2015年4月24日金曜日


Diamonds Are a Marriage Counselor’s Best Friend Full Transcript

[MUSIC: Emerson Quartet, “String Sextet in D Minor” (from JOURNEYS)]
Stephen J. DUBNER: In the theater, there is a principle known as “Chekhov’s Gun.” It comes from something once said by Anton Chekhov, the great Russian author and playwright:“You mustn’t put a loaded rifle on stage if no one intends to fire it. You shouldn’t make promises.” Chekhov — who was also a doctor, and a very wise man — knew what he was talking about.
Laura STRAUSFELD: He’s the most produced playwright after Shakespeare, and there are a lot of guns in his plays.
DUBNER: That’s Laura Strausfeld, a Chekhov expert. She’s a visiting scholar at Columbia University’s Harriman Institute.
STRAUSFELD: The use of Chekhov’s Gun implies a certain number of things — for example that there’s something inherently dangerous. Someone will get hurt.
DUBNER: So if you’re a writer, which I happen to be, you don’t put something in your story, something potentially explosive, unless it’s going to explode. You don’t, for instance, introduce a nice Midwestern couple just to talk about how nice they are.
DUBNER: I’ve never asked anyone this question before but, as marriages go, on a scale of like 1 to 10, 10 being the best, how would you rate your marriage?
Kristen SARATA: I would say presently…
DUBNER: Wait. Before you do it, hang on. I both want you to say the number at the same time.
J. SARATA: Oh my goodness.
K. SARATA: Oh dear.
J. SARATA: You’re, you’re brutal.
DUBNER: I know. I am brutal. So I’m going to say 1, 2, 3, and then I want you each to say the number. So think your number but don’t say it. Okay, got it? Now 1, 2, 3.
J. SARATA: Six.
K. SARATA: Eight. Wow.
STRAUSFELD: This Chekhov’s Gun is in your life. You know, the stuff is going to go down and you will with it.
DUBNER: So what was the vibe between you two when you went to bed that night?
J. SARATA: Oh, it was not good.
K. SARATA & J. SARATA: It was horrible.
DUBNER: What was it that made the vibe horrible? What was it that knocked this marriage down to an 8, or a 6?
J. SARATA: It’s a princess cut. One carat and it’s, it is really nice. It’s a beautiful  diamond.
[THEME]
ANNOUNCER: From WNYC: This is FREAKONOMICS RADIO, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything. Here’s your host, Stephen Dubner.
[MUSIC: The Diplomats of Solid Sound, “Shadow Of Your Soul” (from Let’s Cool One)]
DUBNER: We’re on the line with a couple from Grand Ledge, Michigan. That’s a suburb of Lansing.
J. SARATA: My name’s Jason Sarata.
K. SARATA: And I am Kristen Sarata.
DUBNER: Kristen and Jason are both turning 40 this year. They have two kids – a boy and a girl. Kristen is a nurse and nursing supervisor at a hospital emergency room in Lansing; she works the night shift. Jason is a paramedic with the fire department there. He’s also working toward becoming a financial advisor. Jason and Kristen have a lot in common; how they think about money is not one of those things.
K. SARATA: To kind of give you a small example, we moved from a smaller home to a nicer, larger home, probably about seven years ago. And within the first three or four months there, I was looking at our kitchen table light and making a grocery list. And on that grocery list had light bulbs. And as I’m looking at the table, you know, there’s like a five or six light bulb chandelier and three of them are out, and he looks at my grocery list and says, “Why are you getting light bulbs?” And I said, “Well we’re already burned out.” And he said, “They’re not burned out. I just unscrewed them a teeny little bit, so that…” And I said, “Why did you do that?” He said, “Well, we don’t- it’s the cost, the energy savings, as well as we don’t actually need this much light right here.” And as I started going through the house and paying attention, you know in our bathroom we have the Jack and Jill sinks and there’s three light bulbs above my sink, three above his, and you know, one is screwed out on each side. And so, the way he thinks is, “Yes, we can have that, but do we need to have that?”
DUBNER: And that is the crux of their difference. Jason divides everything into “needs” versus “wants.” Kristen doesn’t. They’ve been together 13 years.
J. SARATA: We met one night out where I said I would never meet my future wife, and that was at a bar.
K. SARATA: Jason had a list of very specific things that when he met his wife, she was going to, you know, be A, B, and C. And so for an example, one of the things that he had always said was, “The woman I meet, I’m not going to meet her in a bar. Her parents will be married still,” and my parents have been divorced since I was six. She’s not going to swear, nor smoke. And at the time, I broke all of those rules for him. So I no longer smoke at all.
DUBNER: Do you still swear?
K. SARATA: Um, I do.
J. SARATA: Only when she’s mad at me.
K. SARATA: What he’s leaving out is he, I think he kind of had a little wild past and then he became what I call born-again Christian, somewhere in his early to mid-20s, and then that’s where his big list of things came from.
DUBNER: One item on Jason’s list is a conservative approach to family finance. This is apparently why Jason rates their marriage as only a 6.
K. SARATA: If I submitted to all of Jason’s financial rules, then it would be a 10. That’s where it lies.
DUBNER: Oh, oh. So what does he want you to do financially that you’re not doing?
K. SARATA: Not spend one dime.
[MUSIC: Glenn Crytzer and his Syncopators, “A Case of the Blues” (from Focus Pocus)]
DUBNER: A few months ago, a neighborhood friend invited them to a Christmas party that was a fund-raiser for a local agency called Child and Family Charities.
K. SARATA: She just sent me this text message. “Hey, are you guys available? Do you want to come and do this thing?”  So I look it up online and it lists the cost for a couple as like $220 or $250 for a couple to go. And she hadn’t specified in the text message whether we were coming as, you know, on her. Or like do you wanna com. T,his is what you have to pay. So, I mentioned it to Jason and he was like, “You need to figure that part out first because that’s going to affect our decision.”
DUBNER: So Kristen texted the friend back.
K. SARATA: I kind of said, “Tell me more about this. Is there, you know, a cost?” and things like that. I played like I hadn’t looked into it. And she responded with, “Yes there’s a cost but you’d be coming as, you know, our guests.”
DUBNER: To Jason, this looked like a pretty good deal. Free tickets to a nice, fancy party with dinner and drinks. They didn’t even need a babysitter. Kristen’s mom lives with them, and looks after the kids.
K. SARATA: I did have to go buy a…I bought a dress. That was…
DUBNER: What’d the dress cost you?
K. SARATA: I think a hundre- it was a hundred, a hundred and ten.
J. SARATA: I’m just now finding that out.
K. SARATA: No, you’re not.
DUBNER: Do you see yourself wearing it many more times in the future, though, Kristen?
K. SARATA: I would- I mean, it’s something that you could wear, it’s not a to the floor kind of gown. It’s something I could wear to a wedding or, you know, a Christmas event. Something like that. So, yes.
DUBNER: Alright. So Jason, theoretically you could amortize that dress?
J. SARATA: Yeah, maybe.
K. SARATA: He could.
J. SARATA: I doubt she’ll wear it again.
DUBNER: But, overall, it wasn’t a bad deal. The friends who invited Kristen and Jason even drove them to the party.
K. SARATA: So we didn’t even pay for gas.
J. SARATA: See, that’s how my mind is supposed to work.
DUBNER: See, you’re rubbing off on her.
J. SARATA: Yeah, exactly, which is good.
K. SARATA: I just know how he thinks, so.
DUBNER: By the time they walked into the benefit, Kristen had just one concern.
K. SARATA: I was a little anxious thinking, “I really hope he’s not planning on going in there and then we just reap the benefit and he does not make any contribution.”
DUBNER: Now, to his credit, Jason says he was fully prepared to contribute. There was going to be a silent auction that he planned to bid in.
J. SARATA: That week we were, I could do a couple hundred dollars, if not more.
DUBNER: But once they started looking around, they realized the silent-auction items —  restaurant gift cards, things like that — even these were going for more than a couple hundred dollars. Then, Jason noticed there was something else going on, besides the silent auction.
J. SARATA: There’s one table off by itself that had a bunch of Champagne glasses on it.
DUBNER: Mmm, hmm.
J. SARATA: And, you know, I walk over and say, you know, “What’s this table for?” and they explain that it’s a raffle. You can win a loose diamond.
[MUSIC: The Sound Room, “Just Can’t Help It”]
DUBNER: A local jeweler had donated a diamond that was estimated to be worth $7,500. For $35, you got a glass of Champagne and one raffle ticket for the diamond; two tickets, and two glasses of Champagne, for fifty bucks. Jason, being Jason, wanted to know more.
J. SARATA: My first question was, “Well, how many of these tickets are you selling?”
DUBNER: Makes sense. You were trying to calculate your odds.
J. SARATA: Well, it does.
DUBNER: Did they know how many tickets were being sold for the diamond?
J. SARATA: Yeah, she said, I want to say right around 250 to 300 is what she said. So I’m like, “Okay, give me two.”
DUBNER: So did you really think about winning and, like, that would be a really good investment, $50 for a $7,500 diamond? Or were you just thinking, “This is kind of the sensible way for me to contribute?”
J. SARATA: For me, I thought that that would be a really good investment.
J. SARATA: I looked at the, I mean, I looked at the odds and said, “You know, that’s pretty good odds,” you know, it’s not that bad.
DUBNER: Later in the evening, there was a live auction, with bigger items up for bid — a ski weekend, a catered meal cooked in your home.
J. SARATA: They had a fast talker and some spotters  to accept your order. And so  you can wave your card up, your card with your number on it.
DUBNER: These were way, way above Kristen and Jason’s budget. So here they are, sitting on their hands at this fundraiser, which they got comped into by their friend, who’s sitting at the same table.
DUBNER: And did you feel compelled to spend some more for the charity since you were sitting there? Or was it awkward? Or not really?
J. SARATA: Well, towards the end of the auction, they said, you know, “For anybody that wants to just donate, you can just donate. You can just raise your card and we’ll come to you and you just give whatever amounts you have.”
DUBNER: Oh, that’s nice of them.
J. SARATA: Yeah I thought so, too.
K. SARATA: Well, but I don’t think it was awkward at any point. I mean, she invited us with an expectation, you know, come…I think some of it, too, was in all honesty trying to fill her table, as well, and…
DUBNER: Yeah, and you guys sound like good company. I mean, I would want you at my table at a dinner.
K. SARATA: Well, thank you.
J. SARATA: Thank you.
DUBNER: You’re welcome.
J. SARATA: We think we’re fun too.
K. SARATA: We’re usually entertaining. So, yes, as they’re offering up, after all the live auction is done and they’re saying, you know, if you just want to make a donation now. And some people were. I mean, they were making, you know, pretty large donations. And our friend Sarah, she said, “Is anyone interested in maybe just making…,” you know, I think she had said, Jason, “maybe $50,” or you know, just a donation. And she opened it up to the whole table. “I think we’re going to do that. Is anybody else interested?” And that was when Jason said, “Well…”
J. SARATA: I look at her and I said, “Well,” I look over at the table that’s selling or giving the raffle tickets and all the glasses are not sold. They’re still there. And I’m thinking…in my mind, “Well, alright, that’s pretty good odds, you know, for me. If they’re not selling all the tickets,” and I said, “Well Sarah,” I said, “What if I just go buy two more Champagne glasses?”
