月別アーカイブ: 2009年12月

オバマ大統領、医療改革法案が上院で可決


ニュースの目次はこちらです
懸案であった医療保険制度改革法案が24日に上院本会議で可決されました。オバマ大統領は「1世紀近い改革への戦いに終止符を打ち、真に意味のある改革を実行する時が来た」と述べ、歴史的な投票であったことを強調しました。
しかしCNNの世論調査では医療保険改革法案への不支持は56%と高く、また議会の賛成票を積み増すため法案に修正を重ねた結果、ホワイトハウスの当初案とはかけ離れたという指摘もあります。今後は相違点の残る上下両院案の一本化調整が難航し長期化すれば、政策運営に支障をきたす恐れもあります。
「国民全員に保険がカバーされていない唯一の先進国」すなわち国民の15%が無保険者であるという現実。その一方で医療費の支出は先進国の中で最高水準に達し、企業経営や国家財政を圧迫し、米国経済の国際競争力を衰えさせているとも言います。
アメリカ国民の最大の関心は10%という高失業率にあり、オバマ政権の支持率は5割を切りました。しかし先ず過去からの「負の遺産」を解消する勇気を称賛したいと思います。医療制度改革に着手しなければ長い目で見ればアメリカの競争力の大きな足かせになり、末代まで悔いを残したことでしょう。
Good morning, everybody. In a historic vote that took place this morning members of the Senate joined their colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass a landmark health insurance reform package — legislation that brings us toward the end of a nearly century-long struggle to reform America’s health care system.
Ever since Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform in 1912, seven Presidents — Democrats and Republicans alike — have taken up the cause of reform. Time and time again, such efforts have been blocked by special interest lobbyists who’ve perpetuated a status quo that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people. But with passage of reform bills in both the House and the Senate, we are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people.
The reform bill that passed the Senate this morning, like the House bill, includes the toughest measures ever taken to hold the insurance industry accountable. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny you coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition. They will no longer be able to drop your coverage when you get sick. No longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for the treatments you need. And you’ll be able to appeal unfair decisions by insurance companies to an independent party.
If this legislation becomes law, workers won’t have to worry about losing coverage if they lose or change jobs. Families will save on their premiums. Businesses that would see their costs rise if we do not act will save money now, and they will save money in the future. This bill will strengthen Medicare, and extend the life of the program. It will make coverage affordable for over 30 million Americans who do not have it — 30 million Americans. And because it is paid for and curbs the waste and inefficiency in our health care system, this bill will help reduce our deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion in the coming decades, making it the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.
As I’ve said before, these are not small reforms; these are big reforms. If passed, this will be the most important piece of social policy since the Social Security Act in the 1930s, and the most important reform of our health care system since Medicare passed in the 1960s. And what makes it so important is not just its cost savings or its deficit reductions. It’s the impact reform will have on Americans who no longer have to go without a checkup or prescriptions that they need because they can’t afford them; on families who no longer have to worry that a single illness will send them into financial ruin; and on businesses that will no longer face exorbitant insurance rates that hamper their competitiveness. It’s the difference reform will make in the lives of the American people.
I want to commend Senator Harry Reid, extraordinary work that he did; Speaker Pelosi for her extraordinary leadership and dedication. Having passed reform bills in both the House and the Senate, we now have to take up the last and most important step and reach an agreement on a final reform bill that I can sign into law. And I look forward to working with members of Congress in both chambers over the coming weeks to do exactly that.
With today’s vote, we are now incredibly close to making health insurance reform a reality in this country. Our challenge, then, is to finish the job. We can’t doom another generation of Americans to soaring costs and eroding coverage and exploding deficits. Instead we need to do what we were sent here to do and improve the lives of the people we serve. For the sake of our citizens, our economy, and our future, let’s make 2010 the year we finally reform health care in the United States of America.
Everybody, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year.
Q Do you have a holiday wish for the troops?
THE PRESIDENT: I do, and I will be actually — I’m on my way right now to call a few of them and wish them Merry Christmas and to thank them for their extraordinary service as they’re posted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●
中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-cover      
  読者登録は大歓迎です!→読者になる

中学生の英語教材としてカタログ(日本教材出版)に掲載されました!

中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-教材カタログ
実は言いたくて口がムズムズしていたんですがあせる来年度のカタログが完成したので、遂に発表できますビックリマーク
日本教材出版という塾教材専門の会社に私の著書が中学生の英語教材として取り扱っていただくことになりましたニコニコ
英語が不安な大人の方を読者として頭に描いて書きました。しかし中学生にも英語の参考書として、いやむしろ私のエッセーなどを通じて将来の人生設計の参考になってくれたら、という願いを胸にいだいています。とっても…うれしいです!(^O^)
○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●
中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-cover      
  読者登録は大歓迎です!→読者になる

TOEIC文法特急(朝日新聞出版) 花田さんの著書

中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-文法特急
以前にもご紹介させていただきましたが10月7日に花田さんの著書が発売されました。
1駅1題 新TOEIC TEST文法特急(朝日新聞出版)
TOEIC満点講師の花田さんは新宿でTOEIC専門校(花田塾)を経営していらっしゃいます。
そのブログも是非ご覧になってください。誠意あふれるお人柄が出ています。
またTOEIC受験をお考えの方にはTOEIC講評・解答速報は必見でおすすめです!
花田のTOEICブログ
実はもっと早く読後の感想をアップしようと思っていたのですが…できなかったんです。
非常にしっかりした解説。「なぜ」この解答になるかが論理的に明確に示されています。
それに比べて(比べること自体が失礼とは思いますが)自分は…という自己嫌悪や反省の思いで。。。
この本を単に問題を解くつもりなら「1駅1題」かもしれません。しかしそれでは意味がありません。
解説が深くて厚い、例文などを含めると中身が膨大なんですよね。
これをテキストとして「学習」に使うならば何ヶ月も読める価値のあるものだと思います。
TOEICについて私の個人的意見なのですが、海外に実際に在住した人に有利にできていると感じています。
例えばビジネス英語であれば私は「これは見たことがある」「これはこういう形だから」という感覚で解ける場合がよくあります。しかし「なぜ」そうなるんだ、ということが説明できないのです。
(TOEICのスコア通り、私の正解率は20問あれば18~19問くらいだと思います。)
ただ、一般的な英語の学習方法としてAERA English11月号でも述べていらっしゃいましたが、私が自分の本にも書いたのと共通する点があり(あぁ間違っていなかったんだ)と、ホッとしたことがあります。
それはブログにも述べていらっしゃいますが「単語カードには例文も書く」ということです。
なんだか書籍のご紹介というより私の反省文ばかりになって申し訳ありません。
皆さんTOEICの勉強に関しては、ぜひ先ず花田さんのブログをご訪問なさってみてください。
私がイチオシでおすすめしたいブログです。
なおTOEIC文法特急は丸善の「あなたのベスト本」第5位という快進撃のベストセラーでもあります。
クリスマスのご自身へのプレゼントに是非いかがでしょうか音譜
○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●
中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-cover      
  読者登録は大歓迎です!→読者になる

米露首脳会談、START1(第一次戦略兵器削減条約)の後継条約、越年へ


ニュースの目次はこちらです
先ずSTART1は以下の略語になります。
STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty I(第一次戦略兵器削減条約)
1991年にアメリカとソビエト連邦/ロシアに間で結ばれた軍縮条約の一つです。
戦略兵器というから遠まわしですが、要するに核軍縮ですね。
2001年までに米ロ両国は、弾頭数の削減が終了したことを宣言しています。
そしてこのSTART1はこの2009年12月5日をもって失効しました。
今年中を目指した新たな核軍縮条約の締結は、来年に持ち越されることになりました。
COP15に出席していたオバマ米大統領とメドベージェフ・ロシア大統領はデンマークで協議しました。
そして「最終合意に非常に近い」段階に至ったと、この会見では述べています。
しかし実際には核兵器の検証・査察体制などで溝が残っているとされています。
米露首脳は共にこの新たな核軍縮条約の締結を最優先課題の一つと位置づけています。
しかしこのような重要な条約の締結にはかなりの時間を要するとの意見もあり、楽観はできませんね。
かつての冷戦時代のような米露の直接的な二国間の緊張状態ではないと言えるかもしれません。
しかし北大西洋条約機構(NATO)の東方拡大ミサイル防衛(MD)などの問題も絡んでいるだけに、実際には多国間問題であり、署名時期のめども発表されず、今後の進展から目が離せません。
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Obviously our main concern in coming to Copenhagen was to try to move forward with an accord on the issue of climate change. But on the margins of this meeting we thought it was important to continue to build on the excellent relationship that our two governments have developed over the last several months.
Our main focus today was the START treaty — the new START treaty that we have been negotiating. We’ve been making excellent progress. We are quite close to an agreement. And I’m confident that it will be completed in a timely fashion. And I just want to thank President Medvedev for being a very effective partner in these negotiations.
And we wish him a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV: (As translated.) For my part as an effective partner of President Obama, I will say all the same, but using different words, as the custom that we have in our diplomatic practice.
That’s true that we arrived in Copenhagen not to have this bilateral meeting, but to move forward all the whole range of climate issues, and in this respect our work is not over. But on the other hand, it would be unreasonable not to use this opportunity in order to — not to discuss what we’ve been doing for the recent days or the recent time in a very coordinated and persistent manner. And I would like to thank Mr. Obama and the U.S. negotiating team. I am talking about a new treaty on the reductions of strategic arms.
And our positions are very close and almost all the issues that we’ve been discussing for the last month are almost closed. And there are certain technical details which we can encounter many agreements which require further work. I hope that we will be able to do it in a quite brief period of time. The outcome of our efforts will reflect good and close spirit of our relationship that we have established with the new U.S. administration.
(Speaks in English.) And I would like to say Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you, everybody.
○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●
中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-cover      
  読者登録は大歓迎です!→読者になる

成田スカイアクセス:東京⇔成田空港(日暮里―空港第2ビル)を最速36分、2010年7月に開業

$中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-新型スカイライナー

日本の空の玄関、成田空港。その成田空港に罪があるわけではありません。
しかし羽田に比べて弱い所といえば東京から距離的に遠いことですね。
でも時間的に近いならば、その悩みは解消されますね。
ついに来年7月に開業(予定)の成田新高速鉄道によって東京(日暮里)・成田空港間が最速36分で結ばれることになります。これならば東京から羽田空港へ行くのと変わらないですね!
この成田新高速鉄道の愛称が成田スカイアクセスと決まりました。詳細はasahi.comをご覧ください。
(つまり新スカイライナーは従来のスカイライナーよりも15分短縮!この違いは大きいですね)
しかし!「成田新高速鉄道」とか「成田スカイアクセス」と言われても何だか分からないですよね。
でも…ついに見つけました。一番分かりやすい路線地図を是非ご覧ください!
在来のJR線、京成線と並行して(印旛日本医大駅と成田空港を結んで)新路線が完成するんですね。
東京から成田空港に向かう人にとっては朗報ですね。
しかし成田市民にとってはどうなのでしょうか。今まで京成スカイライナーは「京成成田駅」に停車していましたが、新型スカイライナーの停車駅は京成上野・日暮里・空港第2ビル・成田空港らしいですね。(詳しくはこちらをご覧ください)従来の京成本線での一般型特急列車は引き続き運行するようですが、いわゆるスカイライナーが京成成田駅を通らなくなるのは残念です。
なお「成田スカイアクセス」経由の一般特急列車(特急料金無し)の停車駅は、京成上野・日暮里・青砥・京成高砂・東松戸・新鎌ヶ谷・千葉ニュータウン中央・印旛日本医大・成田湯川・空港第2ビル、成田空港ということです。
===
この成田スカイアクセスは、これから話題になっていくと思います。
また海外に成田空港から飛び立つ人は、ぜひ知っておいたほうが便利な知識かと思います。
新たなお役立ち情報が入ったらまたアップしますね。
p.s.
こういうことも話題にしている成田グルっぽに皆さんも入りませんか?(^O^)/
○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●
中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-cover      
  読者登録は大歓迎です!→読者になる

