JLPT – 日本語能力試験

今日日本語能力試験１級に登録した。いい判断か否かまだ分からないんだけど、１２月まで勉強に注目して行こうとする。なぜこの試験に登録したかというと、仕事に役に立つと言われたいる。日系会社と働くために役に立つ。勉強が好きではないけど、目的があれば頑張って勉強できる。

I registered for the level 1 of the Japanese Language Proficiency Test today.  I don’t know whether it was a good decision or not, but I will focus on studying for it until December.  Asking why I registered for this test, it is said that it is helpful for work.  It is helpful if I want to work with Japanese companies.  I don’t like studying, but if I have a goal, I can work hard and study.

Religion in America

When our founding fathers created the principle of the separation of church and state, they did not envision an America devoid of religion.  Their goal was to do just that, separate the church from having any power or influence over the state or vice versa.   They had come from a European tradition in which each country had a state-sponsored religion.  Further, within each of  those countries, most of the people often did not have freedom of religion.   The founders of Maryland, prdominately Catholics, served as some of the greatest proponents of adding freedom of religion to the bill of rights.  However, none of the forefathers ever envisioned an America of atheists.  In fact, their primary intention was to allow all Christians to practice freely.

Now the Atlantic not only divides secular from religious, but the tide has shifted.  America has a far greater percentage of people who consider themselves religious or people who practice their religion than in Europe.  Religion is being perceived ever more important in the American public arena than ever before.  Perhaps political candidates are riding a new wave of religious fervor.  Maybe they are simply appealing to something their constituencies can identify with or support.  In either case, politicians have to be ever more aware that, by saying certain things, they bring certain people into the fold and shun others.

Barack Obama, the son of agnostics, joined the Christian fold when he was 26 on his own volition.  John McCain wants to keep his religion and religious issues out of the public arena.  One may think, therefore, that the parties have shifted their focus.  I argue that it is the candidate, not the party, who determines the presence or lack of religious flavor in a campaign and whilst a politician is in office.  If the party had enough control over Mr McCain’s oratory, they would have peppered it with a few more hints that their candidate is a religious man, able to identify with devout Christians nationwide.  Conversely, if the demoratic party chose to continue its history as the secular party, they could have erased his religious utterings from his speeches and tried to convince him not to use them on the stump.  Thus, I argue that that the latter of the two options I posited earlier, that they are simply appealing to something that their constituencies can identify with, supercedes.  If Mr Obama feels strongly about his Christian faith, he should feel free to say so and let those who identify with his faith support him.  If Mr McCain chooses not to speak about his faith because he does not feel strongly about it, he can keep mum as he is now.

Nonrtheless, if I may paraphrase the words of John F. Kennedy when he was running for President:  “Obama is not the Baptist candidate for president.  He is the Democratic Party’s candidate for president who also happens to be Baptist.”  Above all, whoever the President is, he will primarily be subject to party pressures.  The religion of an official may influence his or her decision while in office, but not to the extent that party pressures do.  Further, the President of the United States practicing a particular religion may mean that his or her decisions are implicitly influenced by religion.  What we should stray from is any explicit influence of religion on political decisions, as have happened under George Bush.

我々の建国の父が政教分離原則を創造した時に、宗教のないアメリカを想像しなかった。そのことさえをする目的だった。

Generals vs Politburo

Political and social factors can and often do influence responses to natural disasters. President Bush’s delayed response to Hurricane Katrina and the humanitarian debacle that ensued made many question whether the president, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or any part of the administration cared about the plight of those in New Orleans. In order to mask the horror, Mr Bush took a flight over the ravaged city to assess the damage, declaring a state of emergency without so much as having seen the true state of emergency. He also gave a speech detailing all of the aid efforts and funds that would eventually be given to those in need. Following the speech, the media interviewed those affected, who, after having heard Mr Bush’s words, believed that aid would be quick to come.

