老师们,亲爱的同学们:
大家早上好!我是501班的小依,今天,我国旗下演讲的主题是《交通安全记心中》。
交通安全,我们常常接触到得一个词语。但是,听老师说了,听家长讲了,又有多少同学真正的做到了呢?上学路上,我们经常会看到有那么几个闯红灯的同学,他们可曾想过,一秒的车祸,带来的是自己一辈子的痛苦啊!一秒的车祸,带来的是家人的一辈子流不完的泪啊“高高兴兴上学,平平安安回家。”是每个老师和家长对我们的一个共同心愿。青少年在学好科学文化知识的同时,更应该学习如何保护自己。在交通繁忙,生活节奏加快的今天,遵守交通规则更是刻不容缓。青少年阶段是人生最灿烂的时光,珍爱生命,才能保证有生命来享受这段灿烂的时光,拥有健康的生命是拥有一切的前提。生命是你自己的,在尽情享受青春的欢乐时,也不要忘了自身的安全,我们共同努力,让交通更通畅,让生活更安全。
有人说:“我也违反过交通规则,但没什么事啊!”那只是运气好,这么做,是在和自己的生命开玩笑。人们一般会以时间紧或不了解交通规则为理由违反交通。这样虽然情有可原,但付出的代价也大了些,这是在拿生命作赌注有时候,我们也会急着上学。有时候,我们也赶时间。大家心里都想着:“我闯一次红灯有什么关系呢?我就一次车骑得飞快又有什么关系呢?”但是,有了一次就有第二次,我们并不能保证我们不会在这么多的“一次”当中发生事故,发生不可挽救的错误。
遵守交通法规、安全文明出行,就是尊重生命,尊重自我。当我们能做到这一切的时候,我们的社会便向文明的彼岸又靠近了一步。重视交通安全,是我们每个人的`义务,更是我们每个人的责任。让我们携起手来呵护这文明之花,让我们远离伤痛,珍爱彼此的生命吧。
我们希望,今天的这个国旗下的讲话,能够再次唤醒同学们对交通安全的重视。我们要把平安的种子撒播进自己的心田。当它发芽开花、长成参天大树,我们必将收获更多的幸福、更多的快乐。
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
122交通安全日主题演讲稿(15篇)
交通安全日也是强调交通法规的遵守,提醒驾驶员和行人要切实遵循交通规则。宣传交通法规的合理性和必要性,促使大家更加自觉地遵循交通法规,减少违章行为。下面是小编为大家带来的122交通安全日主题演讲稿(15篇),希望大家能够喜欢!
亲爱的老师、同学们:
大家好生命是唯一的,是宝贵的,世界因为有了生命而变得精彩。您的生命,您珍惜吗?要想生命得到保障,请您遵守交通规则。
交通事故时时刻刻都会发生,它像颗威力十足的炸弹,一时大意,这颗埋伏在我们生活中的炸弹就会爆炸,炸得家庭破碎,炸得人心悲苦。
记得我曾经在报纸上看到这样一则报道,我当时惊呆了。一位市民,因为要赶着去上班,而他必须绕过栏杆才能坐车,无奈之下,他情非得已地跨过栏杆。这时,突然,一辆卡车直奔而来,在这千钧一发的时候,只听“啊”的一声尖叫,这位市民被车撞得惨不忍睹,面目全非。当他被送到医院时,早已奄奄一息了。家属为此伤心欲绝。如果他当初能遵守交通规则,不乱跨越栏杆,他也就不会为此付出惨重的代价,把宝贵的生命白白地葬送。
曾经看到这样一句话:“为了言传身教,请注意交通安全!”这句广告词也说不上经典,或许也谈不上特殊,可就是这么普通的一句话,在当今社会上,有几个人放在心上?又有几个人注意到交通安全的重要性呢?闯红灯,往往是出现交通事故的主要原因之一。有人为了争夺几秒的短暂时间,拼命地向前冲,事故也就这样发生了。所谓:宁等三分,不急一秒。人的生命只有一次,有什么比生命更重要,更急呢?何必要拿生命来做赌注呢?这样做根本不值得。
交通是国民经济的命脉,马路作为交通的载体,它伤害了无数人的生命,它不能没有,但有了它却有无休止的流血。
人们如果不注意交通安全,那事故就会像“非典”一样传播起来。也许受害者不是你,是别人,但也许明天就是你了,因为不遵守交通规则,造成财产损失,这值得吗?为什么不能遵守交通法则呢?难道大家愿意听到惨烈的.叫声,撞车的轰隆声?谁愿意自己家破人亡?
俗话说:生命重于泰山。为了自己的家人,为了自己,为了您的生命,让交通安全在你我的心中时时闪现,让那使人心灵震撼的声音不再出现。
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间: