|
| 2003年04月15日(火) |
Petroleum 石の油 |
|
gasはガソリン。
英国語ではpetrol（ペットゥロウ）と言う。
petrolはpetroleumの略。
その語源は、petraが石、oleumは油。
「ペテロ(英語でピーター）」はキリストの１２使徒のひとりだが、「石、岩」という意味もある。
キリストが彼に次のように言う。
"And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
（おまえに言っておく。おまえはペテロで、この岩の上に私は自分の教会を築こう、これで地獄の門が猛威を振るうことはあるまい マタイ伝）
キリストは、ペテロに信頼を置き、かつその名の意味にかけて、こう語ったのだという説があり有力だ。キリストがひとつの駄洒落を仕掛けたことにもなる。
それはともかく、２０００年後、人類はペテロならぬ、petrolの上に現代文明を築いている。
この油、諸国のinterest（利権）のもとにもなっている。
米国の「良心」と言えばいいのか。ニュース解説者でなく、トークショーホストたちの最近の石油関連発言集が、ハワイの師から送られてきたのでその一部を紹介します。
"CNN said that after the war, there is a plan to divide Iraq into three parts ... regular, premium and unleaded." Jay Leno
（ＣＮＮによると、戦後、イラクを３分割する計画があるという・・・レギュラー、プリミアム、無鉛に）
！ この３つはガソリンの種類だ。
“War continues in Iraq. They're calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom. They were going to call it Operation Iraqi Liberation until they realized that spells 'OIL.'” Jay Leno
（イラクの戦争は続いている。これを国ではイラク自由作戦と呼んでいる。もともとイラク解放作戦と呼ぶつもりだったが、それだとＯＩＬとつづるので辞めたのだ）
！ Operation Iraqi Liberationは語呂もいいが、それだとアクロニム（頭文字のみで表すこと）にするとＯＩＬ（石油の意味あり）となるので辞めたということだ。ジョークなのかな？
発言者Jay Lenoは、国民的トークショーホストだったジョニー・カーソンを継いで、TONIGHT SHOWの司会となった人物だ。
You can’t squeeze blood from a stone.（石から血は絞り出せない）
これは、「ないものは出ない」という意味のことわざ。
石の油は・・・？ こちらは流血が絶えない。
| 2003年04月13日(日) |
A Dialogue ある会話 |
|
以下、最近ネットのあちこちで見るダイアログです。
ななんと、ＷＭ＝warmonger（戦争屋）、ＰＮ=peacenik（平和屋）という名のキャラクターのＱ＆Ａ。作者は米国人で、イラク戦争の経緯にスポットを当て、安全保障理事会（Security Council)と米国政府の関係など、議論がどうどう巡りをする（The argument is going around in circles.とかThe argument is getting nowhere.などと言います）様子がはっきり出ています。最後はフランスのワインとチーズをボイコットせよというＷＭに、ＰＮがかわりにプレッツェルを勧めます。ビールのつまみの代表格ですが、もとはドイツなので、現在の関係から見て、辛口のエンディングになっています。最後まで行くように頑張ってください。
A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
By Bill Davidson
PeaceNik: Why did you say we are invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security
Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over New York.
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorist
networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological
materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the Eighties ourselves, didn't we?
WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early Eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama Bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a
secular infidel?
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell
presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaida poison factory in
Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be
revealed because it would compromise our security.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find
evidence. You're missing the point.
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because Resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the Security Council will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council?
WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.
PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of
billions of dollars.
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is
important?
WM: Yes.
PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they
were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not
patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass
destruction that threaten us and our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical,
biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim
sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we
live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security,
color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at
all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense.
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
PN: Here... have a pretzel, instead.
| 2003年04月06日(日) |
選択問題 憂国のアメリカンより |
|
以下、国を憂えるアメリカの知人であり恩師（mentor）から来た選択問題です。
あえて訳なし。挑戦してみてください。
Quick Political Aptitude Test with only 1 question
This test consists of one (1) multiple-choice question
The question (set forth below) is based on the following
list of countries that the U.S. has bombed since the end of
World War II:
1. China 1945-46
2. Korea 1950-53
3. China 1950-53
4. Guatemala 1954
5. Indonesia 1958
6. Cuba 1959-60
7. Guatemala 1960
8. Congo 1964
9. Peru 1965
10. Laos 1964-73
11. Vietnam 1961-73
12. Cambodia 1969-70
13. Guatemala 1967-69
14. Grenada 1983
15. Libya 1986
16. El Salvador 1980s
17. Nicaragua 1980s
18. Panama 1989
19. Iraq 1991-2003
20. Sudan 1998
21. Yugoslavia 1999
22. Afghanistan 1998, 2001-2002
Question:
In how many of these instances did a democratic government,
respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result?
For your answer, choose one of the following:
(a) 0
(b) zero
(c) none
(d) not a one
(e) a whole number between -1 and +1
***
This is self-grading, and you are on the honor system!
Peace sites updated:
http://www.soarmates.com/peace/sites.html
| 2003年04月04日(金) |
commit コミットする |
|
ページ最後のINDEXのボタンをクリックすると過去のKENNISMSをご覧になれます。
commit suicide（自殺する）は、昔高校で習った英語の成句。
commit a crime（罪を犯す）も同様。
commitの印象は暗く大きい。
とんでもないことをのめりこんでやってしまうというムードがある。
committee
という言葉もcommitから来ていて、委員会という意味だけれど、別に暗かったりする必要はない。これは、何かの運営などの責任を持たされた組織のこと。受身の-eeである。あのemployeeとかexamineeとかのあれだ。
ナニナニさんがリスクの多い仕事を引き受けるかどうか、という話で、いや彼は引き受けないだろう、というとき、
He won’t commit.
という。commitは「責任を持って引き受ける、打ち込む」という意味がある。
She is committed.
というと、「彼女は冗談半分でやってない、真剣に取り組んでる」という気持ち。
I believe that this nation will commit itself to bringing peace and freedom to Uglia.
というと、「わが国はアグリアに平和と自由をもたらすことに真剣に取り組むことを私は信じている」という政権演説となる。
７０年代に「コミットする」という表現がはやった。
日本はコミットするのか？ 彼が結婚？ まさか、そこまでコミットしないよ、奴は、とか。何物にもコミットしないで生きていけるものか、とか。
この戦で、
Will Japan commit?
やっぱ、commitは大きい言葉のようです。
|