Twitterツイッター勉強会に参加しました

中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-ツイッター恵比寿
中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-ツイッター勉強会

12月13日に東京の恵比寿で行われた「ツイッター超入門セミナー」に参加してきました。
ひとり1台のPC環境で、まさに実践的な講習で、分かりやすかったです。
またツイッターの現状と今後の講義もためになり、少し目の前の靄が晴れた気持ちです。
講師は有名ブロガーのお二人でした。
がけっぷち女社長の実践◎ブログじゃんじゃんの青山華子さん
イケメンのいただきかたの内藤みかさん
お二人とも普通の方でホッとしましたσ(^_^;)
写真はセミナーのあとの懇親会の様子。そして恵比寿駅の電飾クリスマスツリーです。
セミナーに参加された方たちは皆さん前向きで、積極的に質問をする方が多く刺激を受けました。
参加者の方のリストはここで見ることができます。
ツイッターとブログの本質的な違いは「スピード感」だと思いました。
ブログは一つ書くのに10分~1時間かかりますが、ツイッターは、アッという間ですよね。
よかったら、よっちゃんのツイッターもフォローしてみてくださいねニコニコ
○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●
中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-cover      
  読者登録は大歓迎です!→読者になる

just peace=正しい平和、オバマ大統領のノーベル平和賞の受賞演説


ニュースの目次はこちらです
そもそも何故オバマ大統領はノーベル平和賞を受賞したのかを思い起こしてみましょう。
委員会は受賞理由を「国際的な外交と諸国民の協力を強めることに対して並はずれた努力をした。特に『核なき世界』を目指すとする理念と取り組みを重視する」と述べました。
「核なき世界」へ向けての行動。具体的には4月、チェコ・プラハでの演説で米国の道義的責任に触れ「核なき世界」を目指す考えを表明し、またロシアとの核軍縮交渉に前向きに取り組んでいます。また9月には国連安全保障理事会の首脳会合を主宰し「核兵器のない世界」を目指す歴史的な決議を全会一致で採択に導きました。
気候変動問題では、オバマ氏は国際政治の新しい状況を生み出したと評価されました。
今までの歴代政権とは異なり、単独行動主義を改め、多国間協調を重視する姿勢を打ち出し、問題解決の手段として対話と交渉に重きを置く姿勢が評価されたのです。
「平和=戦争をしないこと」という単純なものではないのですね。
===
しかしノーベル賞の受賞演説では「なぜ2つの戦争の最中にある大統領が受賞したか」という議論への返答としての説明が大半を占めている。私はそれが残念でなりません。
また just war が「正しい戦争」と訳され(その訳を否定はしませんが)「戦争に正しい戦争などあるものか」というセンセーショナルな論点にすり返られることもいかがなものかと思います。
私であれば just war = 正義の戦い と解釈します。
皆さん、愛する人のためには戦わなければならないことがありますよね。
世の中には邪悪も存在して、それに対して「無言の抵抗」だけで済ませられないこともありますね。
===
*もう一度読み直しましたが、残念ながら…演説で述べられたのは just war=正しい戦争 ですね。
オバマ贔屓である私の思い込みがありました。。。
しかし又 just peace=正しい平和 も追い求めなければならないことも述べられています。
他国で人権が侵害されても指をくわえて見ているだけ、では済ませられないアメリカの立場と歴史があります。圧制で国民の表現の自由を奪う国々には(戦争という手段をとるかどうかは別として)多国間で協調して時には制裁も考えなければならない。水や医療も無い所に真の平和はもたらせない。
また一つずつの内容は順を追って見ていくとしましょう。
日本語訳は朝日新聞の全訳をご参照ください。
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I’m responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of “just war” was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states — all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naive — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.” A gradual evolution of human institutions.
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America — in fact, no nation — can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.
And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That’s why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they’ve shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That’s why NATO continues to be indispensable. That’s why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That’s why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers — but as wagers of peace.
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor — we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard.
I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I’m working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma — there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy — but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements — these movements of hope and history — they have us on their side.
Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — condemnation without discussion — can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There’s no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can’t aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that’s why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It’s also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement — all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action — it’s military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that’s the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there’s something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we’re all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities — their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we’re moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it’s incompatible with the very purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their fundamental faith in human progress — that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what’s best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”
Let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)
Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he’s outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school — because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child’s dreams.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that’s the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●
中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-cover      
  読者登録は大歓迎です!→読者になる