[MUSIC: Johnny Fiasco, “Celestial Sphere” (from Celestial Sphere)]
DUBNER: So that’s what he did. Fifty bucks, two more glasses of Champagne, and two more raffle tickets. Now they’re holding four tickets. The event is just about over. Just one more thing: the raffle drawing. To announce the winner of the $7,500 diamond. Jason was listening, tickets in hand, as the number was read off.
K. SARATA: And I happened to be kind of standing by him but really not paying any attention at all to this drawing because in my mind, “They’re going to read it off, we’re not winning.” So you know, I’m just kind of socializing. And I hear him yell actually, you know, I think it was, “Say that again!” And I look at him, and he reads those three numbers off. And I remember him like, “Winner.” And I took the tickets being like, “Are you sure?” You know, let me double check this right now.
DUBNER: So your first thought Kristen is, “I cannot wait to wear this diamond,” which makes perfect sense.
K. SARATA: I can’t believe I got this beautiful diamond.
DUBNER: Jason, what’s your first thought? Is your first thought, also, “Man, Kristen will look so beautiful in that diamond?”
K. SARATA: Not at all.
[MUSIC: Michaela Rae, “Backbone Blues” (fromBlues With a Backbone)]
J. SARATA: No, it wasn’t.
K. SARATA: As a matter of fact, I had even joked, because I know him so well, I had joked to, you know, quite a few of our friends, neighbors were there, and they were just, you know, floored as well, that we had won this. And they were all like, “This is…”
J. SARATA: High fives were going on and everything.
K. SARATA: Yeah, high fives. “This is gonna…Oh Kristen, this is going to be so beautiful.” And I said, “Oh, yeah, c’mon, this is going on Craigslist tomorrow morning. You know Jason. Are you kidding? I know my husband.” Kind of joking.
DUBNER: Kind of joking but, mostly, not joking. They went home that night elated, still on a high from winning. But at home, it became obvious that Kristen’s high was not the same as Jason’s high. They started to bicker. They fought. Jason pleaded with Kristen to just go to sleep so they could talk about the diamond the next day.
K. SARATA: In all honesty, you know if we had $8,000 lying around, would I say, “Please go buy me a diamond?” Absolutely not. I didn’t ask for one when we got married.  But it was kind of like, “Okay, this was given to us now, so why do we have to turn this into cash? You know, why can’t I just own it?”
DUBNER: And Jason, I’m curious what was it that made you so, you know, eager to think of a plan other than keeping the diamond?
J. SARATA: I just looked at the…I looked at it as the opportunity to have that money to do something else than to have it be a piece of jewelry. We have rings or jewelry from family members that are, I would say, worth very similar to that that we would never sell.
K. SARATA: It goes a little bit back into that, kind of, “needs versus wants.”
DUBNER: Did you have a plan, or you just knew that our plan was to not own a diamond that expensive?
K. SARATA: He’d put it towards debt.
DUBNER: Laura Strausfeld, the Chekhov scholar we heard from earlier, says that Kristen and Jason’s dilemma reminds her of a Chekhov short story called The Lottery Ticket. A married couple believe they may have won the lottery.
[MUSIC: Slack, “The Talk” (from The Deep End)]
STRAUSFELD: They go off in their fantasies about how they might spend the money and the husband’s imaginings are quite different from the wife’s. And by the end they’re miserable.
CHEKHOV “THE LOTTERY TICKET”:  And he looked at his wife, not with a smile now, no, but with hatred. She glanced at him too, also with hatred and anger. She had her own daydreams, her own plans, her own reflections; she understood perfectly well what her husband’s dreams were. And she knew who would be the first to try to grab her winnings.
STRAUSFELD: Chekhov always has his microscope on intimate relationships. And the sort of more superficial moral might be that you bring some kind of windfall into an intimate relationship like a marriage and you’re worse off in the end from it.
DUBNER: Coming up on Freakonomics Radio: can Kristen and Jason resolve their dilemma without resorting to gunfire?
K. SARATA: As a matter of fact, I think yesterday I said, “Well you might come home and find it in a ring on my finger.”
DUBNER: And is a diamond really as valuable as we think?
Edward Jay EPSTEIN: One of the great illusions of our time is that diamonds are forever valuable. They are not.
DUBNER: And stay tuned for the very end of this episode, where we’ve got an important announcement to make about something happening very soon – on Tuesday, May 5.
[UNDERWRITING]
ANNOUNCER: From WNYC: This is FREAKONOMICS RADIO. Here’s your host, Stephen Dubner.
[MUSIC: Shane Theriot, “Old Men” (from Dirty Power)]
DUBNER: A few months ago, at a charity raffle, Kristen and Jason Sarata won a diamond, estimated to be worth $7,500. She wanted to wear it. He wanted to sell it. Which meant that neither of them got what they wanted.
J. SARATA: I would say we both did at one time say, “We wish we never would have won it.”
K. SARATA: We did.
J. SARATA: It did get to that level.
DUBNER: So, where is the diamond sitting, and does anybody look at it on a regular basis?
K. SARATA: I have no idea where it is, but Jason can fill us both in.
J. SARATA: I don’t know if I want to tell you now.
DUBNER: Why don’t you tell me but we’ll ask…
K. SARATA: I’ll close my ears.
DUBNER: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’ll work.
J. SARATA: It’s in the laundry room, way up high. Out of sight, out of mind. So it’s not like in a closet with any other jewelry or anything staring at her or reminding her how mad she wants to be at me.
DUBNER: And Kristen, did you literally not know until just now where it was?
K. SARATA: I honestly figured it was probably somewhere in the laundry room, and I don’t think he’s truly keeping it from me because I would hope that he trusts me enough to know that I’m not going to go set it in something without his permission. But he also knows me well enough that if I’m seeing it when I’m in there doing laundry, then it’s just going to refuel my animosity, I guess. So he put it out of sight so that it will hopefully be out of mind. One thing I did say to him was, “I…If we’re going to do something with it, let’s do something with it.” I don’t want a year from now where it’s still sitting in the laundry room and we haven’t done anything. That is going to irritate me.
DUBNER: I love that there are kind of two options here. One is for you to wear it and get this joy and utility out of it, and the other is to sell it. And instead you’ve taken the third, which is stick it in the laundry room, which seems to be like…
K. SARATA: Right, it’s just sitting there, you know. It’s gonna gather dust. We now have something to do with this diamond and we don’t know what to do with it that will make us both feel okay with it because now we both have such negative feelings about it that whoever wins is not really winning. You know, we’re both kind of losing, if that makes sense.
DUBNER: Did you figure out what you could get for it, roughly?
J. SARATA: We did. If we sold it ourselves we could get probably $4,000 to $5,000.
DUBNER: If they sold the diamond, Jason says, they’d use some of the money to pay down debt. They’d put some in savings. And they might take a vacation. They really want a vacation.
K. SARATA: We both work quite a bit and our schedules really don’t align with each other. You know, there’s been times where on a Sunday he’s getting ready to go to work and he’ll say, “I’ll see you Wednesday.” And it’s literally…I might see him for a couple hours on Tuesday afternoon, but I work midnights. He’s 24-hour shifts at one job and then he’s kind of doing a financial advisor type thing on the side. So just getting away and having that time with, you know, just him and the kids where we don’t have the regular routine of our daily lives, I enjoy doing that just because we are so busy.
DUBNER: I wondered if the Saratas really could get $4,000 or $5,000 for their diamond. The jeweler who donated it estimated it to be worth $7,500. But what’s the resale market like for a loose diamond? And, taking a step further back, why are diamonds so expensive in the first place? Presumably it’s not only because people find them beautiful; it’s also, presumably, because they’re rare. They are rare, aren’t they?
[MUSIC: Pearl Django, “Missoula Flood” (from Modern Times)]
EPSTEIN: People believe that diamonds are rare. In fact, diamonds, at least in America, in terms of households who possess them are the second-most-common item. The most common item is television sets. Children come in a distant third.
DUBNER: Okay, that may be a bit hyperbolic. But this man knows his diamonds.
EPSTEIN: I’m an investigative reporter and diamonds is one of my favorite subjects.
DUBNER: His name is Edward Jay Epstein. He’s been writing about the diamond industry for decades, including a book called, The Rise and Fall of Diamonds. He once performed an experiment that might prove relevant here.
EPSTEIN: While I was writing my book, I tried to sell a diamond.
DUBNER: First, he had to buy one. He went to New York’s diamond district, on West 47th Street, and paid $2,000 for a diamond.
EPSTEIN: I waited a week, and then I went around to other diamond dealers on 47th Street. And they were offering me things like $300 and $400. So I realized I was going to lose a great deal of money, which I did.
DUBNER: So the markup alone on diamonds, Epstein quickly learned, was very substantial.
EPSTEIN: So they weren’t going to pay that when someone tried to sell it. And the diamond of course didn’t gain in value. So you instantly lost 50 or 60 percent.
DUBNER: Epstein also wanted to learn how diamonds came to be so expensive, and omnipresent.
EPSTEIN: The tradition of giving a diamond as an engagement gift really began in the 20th century.  Before that  people didn’t need a diamond to get engaged.
DUBNER: So how did this tradition get started? Okay, let’s go back further in history. When you would see kings and queens from long ago wearing diamonds, the fact is that the stones were precious in part because they were hard to find. Prospectors had to pan for them in riverbeds.
EPSTEIN: Then in South Africa in the city of Kimberley, they found geological formations called pipes, blue material, giant diameters. They looked like something from outer space. They found if they took a steam shovel they could take this material out, which they called Kimberlite and extract diamonds from it. And suddenly they could create as large a supply of diamonds as they wanted. Steam shovels were cheap and diamond prices then fell to about $5 a carat because there were so many of them. This was all in the 1880s. Then a man came along called Cecil Rhodes.
DUBNER: Cecil John Rhodes, as in “Rhodes Scholarship” Rhodes; as in the founder of Rhodesia, which is now Zimbabwe. Rhodes was also a pretty clever diamond magnate.
EPSTEIN: Who said, “Look, we’re going to create a worthless semi-precious stone unless we do something. We have to restrict production to the measurable demand.” And he got all the owners of the diamond mines together and they created a cartel. And the purpose of the cartel was to restrict supply.
DUBNER: In those days, Epstein says, that was easy. Most of the world’s diamond mines were in a relatively small area of South Africa.
EPSTEIN: He said, “Look, all we have to do is figure out how many people are getting engaged a year. If it’s 500,000, we’ll only allow 500,000 stones on the market. So  they always seemed to be, or appear to be rare. The rest we’ll just keep in a stockpile.” So this worked.
DUBNER: The diamond syndicate Epstein is describing came to be known as the De Beers Mining Company. It grew to be synonymous with the diamond industry itself. But during the Great Depression, demand fell.
EPSTEIN: People just couldn’t afford to buy diamonds. So De Beers’s stockpile in London  in a giant vault kept growing. So at one point Ernest Oppenheimer…
DUBNER: He’s the man who had taken control of De Beers.
EPSTEIN: He actually entertained the plan of dumping the diamonds in the mid-Atlantic. In other words, they were better lost than ever reaching the market.
DUBNER: So, hmm, not exactly the intrinsically valuable item we think of diamonds as today. But as history would have it, World War II was good for the diamond industry. As diamonds are among the hardest known minerals on earth, they were good for a variety of industrial uses.
EPSTEIN: You needed them to cut steel and make tanks and artillery. And the economies of the world perked up after the war, and De Beers never had to resort to such a drastic strategy.
DUBNER: It was also around this time that De Beers hired the advertising firm N.W. Ayer.
EPSTEIN: You know, everyone has seen Mad Men on television. Well they were a hundred times better than Mad Men. They actually understood that what a woman wanted was a tangible measure of love. So they made the diamond into the tangible symbol. They also introduced diamonds into Hollywood. They opened an office in Hollywood to put them in films. And its entire business was creating a liaison between movie producers and De Beers. Songs like Marilyn Monroe singing “Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend,” you know, didn’t come out of thin air.
MARILYN MONROE: A kiss on the hand may be quite continental, but diamonds are a girl’s best friend.
EPSTEIN: They gave diamonds to movie producers. They said, “Here. For your wife. Here’s a beautiful diamond ring. What we want you to do is in your movie show that when the woman receives the diamond, the woman, who is a virgin up to this point, suddenly jumps in to the arms of the man giving her a diamond.” That was actually all in their advertising strategy. They said, “We have to show surprise followed by gratification.” So the man believed that by surprising the woman he was getting the woman. And the woman believed that she was getting a tangible measure of his love. The bigger the diamond, the more the love.
DUBNER: N.W. Ayer also implanted the notion that diamonds are “forever,” and, therefore, not only a symbol of eternal love but an investment.
DE BEERS COMMERCIAL: The diamond engagement ring. How else could two months’ salary last forever? A diamond is forever. De Beers.
EPSTEIN: Basically the idea was that if you spent a month’s salary on diamonds, you would have an investment on your wife’s finger, which would grow and grow in value as if she was wearing a T-Bill or a stock certificate. And women accepted this, because a diamond was a lot more beautiful than a Treasury Bill.
DUBNER: De Beers’s control over the diamond market has diminished in recent decades – largely as a result of antitrust regulations in the U.S. and Europe. But one thing that hasn’t diminished, at least not much: the overwhelming belief in the monetary value of diamonds. And this, Epstein says, has helped the industry keep a handle on a huge source of diamonds that it does not control: a vast repository known as “the overhang.”
EPSTEIN: The overhang is every diamond ever sold in history that is on someone’s finger or in a bank vault, or in some drawer somewhere. So the only way it can stop people from selling diamonds they don’t want anymore is by creating an idea that, so you’re stupid to sell it and take cash, and buy stocks, or buy a car, or buy a house because a diamond will keep gaining in value while the others are risky investments. The moment people begin thinking of a diamond as another commodity, goes up and down in value, then a huge number of diamonds could come on the market, not from any diamond mine that was discovered, but from what people have in their bank safety deposit boxes.
[MUSIC: Randall Crissman, “Tender Nylon Guitar & Harp”]
K. SARATA: I had to kind of figure out for me, what…what am I so angry about with this? And I think it just came down to I wanted to just hear him say, “If this is what…if you really want this, then you can have it. You know, what I want, I will put that aside – my instant thoughts of how am I going to turn this into cash or whatnot.” Because I knew it meant he would be, I don’t know if conceding is the right word, but it meant he would be giving up something he is passionate about, which is “needs versus wants” and we don’t really need this, but if this is what you would like, we’ll go that route.
DUBNER: So Jason, you’ve never said that, I assume.
J. SARATA: No, I wish I was a mind reader, though.
J. SARATA: Because that would have really helped. And to say it now, she’s said it before, to say it now is just empty.
K. SARATA: No, no.
J. SARATA: It doesn’t mean…
DUBNER: Are you sure? Wait wait wait. Kristen, is that true? If he were to say it now, would you really think it was an empty statement?
K. SARATA: No, I don’t.
DUBNER: Well, let me ask you…I mean, I don’t want to put you on the spot, nor do I know either of you well enough to offer what I’m about to offer, but do you wanna take this opportunity with tape rolling to say that.
J. SARATA: Uh yeah, I could.
K. SARATA: He could.
J. SARATA: No, no. Honey. Honey, if you really wanted to keep it, I would be okay with it and try my hardest to never bring it up again.
K. SARATA: I believe that to be true. I really do. You know, sometimes Jason, he is so laid-back and I am so emotional, that sometimes I take things that he does as, “I’m not a priority.” And that’s kind of where I felt with this ring. Like what I want to do with it is not a priority. He’s going to do what he wants to do, and I kinda, I had to come to terms with or realize, it’s really not just about this diamond. It’s about something a little more and in all honesty, do I really want this diamond? Do I still want it sitting in my laundry room? No, I think that’s a poor use of it. It’s either like let’s, you know, let’s put it in something or let’s sell it. But I do feel like, you know, you felt very passionately about finding something else to do with this. Then I’m leaving that up to you. Let’s do it.
J. SARATA: And I have to judge whether she is being 100 percent true with me or let’s say somebody comes to the door, hands me a wad of cash, does she go upstairs and, you know, get really angry with me.
K. SARATA: No.
J. SARATA: And so I’ve got to, in my mind, juggle some things because if, you know, there would be resentment for me if she kept it, to be completely honest. In one way, well, she just didn’t listen to me.
[MUSIC: Steve Collom, “Beneath the Moving Sky”]
DUBNER: We ran the Saratas’ dilemma  past Edward Jay Epstein, the diamond writer.
EPSTEIN: Keeping the diamond is just being a prisoner of the illusion.
DUBNER:The illusion, that is, that a diamond is in fact rare and, therefore, inherently valuable. You’ll remember that Epstein lost a lot of money trying to resell a diamond to diamond dealers. Which is why he recommends something different for Jason and Kristen.
EPSTEIN: If you want to sell a diamond, you have to have as large a market as possible. So my advice to Jason and Kristen would be to sell the diamond at an auction, and you might find someone else who’s a prisoner of the illusion, and they might pay you a much better price.
DUBNER: We ran this idea past them, and they seemed to like it. A few weeks later, one of our Freakonomics Radio producers, Christopher Werth, called the Saratas to see where they had landed with their diamond.
J. SARATA: After discussing it with Kristen, we have decided to put it on eBay as an auction. And what we’re going to do is donate 50 percent of the proceeds back to the charity that we won it from.
Christopher WERTH: And so what led you to that decision, because there was so much going back and forth. I mean what was the deciding factor?
J. SARATA: Well, like she said, she’s going to get more mad at me the longer it sits there and does nothing, and so I just finally decided, okay, if I’ve gotten her to the point where she’s willing to sell it, then let’s sell it. Let’s take this opportunity. Let’s sell it. Let’s be able to give back to that charity, and then whatever amount comes at that point in time then we can discuss what we would do with it.
K. SARATA: Right, if it’s not on my finger it should actually be on somebody else’s, so…
WERTH: But there seemed to be some resentment on either side. You both described it as a case where neither person could really win in this whole thing, and that at one point you both said you wished you’d never won it. I mean how are you feeling now in terms of — I guess particularly you, Kristen — how are you feeling now that you’ve decided to go ahead and sell it?
K. SARATA: Honestly, I feel really, very good about it. Especially because I don’t feel strong-armed into this decision at all. I feel that this was something he and I came to together, and that was really important. I just wanted to feel like I had kind of a voice in what happened, or that I wasn’t being forced to do something without considering the possibility of keeping it. And I truly believe that if I had said, “You know, I really want to keep this,” I believe that he would have been okay with it.
DUBNER: Okay, so it is happening! Kristen and Jason’s diamond is up for auction on eBay, right now. You can find it by searching for “Freakonomics Charity Diamond.” I have to say, I dearly hope there are enough prisoners of illusion out there to drive up the price, maybe even to five figures. After all, half the money is going to Child and Family Charities, the organization that held the fund-raiser where the Saratas won the diamond. And remember, this isn’t just any diamond. It’s the diamond that was won at a raffle, was fought over, was hidden in a laundry room, was fought over some more, and has finally come to a peaceful resolution here, on this program. We told Jason and Kristen we’d announce the auction to our Freakonomics Radio listeners.
[MUSIC: Disk Eyes, “Surrey Blues”]
J. SARATA: Let us know and tell them it comes with a free book or something too, you know,Freakonomics.
DUBNER: Okay, Jason, good idea. But let me sweeten the pot a little bit. As it turns out, Steve Levitt and I are putting out a new Freakonomics book very soon. On Tuesday, May 5, we’re publishing a book called When to Rob a Bank … and 131 More Warped Suggestions and Well-Intended Rants. It is a compilation of the best blog posts from 10 years’ worth of writing at Freakonomics.com. We ask questions like: Why don’t flight attendants get tipped? If you were a terrorist, how would you attack? And why does KFC always run out of fried chicken? It’s a big, fat, fun book, so please spread the word and pre-order yours now. And here’s what we’ll do for the winner of this diamond auction: I’ll get hold of one of the very first copies of When to Rob a Bankthat comes off the printing press, and sign it, and mail it to you, the winner. So if you’re in the market for a diamond, get over to eBay; and if you’re in the market for a new Freakonomics book – well, go order yours today and, after it comes out on May 5, drop us a line at radio@freakonomics.com and let us know what you think. By the way, I should tell you that the Saratas have moved the diamond out of their home to a safe, secure location… I’d like to thank them for the participation in this episode — and also a special thanks to the wonderful Robert Krulwich, who gave voice to Anton Chekhov in the episode. Robert: spasiba bolshoye.