Aid was not quick to come. Individuals and foreign countries opened their pocketbooks to help finance aid for a humanitarian disaster in the richest country in the world. The rebuilding fund established by the administration was supposed to disburse checks to those who had lost their homes. A variety of bureaucratic problems left those for whom checks were intended with insufficient funds to help them rebuild or no check at all.

In the past few weeks, the governments of Burma (this blog will not call it Myanmar for political reasons) and China have responded in almost polar opposite ways to natural disasters within their territories. Cyclone Nargis hit the Irrawaddy delta, killing and estimated 130,000 and leaving 5 million homeless. The military junta of Burma, holed up in the newly-built capital of Naypyidaw, may have been ignorant of the extent of the disaster. Odds are they weren’t. The junta’s initial response was to claim that they had the situation under control, denying all foreign aid efforts. Recently, they have allowed the entry of Chinese and UN aid supplies, as long as it passes through the oversight of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Supplies from the US and many other Western countries still await entry permission.

The Chinese government has recently been under fire for their treatment of Tibetans and human rights violations in general. Protests followed the Olympic torch relay throughout the world. Then an earthquake hit Sichuan province, leaving an estimated 50,000 dead. The Chinese government was quick to act, with President Hu Jintao issuing a national statement within hours, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao visiting the disaster scene and comforting victims, and the national press releasing uncharacteristically frank and true information. China quickly accepted foreign aid. Might this be a means by which the Chinese government can smooth over its political issues with those who intend to boycott the opening ceremony to the Olympics this summer? Maybe not; maybe it is acting in earnest and out of true regard for its citizens. The truth is that all signs point to yes. Let us see in a few months the attendees of the games.

政治と社会の要素は自然災害に対する応答を影響でき、よく影響する。ハリケーン・カトリーナと直後の人道的な大失敗に対するブッシュ大統領の遅れた応答は大統領、緊急事態管理庁（FEMA)、政府のどの部分にもニューオーリンズにいる人々の苦が気になったか多い人を聞かせた。ブッシュ氏は恐怖を隠すために破壊を評価するために破壊された市の上で飛行して、緊急事態の実際を見なかったのに緊急事態を宣言した。それとも、貧しい人々にやがてあげられる援助努力と資金を詳しく演説した。演説後、メディアが当てられた人々に面接して、その人々はブッシュ氏の言葉を聞いた後で、援助が早く来ると信じた。

援助は早く来なかった。個人と外国は世界の一番お金持ちの国での人道的な災害にの援助を金融するために財布を開いた。政府に建設された再建資金は家を失った人々に小切手を配布すべきであった。様々な官僚問題で小切手をもらうべきの人々は再建に足りない資金をもらったか小切手をもらわなかった。

先の二三週間にビルマ（当ブログは政治的な理由のためミャンマーと呼ばない）と中国の政府は自分の地域での自然災害に対し正反対くらいに応答した。サイクロン・ナルギスはエーヤワディー川デルタに上達し、約１３万人を殺し、約５百万人をホームレスとして残した。ネピドーという新たに建設された首都で隠れていたビルマの軍事政権は災害の規模に無知だったかもしれない。そうではないだろう。軍事政権の最初の応答は完全に状態を管理していたと主張し、海外援助努力を応じなかった。最近、東南アジア諸国連合の管理を通じると中国と国連の援助品の通関を応じた。米国と数の多い西洋国からの補給品はまだ通関許可を待ってる。

中国の政府は最近チベット人の扱いと一般的に人権蹂躙で攻撃されている。抗議は聖火リレーをついて来た。それに四川省で地震があり、約５万人が死亡した。胡錦濤大統領が災害のすぐあと全国宣言を出し、温家宝首相が被災地に訪問し被害者を慰め、国立出版社が常ならずに率直で正直な情報を公開することで、中国の政府は即断即決した。中国は早く海外援助を受け取った。このような手段で中国の政府が今夏オリンピックの開会式をボイコットするつもりの国との政治問題を扱いやすくできるかもしれない？多分そうではなく、多分真面目に国民にの本当の敬意で事業をしている。正直は全ての印が「はい」を指す。二三ヶ月間後試合の出席者を見よう。