goal=最終的に目指すもの、objective=結果を達成するための目標


ニュース英語の目次はこちらです
ちょっと難しい話になりますので、分かりやすい具体例を創作してみます。
映像事業を営む会社、よっちゃん株式会社があるとします。
その会社設立によって目指すこと=GOALは「映像によって社会全体に幸せをもたらす」ことです。
この理念を達成するために次のような目標=Objectiveを掲げました。
◇映像を手軽に撮影できるようにする Capture
◇映像を家庭で安いコストでプリントできるようにする Output
◇映像をネットで共有できるようにする Share
そしてそれぞれの目標=Objectiveを達成するために戦略=Strategyをたてます。
実行する際には具体的な戦術=Tacticsを組み立てていく必要があります。
いかがですか?何となくイメージはつかめましたか?
オバマ大統領、アフガニスタンへの3万人増派を発表から以下の文を見てみましょう。
*長文ですのでポイントを要約していきます。
===
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
我々が最終的に目指していることはアル・カーイダをアフガニスタン・パキスタンで壊滅させ、将来において彼らがアメリカと同盟国への脅威を与える能力をなくさせることです。
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.
このゴールを達成するために次のような目標に向けて前進していきます。アル・カーイダの安全地帯を消滅させること。タリバンの勢いを失わせ政府転覆の可能性をなくすこと。アフガニスタン独自の安全警備力を強化すること。そしてアフガニスタンが将来の自国を自らの責任で守れるようにすること。
We will meet these objectives in three ways.
これらの目標を達成するために以下の3つの方法(strategy)で進めていきます。
First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.
(1)先ず軍事的戦略として今後18ヶ月間でタリバンの拠点を破壊し、アフガニスタンの警備力の強化を行います。
The 30,000 additional troops that I’m announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest possible pace — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They’ll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
増派3万人は2010年前半に人口密集地帯を優先として実施します。アフガニスタンの警備力の訓練・強化を行い、国内警備の責任がアメリカからアフガンにスムーズに移転できる基盤を作ります。
Because this is an international effort, I’ve asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we’re confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility — what’s at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.
これは国際協力をもとに行われることであり、同盟諸国に協力を求めています。
But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We’ll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
そして2011年の7月からの撤退開始を予定しています。
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
(2) 安全が確保されることの利点をいかし、同盟諸国、国連、アフガン国民と協力し、より効果的な文民統制を目指します。
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We’ll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
我々は無目的に金銭援助をして腐敗を助長するのではなく、具体的に例えば農業分野で貢献し、アフガニスタン国民の生活向上にすぐに役立つものを具体化していきます。
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They’ve been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
アフガニスタン国民は過去においてソビエトやアル・カーイダなどに占領され、利用されてきました。アメリカはこのような歴史にピリオドをうちたいと願っています。アフガニスタンを占領する意思など毛頭なく、我々が兵力を全て撤退し、相互信頼に基づく対等な関係を構築することを目指しています。
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
(3) アフガニスタンにおける成功はパキスタンとの密接なパートナーシップをもって可能になります。
We’re in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That’s why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who’ve argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
パキスタン世論ではテロリストと対峙するのに否定的な意見が主でしたが、パキスタン国内で多くのテロ殺戮が行われることで、まさにパキスタンこそがテロの犠牲者であることが認識されてきました。
過去においてアメリカとパキスタンの関係は非常に狭い分野に限定されていましたが、相互信頼と尊敬をもって、アメリカは今後のパキスタンを安全保障と経済発展の双方において支援する所存です。
===
いかがでしたか。全体の雰囲気はつかめましたか?
つまりアメリカが増派するのは、戦争を望んでいるからではなくアフガニスタンが自力で安全保障できる体制を整えるためであり、そのためには先ずアル・カーイダの存在を壊滅させなければならないからである、という主張です。
現在の政権を信頼しているかどうかの本音(リップサービスで政権就任演説に賛同していますが)は別として、根底にある理念はアフガニスタン国民の安全・平和と人道的援助、経済発展への援助を目指しているということが言えると思います。
このゴールに向かって、日本も軍事力以外の形で貢献できることが多くあるはず、と私は信じます。
○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●
中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-cover      
  読者登録は大歓迎です!→読者になる