2015年4月19日日曜日

Topic: Gender Equality
Stop signs for harassment
Kensington Market
Public art a ‘great’ way to change minds
By Luke Simcoe, Metro Toronto
A public-art project in Kensington Market is drawing attention to the issue of sexual harassment on Toronto’s streets.
The Street Talk Project debuted Thursday and features seven alternative street signs posted around the popular downtown neighbourhood.
“Having the signs within the landscape of Kensington Market will generate a lot of response and activity on social media. It’s about sparking a dialogue,’ said Christine Dewancker, one of the project’s co-ordinators.
All of the signs are also on display at the Whippersnapper Gallery on Dundas Street.
Dewancker said Kensington was chosen because it’s adjacent to two areas in Toronto – the Bay Street corridor and the University of Toronto – that report some of the highest rates of sexual violence.
“Public art is a great vehicle for talking about the lived experience in the city,” Dewancker said. “We wanted to touch on the relationship between public space and street harassment and how that kind of gender-based violence is felt differently in different places.”
The signs reference issues like cat-calling and the role by-standers can play in preventing sexual assault or harassment.
One sign, designed by Heather Scott, shows a phallic-shaped construction arrow with the caption “Your curve does not give you the right of way to cat-call.”
“Like most women, I have been subjected to verbal harassment from men and I have observed that they often radiate a sense of pride after yelling their opinion of my body at me,” Scott said. “I used this idea of men feeling that they have a right to behave this way and related it to a common street-sign term.”
The signs will be on display in the gallery and on the street until April 26. For more information, visit streettalkproject.com.
Published on Metro Toronto Newspaper, Weekend issue (April 17 – 19, 2015)
Topic: Gender Equality
Vocabulary
Verb Phrases
- To raise awareness
- To draw attention (to N)
- To spark a dialogue
- To be subjected to (N)
- To have a right to (V)
Noun Phrases
- a great vehicle for N
- cat-calling
- by-standers
- the right of way
Questions:
1.) What form of sexual harassment do Japanese media draw attention to?
2.) Is there any gender equality issue that sparked a dialogue among people in Japan?
3.) Men can also be subjected to sexual harassment. What kind of sexual harassment have you been subjected to?
4.) Do you agree that people have a right to say whatever they want? Why/why not?
5.) Do you think that this project using street sings would work in Japan? Why/why not?
Discussion Theme: Raising Awareness
1.) What is the difficulty of raising people’s awareness on sexual norms?
2.) What is the value or belief behind those sexual norms?
3.) How can arts contribute to raising awareness of social issues like sexual norms?
Topic: Gender Equality

2015年2月1日日曜日

responce

I thank you very much for U.S. Government's understanding of Mr.GOTO's achievements and Japanese government's efforts for Mid East without military action. Unfortunately Mr.GOTO was murdered. It was apparently a tragedy and a heinous crime but on the other hand it happend on his job which he had been believing as his mission and lifework, means that supposedly he was ready for the possibility of the worst case scenario. Please just respect that. Don't use it to provoke indignation. I for one as a Japanese respectfully would like to refrain from broad coalition such as standing together in military action and also funding support with it.
Best Regards.

