Passage Three
Ethics Office Backs Interior Official
民族部支持内政部的官员
The Office of Government Ethics said the Interior Department’s No. 2 official, Steven Griles, did not appear to violate ethics rules by arranging meetings between Interior officials and his former lobbying clients and partners.
The office, after reviewing an 18-month investigation by the Interior Department’s inspector general, said it found no ethics violations by Griles in the department’s awarding of more than $1.6 million i contracts in 2001 and 2002 to Advanced Power Technologies Inc., a former client.
Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaney said Griles’ behavior is the latest case of an Interior official falling to consider perceived impropriety in his actions. He also called the department’s underfunded ethics office "a train wreck waiting to happen. "
Interior S
A. Griles arranged for official from his office to meet his former clients.
B. Griles was investigated by Earl Devaney.
C. Griles’s Interior Department favored Advanced Power Technologies Inc.in big contracts.
D. Griles improperly violated ethic codes.
Passage Three
Ethics Office Backs Interior Official
民族部支持内政部的官员
The Office of Government Ethics said the Interior Department’s No. 2 official, Steven Griles, did not appear to violate ethics rules by arranging meetings between Interior officials and his former lobbying clients and partners.
The office, after reviewing an 18-month investigation by the Interior Department’s inspector general, said it found no ethics violations by Griles in the department’s awarding of more than $1.6 million i contracts in 2001 and 2002 to Advanced Power Technologies Inc., a former client.
Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaney said Griles’ behavior is the latest case of an Interior official falling to consider perceived impropriety in his actions. He also called the department’s underfunded ethics office "a train wreck waiting to happen. "
Interior S
A. made an eighteen-month investigation into Griles’s case
B. referred to Griles’s case "a train wreck"
C. accused the Interior Department of funding ethics office secretly
D. did not act in Griles’s favor
| We assumed ethics needed the seal of
certainty, else it was non-rational. And certainty was to be produced by a
deductive model: the correct actions were derivable from classical first
principles or a hierarchically ranked pantheon of principles. This model,
though, is bankrupt. I suggest we think of ethics as analogous to language usage. There are no univocal rules of grammar and style which uniquely determine the best sentence for a particular situation. Nor is language usage universalizable. Although a sentence or phrase is warranted in one case, it does not mean it is automatically appropriate in like circumstances. Nonetheless, language usage is not subjective. This should not surprise us in the least. All intellectual pursuits are relativistic in just these senses. Political science, psychology, chemistry, and physic A. explicitly clear B. implicitly vague C. certain but non-rational D. relative but not subjective [单项选择]Passage Three
|