12/19仙台、公式オフ会、よっちゃんの英語レッスン受講者オフ会

以下の文章は、私が発行する2つのメールマガジンとブログ、mixi等のSNSで同時にお知らせします。
===
◇オフ会の告知◇
所用があって12/18から仙台に行きます。
この機会を利用して「よっちゃんの英語レッスン受講者オフ会」を
開催したいと思います。
参加者4名以上で開催の予定です!
老若男女問わず、皆様の参加をお待ちしています。
参加者が満たない場合はまた次回にしたいと思います。
日時:12/19(土)18:00~
場所:仙台駅近辺のお店
皆さんの参加表明をお待ちしています!
===
ここアメブロでは、この日記へのコメント、アメブロのメールあるいはE-mailでご連絡ください。
人数が確定しましたらお店を決めて公表いたします。
○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●
中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-cover      
  読者登録は大歓迎です!→読者になる

「成田グルっぽ」に入りませんか?

またまた「成田グルっぽ」の宣伝です(^o^;)
グルっぽというのはアメブロ会員が入ることができるコミュニティーのようなものです。
アメブロ以外の方、申し訳ありません<(_ _)>
12月10日現在、メンバー24名になりました!
掲示板は外からも閲覧できるように設定しましたニコニコ
皆さんの参加、お待ちしています!
羽田空港のハブ化が話題になり、千葉県の森田健作知事が「じゃあ成田はマングースになる」と言ったらしいですが…まあ、それはさておきましてあせる
成田空港を利用された方は多いと思いますが、市内に立ち寄る方って少ないですよね。
おすもうさんや有名タレントが豆まきをする成田山新勝寺といえば有名なのですが、それ以外では無名ですよね。それに成田市でお土産屋さん以外にどこに行けばいいの?という疑問を持つ人も多いことでしょう。
折角の日本の玄関なのですから、もうちょっと楽しみ方が分かるといいですよね。
…というわけで、メンバーになるのに成田に住んだり勤めている必要はありません。
成田空港を利用する(かもしれない)人、あるいは「成田?聞いたことはあるなぁ」でもOKです!(^O^)/
少しでも興味のある方は、ぜひメンバーに入ってくださいねニコニコお待ちしています!
○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●
中学英語も不安なあなたへ(よっちゃんの やさしい英語レッスン)英会話、知っていると便利な一言-cover      
  読者登録は大歓迎です!→読者になる