2014年2月3日月曜日

Someone Just Said Something About The Japan-China Conflict That Scared The Crap Out Of Everyone

いつもは気に入った英文記事の非公開倉庫にしている場所です。
日本語訳を置きますが、勝手に訳していいのかワカランので、また非公開にします。



ダボスで、上流のプライベートディナーのひとつに参加しました。ディナーはW.E.F.2014の他のイベントと同様、「チャタムハウスルール」というのがあって、誰が参加したかについては、教えられないのですが、話された事は秘密ではないので、そこで参加者を震え上がらせるような発言があった事をお話します。

ディナーではホストが参加者にマイクを廻し、それぞれが、みんなが興味がある話を短くスピーチしたのですが、ある一人の参加者、中国の影響力のある「専門家」が太平洋の小島をめぐる日中間の切迫した紛争について話したのです。(※Professionalが政府関係なのか、教授なのかワカランので専門家、尖閣は東シナ海だけどここでは太平洋)

覚えているかもしれませんが、中国と日本は、台湾と日本の間にある、ほんの一握りよりちょっとマシな位の無人の岩島の領有権を主張し合っています。最近、日中の島を巡る緊張は高まり、ユーラシアグループのイアン・ぶレマーをはじめとする多くの専門家たちが軍事衝突の可能性と懸念を叫んでいます。

昨夜のディナーの席で、その中国の専門家は日中の軍事衝突について、避けがたいものと確信している様子で、とても心配しているようには見えませんでした。
そしてそれは、島自体の戦略的重要性というより、日中がますます憎しみ合っているからなのでしょう。(基本的に島は無価値ですから)

その中国の専門家は、先日の安倍総理の靖国神社参拝に関連させて、この問題をこう話しました。
靖国神社は神統神社で、日本の何世紀にもわたる戦争で亡くなった日本人を記念する場所だ。ー 日本が2次大戦で犯した攻撃と残虐行為に責任がある指導者たちも含まれているー 現代の日本の指導者の靖国参拝は極めて問題だ。なぜなら日本の旧敵国からは【日本のリーダーが】戦争犯罪人の名誉を讃えているように見えるからだ。

それは、明らかに、ディナーに参加した中国の専門家自身の見解でした。

彼は、安倍総理の靖国参拝を「戦争犯罪人の名誉を讃える行為」と表現し、抑制のなかにも、明らかな憤りをもって、「狂っている」と述べました。

そして中国の一般的考えでは、2次大戦の争いについて日中はいまだに終息していない・・・日米間では、それは終息し、結果戦いは終わった。・・・しかし日中はいまだに、戦争を過去の事として押しやる事が出来ていない、と説明したのです。

彼はもし中国が日本を攻撃し、島を奪取しようとすれば、アメリカは日本側に立たなければならないだろう、中国はそれは望まないと認めた。
しかし、中国人の多くは、中国が最終的な目的を達成できると信じていると述べた。

つまり、、軍を送り、島に中国国旗を立てるという事です。

その中国の専門家は、限定された攻撃は、戦争の拡大をせずに、効果的であり、その象徴的な攻撃は、自国、日本そして世界に対して、だれがボスであるかを明らかにするのだ、と表明したのです。

彼が話し終えた時、テーブルは衝撃で静かになりました。

同席していた経営者や投資家、実力者、ジャーナリストは静かにその中国人専門家を見つめました。そして、一人のビジネスマンがマイクを取り聞きました。

「あなたは、それが全く狂っていると解っているのですか?」
「あなたは、戦争とはそうやって始まるってことを解っていますか?」
「あの島々は価値が無い小さな岩だって解っていますか、それでも、世界的な軍事衝突を引き起こす事に値すると真剣に考えているのですか?」

中国専門家は、解っていると答えたが、それから皆をもっと驚かせる信念を話しました。島の価値は象徴であり、それが極めて重要なのだと。

再び質された彼は、問題を大げさに述べすぎたかもしれないと、当初の発言から距離を置き、個人的には日本との戦争に賛成ではないと言いました。しかし【当初の発言が】相応しいと考えているのは明らかでした。

私は、日中問題の専門家ではないし、分析は専門家に任せます。
私が言えるのは、この尊敬され、知性的で影響力を持つ中国の専門家が、昨夜のディナーの席で島の領有問題において、中国の実力行使による侵攻を正当であるとし、戦争を拡大せずに【限定的に済ませられる】、日中の争いを最終的に終息させる事が出来るとした事、そして、その考えがディナーの参加者みんなを呆然とさせた事です。

追記:私がこの記事を書いたころ、FTのGideon Rachman記者が安倍首相のインタビュについて下のツイートをしました。忘れているかもしれませんが(ちょうど100年前の)1914年は第1次世界大戦がはじまった年です。

2014年2月1日土曜日

STAP細胞研究の小保方晴子博士「研究活動に支障が出ている」と報道機関にお願い

STAP細胞研究の小保方晴子博士が「研究活動に支障が出ている」と報道機関にお願い

藤代 裕之 | ジャーナリスト

報道関係者の皆様へのお願いが掲載されたラボサイト
万能細胞STAPを開発したことでメディアに大きく取り上げている理研発生・再生科学総合研究センターの小保方晴子ユニットリーダーのラボウェブサイトに報道関係者へのお願いが掲載されました。研究成果に関係がない報道で研究活動に支障が出ているという内容です。
ファッションブランドから、サイトには写真特集、中学の作文を発掘して掲載、と程度の差はあれ研究以外の人物像を取り上げているメディアは、反省すべき点が多いにあるのではないでしょうか。
報道関係者の皆様へのお願い STAP細胞研究はやっとスタートラインに立てたところであり、世界に発表をしたこの瞬間から世界との競争も始まりました。今こそ更なる発展を目指し研究に集中すべき時であると感じております。 しかし、研究発表に関する記者会見以降、研究成果に関係のない報道が一人歩きしてしまい、研究活動に支障が出ている状況です。また、小保方本人やその親族のプライバシーに関わる取材が過熱し、お世話になってきた知人・友人をはじめ、近隣にお住いの方々にまでご迷惑が及び大変心苦しい毎日を送っております。真実でない報道もあり、その対応に翻弄され、研究を遂行することが困難な状況になってしまいました。報道関係の方々におかれましては、どうか今がSTAP細胞研究の今後の発展にとって非常に大事な時期であることをご理解いただけますよう、心よりお願い申し上げます。 STAP細胞研究の発展に向けた研究活動を長い目で見守っていただけますようよろしくお願いいたします。 2014年1月31日 小保方 晴子
出典:Obokata Lab/細胞リプログラミング研究ユニット
理化学研究所のホームページにも「報道の皆様へ:STAP細胞に関する取材について」というお願いがアップされている。
同研究ユニットリーダーに非常に多くの取材のご依頼やお問合せを頂いており、個別に対応させていただくのが難しい状況にございます。研究に専念したいという本人の意向もあり、当面の間は本人の取材対応を控えさせていただくことと致しましたので、何卒ご理解、ご協力の程お願い申し上げます。
出典:理化学研究所 発生・再生科学総合研究センター 国際広報室
昨日、STAP細胞研究の報道を見て、『「デート」「ファッション好き」革命的研究者の紹介に見る根深い新聞のおっさん思考』という記事を書きました。人物像の描き方に問題があることを指摘しましたが、一部からは「興味をもってもらうために人物像の紹介は必要」という意見がありました。
しかしながら、今回の成果のニュース性は、その研究のインパクトは当然ですが、1)年齢や性別に限らず、リーダーを任してもらえる研究環境があること。2)一度リジェクトされて酷評された論文を練り直し、相談し合う真剣な環境が日本にあること、の2点だと考えています。つまり報道機関には「どうしてこのような世界的インパクトのある研究が生まれたのか」という背景を解き明かしてほしいのです。
この2点は、研究に限らず、年功序列や足の引っ張り合い、特定の実績ある(だがもう古い)研究者や企業に集中する資金という日本の(というと言葉が大きいですが)構造的問題を突破しています。「どうやって突破したのだろう」と多くの人が感心を持つのではないでしょうか。人物像の紹介や安直なリケジョ(講談社の登録商標です)フォーカスの記事では、どうしてこのようなインパクトがある研究が生まれて来たかを知る事は出来ません。
もちろん、すべてのメディアが問題という訳ではなく、下記のようなバランスがとれた記事もあります。リードに「博士号を取って3年という30歳の女性研究者だ」と出てくるのですが、それ以外は女性とかリケジョとか一切ありません。理研の思い切った抜擢マネジメントと、第一人者たちが若い研究者である小保方ユニットリーダーを支えたことを書いています。
生命科学「型破り」の一歩 新万能細胞、先入観ない若手が成果 理研、実績より独創性重視
出典:日本経済新聞
このようなマネジメントの決断と、若手を支える周囲の力は、研究に限らず他の分野にも共通する、普遍的な取り組みとして捉える事ができます。若くても任せてもらえると思えば、優秀な人は集まってきます。リケジョなどと特別扱いしなくとも…
リケジョについては、前の記事では余り突っ込みませんでしたが、下記のような意見があることも紹介しておきます。サイエンスライターの内田麻理香さんの記事です。
最近、リケジョという言葉を耳にするようになり、理系女性に注目が集まっている。私も、及ばずながら理科系学問に関わる男女差に関し、協力できることがあれば協力してきたつもりだ。でも、その「リケジョ的方針」はあくまで「おじさま目線」のもの、取り組みが多いような気がしてならない。「理系女子、大歓迎!僕は好きだよ、応援するよ」…これは理系という現在のところ数少ない「アクセサリー」のある女性が良い、と言っているに過ぎない。装飾品としての理系。リケジョ、理系女子のアピールは「理系女子『だって』可愛いんです!キラキラしているんです!」路線が目立つ。これが理系女子を増やすことに繋がるのだろうか? 理系女子・女性のイメージが悪いと思われるケースは少なくない。「理系に行ったら、自分の女性性が損なわれるのでは?」と心配している女子中高生も一定数いるだろうから、彼女らには有効だろう。しかし、おじさま目線の「理系女子だって可愛いよね」は、「ただ理系学問に興味があるのに、可愛らしさまで求められるのか?」とうんざりしてしまうに違いない。あと、まずいなと感じるのが、キラキラ理系女子路線に疑いもなく(ないように見える)乗っかってしまっていること。「おじさま目線を女性らが自らのものにして、それが自分の価値観となってしまっている」からだ。男性目線を気にするあまり、その男性の価値観に染まっている。厳しい言い方をすれば、おじさま目線を内なる指標とした「リケジョ」さんたちが、性差別を助長しているのだ。
出典:KASOKEN satellite
ここまでメディアの事を書いているのですが、かっぽう着の写真を撮らせ、デートやファッションというプライベートの質問を認めた、理化学研究所の広報担当はこのような騒ぎになることを想定していなかったのか、疑問が残ります。もし、メディア受けしそうなエピソードをアピールし、ニュース性を高めようとしたなら、マスメディアだけの責任というわけにもいかないでしょう…
藤代 裕之
ジャーナリスト
広島大学卒。徳島新聞社で記者として、司法・警察、地方自治などを取材。NTTレゾナントで新サービス立ち上げや研究開発支援担当を経て、法政大学社会学部准教授。関西大学総合情報学部特任教授。教育、研究活動を行う傍らジャーナリスト活動を行う。日本ジャーナリスト教育センター(JCEJ)代表運営委員

2014年1月21日火曜日

いつもは気に入った英文記事の非公開倉庫にしている場所です。
日本語訳が無かったので大意を置きますが、すぐ削除します。


オノヨーコさんの文の大意。

太地の漁師の皆さんへ(CC:安倍総理):
一方的に西(側の国)がイルカの伝統漁、屠殺に怒っていることについて、皆さんがどう感じているかは理解しています。ただ、その伝統はイルカを痛める事の意味について世界も日本の漁師達も知らなかったころに作られたものです。この事について議論されてきた沢山の話しは聞いた事があるでしょうから、ここでは触れません。

ただ、もう少し大きい視点で考えてほしいのです。
日本はここ数年厳しい状況でした。私たちは世界の助けや共感が必要なのです。
これは、私たちが暴力ではなく、愛を強く訴えなければならない時に、中国やロシア、インドといった大国とその子供たちに日本の悪口を言う機会を与えてしまいます。

簡単でないのは解ります。しかし、私たちの国の力を弱める機会をいつも窺っている強国に囲まれている日本の将来の安全を考えてください。日本の将来と安全は様々な状況に左右されます。しかし、このイルカ漁は世界との関係を悪化させかねません。

多くのイルカを殺したり、水族館やレストランに売ったりする事を、この政治的に微妙な時期に強行することで世界の子どもたちは日本を憎むでしょう。
私たち日本は、世界から正しい理解を得るために、何十年にわたり努力してきました。その甲斐あって、日本は良い国、緻密な国として尊敬されています。これは私たちの長年の努力なしにはありえなかった事です。

しかし、私たちが享受しているものは、文字通り一日で破壊されかねないのです。
お願いです、原発事故以降の私たちの不安定な状況をよく考えてください。
政治的な決断で、世界中が日本を傲慢で、無頓着で、暴力を好む国だと考えるようなメッセージを与える漁祭りを中止してください。

2013年12月6日金曜日

Biden won’t ruin China visit over Japan

中国が英語ニュースWEBで世界への発信に力を入れ始めました。
これはバイデン米副大統領の訪中記事ですが、中国の自信と恐れ、
日本に対するスタンスなど、とても興味深い裏側が垣間見えます。
主張に脅しっぽさが交じるところも中国らしいです。
ニュースWEBのエディトリアルというより、政府広報、ステートメント色が強いですね。
「中国」という部分を「我が国」と読み替えてみると、それが良く解ります。
ヘタ訳ですので、誤訳、異訳、感想等、ご遠慮なくコメントどうぞ。

いつもは気に入った英文記事の非公開倉庫にしている場所です。
全文訳で著作権も心配ですので、10日ほどで非公開に戻します。


原文:Grobal Times China


バイデン副大統領は日本で主に中国の東シナ海での航空識別圏設定について話したようだが、中国では多くの話されるべき問題が山積していて、識別圏は単にその一つでしかない。
中国とアメリカの超大国同士の新しいタイプの関係は、アジア太平洋地域の長期にわたる平和と安定の基本である。その中米協力の戦略的重要性はひとつの問題の不一致に影響されるようなものではない。最近の東シナ海の緊張は日本が同情を得ようと引き起こしたものだ。

中国は日本と日米の軍事同盟を刺激する意図はないが、日本はわざと危機を演出してアメリカを巻き込み、中国と米国の対立を作りだそうとしている。米国が中国の航空識別圏問題に反対なのは明らかだが、中国は中米がこの対立に上手く対処できると信じている。

中国、米国、アジア太平洋地域、そして全世界も中米がパートナーになる事を求めている。両国が公然と強く対立すれば(世界の)悪夢なのだから。
日米関係は中米関係にとって重要な要素ではない。
国と米国の互いの重要性は、日米同盟における日本の役割になんら影響されるものではないのだ。

両国のリーダーシップにおいて経済問題やイラン、北朝鮮などの政治問題は協議されただろうが、日中問題では大した時間は割かれなかっただろう。
バイデン副大統領が敵として中国訪問に現れたなどという事はあり得ないし、もしそうなら、中国は遠慮しない。

中米関係を深める鍵は戦略上の不信感を払拭する事だ。米国は中国社会に対して優しさを見せる事が大事であると認識すべきである。

中国が心配しているのは、米国が、中国と近隣諸国の領土問題を利用して中国をけん制、押さえようとすることであり、米国がアジアで中国を標的にするスタンスに立つ事が懸念されてきたのだ
中国の外交政策は人民の気持ちを重要視する。もし米国が本当に中国を抑えこむ意図が無いなら、中国の核心的利益に関わる地域で、争いを主導するようなことは避けるべきだ

米国は常に東アジアのバランスと自身の仲裁者としての役割について語ってきた。しかし、念頭に置いておかなければならないのは、中国の発展は東アジアの秩序への挑戦戦略というより、国の発展の自然な過程であるという事だ。
国が言うバランスは、中国の合理的な戦略的要求寛容であるべきで、米国は中国の近隣諸国との領土紛争に関わるべきではない。

中国人民はバイデン副大統領の訪問で米国流の考えを感じたかもしれない。米国大使館で中国学生と米政府高官を交えて行われた「米国の自由」についてのディスカッションは、まさに典型的な機会であった。
国人達は中国社会が国に高い要求をする訳ではない認識するだろう。
そして、中国のいわゆるナショナズムに対しても先入観を持つべきではない。
中国の様に、多くを要求しない、穏やかな社会が米国に対してナショナリズムを増大させるとき、彼らは適応し行動する必要があれば反応するだろう。

2013年11月27日水曜日

朴素ヨンさん Raptor22K Olibe89

http://japanese.joins.com/article/social_user.php?member_group_seq=uDhN.vpDS5&mem_type=yahoo

http://japanese.joins.com/article/social_user.php?member_group_seq=MHBYTJNBVY5LMGQGEM2MDOH3GQ




■誰でも気づくことですが、これは韓国側の全くの自分勝手な批判であることは確かでしょう。そもそもの始まりは韓国側の日本や日本人に対する何でも有り、のヘイトスピーチや日本を貶めるための言動に由来するものです。
 確かにヘイトスピーチそのものは批判されなくてはなりません。しかし自分たちは日本を貶めるためには何をしても良いが、自分たちがヘイトスピーチを受ける被害は世界中の国から日本が非難されなくてはならない、という考えは少なくとも日本では受け入れられないでしょう。
 自らの言動を差し置いて、日本が批判されるのが当たり前のような感覚は「真人間」のすることではないと知るべきでしょう。


■このような傾向は韓国人の全てと思う日本人も多いのですが、実はそうではありません。同じ「中央日報」の元東京特派員の善良な記者である朴素ヨンさん(素敵な女性です)がいます。このヘイトスピーチに関して彼女は次のように言っています。

〔ヘイトスピーチ〕は相手の自尊心を傷付け侮辱する言葉で在日や韓国人には日常語だ。野党幹部が朴大統領を批判する際に、日本の安倍首相を同列に取り上げ「二人とも生まれてきてはならなかった」と決め付けた。朴大統領の悪口は韓国内で済んでも、大国日本の安倍首相への個人攻撃は日本人には看過できない国際問題レベルの憎悪の発言です。謝罪すべきでしょう。2013-07-14

■韓国では安倍首相への個人攻撃ばかりでなく、安倍首相の人形も何度も燃やされています。また日の丸も破られて燃やされたり、日本の国鳥であるキジも生きたままナイフで切り刻まれています。

■朴素ヨンさんは、この記事を書いた金玄基(キム・ヒョンギ)東京総局長については次のように書いています。どのような人物か想像がつくと思います。

〔金玄基の場合〕支社長のキャバクラ通いは日報社内だけでなく読者にも広く知れ渡っている。強面で闇社会にも顔が利き、夜ごと丸太ん棒を振り回している。「医者に行くよりキャバクラ行け、薬買うより女買え」元気溌剌、HN:Luckyman幸せ男の盲信的信条です。そんな彼にホントの事を言った橋下市長を「妄言の終着点」と非難する資格はあるのでしょうか。2013-05-21

http://japanese.joins.com/article/social_article.php?total_id=171828&pgi=2&refer=japanese.joins.com%2Farticle%2Fj_article.php%3Faid

■韓国にはごく少数ではありますが、朴素ヨンさんのような冷静で理性的な物事の判断のできる人物が確かにいます。
 彼女は韓国の良心と言って良いでしょう。
 私たちは、「反日教育」で洗脳されている韓国民から、このような人格を見つけるのはなかなか困難ですが、地道な努力で彼女のような「良心的な韓国人」が増えるよう努力すべきでしょう。


■以下に彼女の発した珠玉の名言を掲載したいと思います。もっと見たい方は以下のアドレスへ。



〔暑中お見舞い申し上げます〕韓国は梅雨末期の大雨。日本は猛暑が続いています、お体に気を付けて下さい。朴大統領の執拗な反日発言、日本が竹島や慰安婦問題で韓国の主張を受入れない姿勢に苛立っているのでしょう。元大統領を父親に持ちながら政治外交センスは期待外れ。電力不足、反日熱病で脳内過熱、暴走の韓国指導者達に「反日お見舞い申し上げます」2013-07-14

〔淪落司法〕ソウル高裁は戦時日本で働いた朝鮮人の未払賃金に支払判決を出した。この種の請求は昭和40年日韓請求権協定の莫大な経済援助(慰謝料)で最終的かつ完全に解決とした二国間外交文書への違反です。法治国家とも思えぬ反日裁判ショー、原告は韓国政府に請求すべき事。なのに冷静な批判・見解が韓国内で湧き上がらない・・そんな国なのです。2013-07-14

〔中韓同舟の異夢〕深刻な経済減速が現実的に進行する中国に輸出額の3割を依存する韓国。政治体制・主義の異なる両国の連携は相互補完と言うより、何れ破綻し沈没を早める双胴船に見えます。中国の反日デモも下手に画策すると反政府暴動に繋がりかねず、韓国の歴史認識発言も日本の反発と、中韓の国民性を覚醒させただけの結果でした。 2013-07-14

〔東京ラブレター〕韓国の執拗な歴史認識発言を機に韓日関係が軋んでいる。歴史を淘汰し外交を勝ち負け、駆け引きでなく内容を重視すれば未来志向になると思う。反日・嫌韓の慣性の法則に流されず、情報メタボを改善、己の気持に湧き上がる志、真心をぶつけ合えば相手も尊重し共感が得られるはず。短期的には否定的でも長期的には楽観的、肯定的に考えたい。 2013-07-11

〔中国の韓国を眺める眼〕韓国は国力、地政学的に自立できる国でなく常に周囲の大国、日米中露を天秤にかけ、その威を借る事大主義の国です。世界から孤立し経済失速が囁かれる中国に接近する韓国は奇異に映ります。中国から見れば四面楚歌の状態で自分になびく韓国は可愛いでしょう。が、内心では韓国を嫌い軽蔑、長年の属国根性を知り尽くしているからです。 2013-07-01

〔尋牛〕朴大統領は手帳姫と呼ばれるが、側近達はデスノートと恐れている。自分の見解に埋もれ開かれた議論そのものを拒否する姿がいたわしい。こんな偏狭な姿は韓国政治の日常風景だ。暴れ狂う馬、疑心暗鬼の猿と対照的に牛は1カ所に傾かず清く本質を見通す心性を持つ。韓国社会を導く人々が清心の水準に至らずも、韓国未来の為、牛を探す期待をしてみたい。 2013-07-02

〔悪徳の使者〕これもその一種ですが、韓国は日本貶めに米国で慰安婦問題や議会での非難決議などロビー活動を国策として行っている。米国人ロビーストは本来、韓日問題の当事者でもないのに、何故か日本非難時には顔を出してくる。韓国側に立ち日本糾弾する前に米国自身への調査・反省が筋。それに目をつむるのは金で魂を売った韓国の工作人たる証明です。 2013-07-03


※ひろへらのコメント 超名言です。
航空機、車、健康など定期点検・診断が行われるが、自分の志・人生観を職場や家庭において己の立ち向かう姿勢で点検してる人は自分を含め少ないでしょう。自己点検により現在の境遇が自分の心や行動の反映であると分る。己を客観的に省みる事で正しい方向への軌道修正や境遇・進路を切り拓く事が出来る。自己点検、デスクの客観点検が決定的に欠けた記事ですね。2013-06-13

〔日本の復活・韓国の脱落に万感〕安倍総理の配慮を読み取れず、対日外交に躓いた朴政権。日本が円安・株高など「アベノミクス」効果で経済復興し、台湾・東南アジアなど近隣友好国とより絆を強める一方、尖閣・竹島、日本の主権を侵犯する中韓からどんどん遠ざかる間、我々は韓日関係の為にどんな努力を傾ければいいのか、自問してみる時である。 2013-06-12

〔日報報道、そして韓国の現実〕歴史を眺める正しい視線は消えていき、知覚の無い一部の反日扇動者が出す無理な主張や歴史歪曲が勢力を振う韓国。その隣国の事態を憂慮と迷惑の視線で眺めるしかなかった日本。安倍政権は捏造歪曲の欺瞞を否定、極右の烙印を恐れず正理正論で対抗している。正義なき力は暴力、力なき正義は無力、両方とも無いのが韓国の現実だ。2013-06-10

〔万華鏡の日報〕政治経済、社会、芸能スポーツ・・連日、反日を国是社是にギラギラした記事が掲載される。まるで万華鏡を覗いているようです。束の間の陶酔が得られるが、望遠鏡の様に遠くを見る訳でもなく、虫眼鏡の様に手元を拡大観察する物でもなく、現実逃避の蜃気楼です。韓国の厳しい現実、将来を洞察するに、先ず等身大の自分を鏡に映して欲しいです。2013-06-10

〔和顔愛語〕穏やかで親しみやすい振舞い。韓日の発言・報道、特に韓国側に倫理性を欠いた偏見が見られる。なされた事へお返しの感情を「返報性の原理」という。日本では鶴の恩返しなど暖かい情操教育がなされる反面、韓国では幼児期から異常な反日教育、ヨンピルも紅白で恨500年を歌い、朴大統領は恨1000年を叫ぶ。恨からの脱却が友好の礎と感じます。2013-06-04

〔素ヨンの警鐘〕沙韻の鐘、実話なんですね、日台の友情は羨ましい限り、韓日はどこで釦を掛け違えたのでしょう。理不尽な日本叩きを繰返し報道すると無関心な日本人も竹島、慰安婦など虚偽、虚報と気付きます。日本には「大衆は愚かでない」との感覚があり、真実を瞬時に見透かす能力がある。韓国にもまともな分析、世論形成が育たないとこの国は本当に危うい。 2013-05-30

〔心打つ使命〕仕事の目的は世のため人のため自分のためであり、生き甲斐の創造でもある。仕事を通して志が遂げられれば、こんな幸福はない。使命とは己の責務を全うする時、浮き彫りになるが真の使命に出会うのは稀だ。ここ数日の日報報道は使命を忘れ、曲解した度を過ぎた反日報道で信用を失った。読者の心に共感を残す、心打つ記事を書いていきたい。 2013-05-24

〔慰安婦悲話〕カスバの女、飾り窓の女、赤線地帯、韓国のテキサス村、現実に世界のあらゆる時代、場所に浜の真砂の如く慰安婦、売春婦は存在した。ベトナムでは3万人の韓国混血児が暴行強姦で残され韓国はベトナムに公式謝罪していない。日本だけ非難する道理は無い。問題の本質はオスの生理。理性の立入る範疇でなく、女性には表向き触れて欲しくない機微です。2013-05-22

〔中韓つむじ風〕日本参院選を前に中韓連合の嫌がらせ・挑発行為が目立っている。尖閣水域への侵入、東シナ海ガス田、ヘイトスピーチ等、やりたい放題に見えます。高飛車の日本脅しが今回も有効と盲信。危機感の創出は安倍政権への追い風になり打撃になりません。中韓は多くの工作人を日本に潜入させながら日本人の民意を取り違え世論が読めていません。 2013-07-05

②工作人は野中、鳩山氏を取り込み中国寄り発言を演出したが、逆に日本国内に嫌中感情を高めた。孫子の兵法や三国志の諸葛孔明など戦略のお手本があるのに歴史を学ぶ事が出来ません。中国は1996年、台湾総統選の李総統優勢を牽制に軍事演習を実施。結果は台湾人を結束させ李総統援護の風になった。同じ失敗を繰り返すつもりでしょうか。2013-07-05

③文化大革命の影響なのか、今の中国指導者世代の多くが真面目に世界の歴史、中日韓の歴史を勉強したと思えません。「正しい歴史認識を持て、歴史を鑑とせよ」言葉と裏腹に客観的歴史認識はありません。韓国も全く同じです。日本に「首脳会談やってあげないもん」主導権を握ってるかの如き稚戯が浅慮・逆効果のつむじ風と気が付かないのでしょうか。2013-07-05

〔夢のふるさと〕変わらぬものは紫紺の空を流れる雲、富士山・桜に育まれた日本の気高く優しき心。愛国心や使命感が相手を貶める抗生物質、幻影と気付くのに時間はかからなかった。歴史も環境も異なる世界の国々が最終的に収斂するのは日本的心、文化に思える。嵐に志が乱れても、血潮に靴が破れても、夢と本分を忘れずに求道の道を歩みたい。 2013-06-24

2013年10月16日水曜日

24-6-6b

  • It may have something to do with what happened in Tokyo
  • I'd like you to tender your resignation.
  • The case you're referring to, if I remember correctly....
  • It's just a little grayer than that now, isn't it?
  • You sequestered that file to protect your husband.
  • Nevertheless, one of these man is still trying to fight against us.
  • Dou you wanna get in the ring with me?
  • you've got skeletons in your closet, and I will not hesitate to pull them out.
  • How long before you get the documents
    (How long will it take that you get the documents)
  • How long before (the/a) concert should i get there.
  • I barely made the train.
  • I just missed the train
  • You're son of a bitch / I never claimed otherwise.
  • I am sorry that I keep you waitingI am sorry that I've kept you waiting..


Abbott Puts A Gag On Australia




Abbott Puts A Gag On Australia

By Costa Avgoustinos

Tony Abbott's government is hushing up academics, human rights defenders - even their own ministers. Whose right to free speech do they actually stand for, asks Costa Avgoustinos
The Coalition Government has only been in power a month, but despite professing “freedom of speech” as a core belief, and The Australian declaring that Tony Abbott PM would “champion free speech”, our right to freely discuss the government, foreign governments and business is being hit from several angles.
Academics wishing to freely criticise the Coalition government may be hampered by a new policy of defunding research it deems “ridiculous”. Catriona Jackson, chief executive of peak research body Science and Technology Australia, said that, “Australians should ask: Do we want politicians picking and choosing which grant proposals deserve funding?” Indeed, how is our government to be kept in check if our best minds are afraid to criticise it lest it hurt their livelihood?
Australians wishing to speak freely about other countries’ governments may also face serious consequences. To impress Indonesia, for example, Tony Abbott announced that his government “will do everything that [it] possibly can to discourage” those campaigning for West Papuan independence. Few doubt that Indonesia has committed human rights abuses against West Papuans, and the independence movement is a response to a situation that some have compared to genocide.
The Coalition government has also promised to cut funding to anyone who merely expresses support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign. This is a campaign aimed at ending Israeli apartheid in a similar way to how boycotts, divestments and sanctions were used to end South African apartheid in the 1980s – non-violently through economic pressure.
Australians should not be punished for non-violent methods of protest. Indeed, three eminent Jewish-Australian academics, who themselves oppose the BDS campaign, have come out in support of BDS campaigners’ rights to free speech, labelling the Coalition government’s policy “outrageous’ and “anti-democratic”.
Consumers will also be penalised for promoting secondary boycotts of unethical companies. Initially the focus will be on environmental campaigns, but the ban could well extend to other types of boycotts. The details so far are unclear. We can vote out bad governments. Bad companies, however, only respond to hits to their bottom line, and bad PR. As Chris Berg from the Institute of Public Affairs suggests, “Sometimes the way we spend our money is literally a form of speech”.
The Coalition’s asylum seeker policy, Operation Sovereign Borders, has put information about refugees and asylum seekers under military strictures. Asylum seekers’ access to legal support will also be cut, limiting their access to our tribunals and courts and the ablity of our legal representatives to speak for them.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are being silenced in their own communities (with the planned abolition of “scores of statutory indigenous governance bodies") and in the courts (with the planned cuts to Aboriginal legal services). Debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement has been conducted secretly, but leaks reveal it might infringe on Australian internet users’ rights. Tony Abbott’s own ministers have also had their permission to talk to the media without approval from the Prime Minister’s office curtailed.
Even the Prime Minister seems to be self-silencing by keeping media appearances to a minimum; he has fled the media when quizzed on boat sinkings and shuts down when questioned. How can the public be properly informed on important issues if the players involved cannot be heard?
So after all these free speech attacks, why did News Ltd claim Tony Abbott would “champion” free speech? At least one reason is the Coalition government’s plan to scrap section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which offers legal relief to people who are offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated based on their race or ethnicity where the speaker was not acting reasonably or in good faith. News Ltd columnist Andrew Bolt was found to have breached this section in a 2011 Federal Court decision.

If, after putting limits on Australians’ right to engage with the business of government, the main feather in the Coalition’s free speech cap is their willingness to allow the majority to demonise minorities, it seems fair to conclude that the only speech the Coalition is interested in protecting is that of the rich, the white and the powerful.

24-6-6

Look, I'm not some idealistic flag burner
過激な理想主義者じゃない

Once you start ethnic profiling, It's a slippery slope.
宗教差別を始めたら、止まらない。

I'll look into it.
しらべるよ

Probably start with Tom, This has his name written all over it.

He treats the Constitution like a list of suggestion.

You don't like Tom and you never have.

I hope I got through to him.

obstructing official business.

We shouldn't come here....

I don't wanna hurt you but I will unless you do exactly what I say.

Well, However you may choose to characterise it,...

Is it that you think I'm some bleeding-heart liberal Preaching civil libertied? Is that it?

Constitution is a wonderful thing, but back in the days of the founding fathers, the weapon at hand a single-shot musket.

She's been flagged by police.

for crying out loud. なんてこった!

You are wasting your breath.

The problem is one of my best people is hamstrung.

It's paranoid delusions




2013年9月18日水曜日

Supreme Court Rules on Three Major Rights Issues


From VOA Learning English, this is In the News.

The United States Supreme Court made decisions on three major rights cases this week.

On Monday the court released a decision on education policy for minorities. But, the high court chose not to give a final ruling on the policy known as affirmative action.

The case involves a young white womanAbigail Fisherwho was rejected by the University of Texas.Her lawyers argued that universities should not be permitted to consider race when trying to accept adiverse class of studentsThey said that considering someone’s race in the admissions process violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

Seven of the nine justices voted to return the case to a lower court saying it had not fully studied theuniversity’s actions.

Opponents praised the Supreme Court for ordering the lower court to enforce a narrower version of the school’s affirmative action planCivil rights activists welcomed the decision because it did not cancel the policy.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court did cancel a part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress passed the law to ensure thatAfrican Americans in southern states could vote. The court decision ends federal supervision of election laws in states with ahistory of voter suppression.

The law was aimed at nine states and some cities and counties in seven other statesThese states were required to seekapproval from the Justice Department to make changes to their election lawsCongress has repeatedly extended the law,most recently in 2006.

divided court ruled by a vote of five to four. In the majority opinionChief Justice John Roberts wrote that widespreadviolation of the rights of black voters no longer exists. The majority ruled that the method used to decide which areas requirefederal supervision violates the rights of states. It said Congress must decide on a better method.

Several states announced they would begin new voting requirements that had been blocked by the Justice Department soonafter the ruling.

Cherilyn Infill is with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

Make no mistake about what has happened."

Speaking to a crowd near the court, she said the court has decided that it stands in a better position than Congress todetermine how to protect against voting discrimination.

“The 15th amendment to the constitution makes clear that it is Congress that has that power.”

On Wednesday morning, a different crowd waited outside the court buildingSupporters of same-sex marriage cheered whenthe Supreme Court canceled a federal and a state law on the issue.

The court said the 1996 federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act violated the rights of same-sex couples. The court saidthat the government could not prevent same-sex couples from getting the same taxhealth and retirement benefits astraditional husbands and wivesSupporters of the laws promised to continue efforts to limit marriage to legal unions of oneman and one woman.

And that’s In the News from VOA Learning English. I’m Steve Ember.