・In the film "Sorry to Bother You," a black telemarketer finds success only after he starts speaking in a "white voice."
・The movie is rooted in science — linguists have long known that minorities face discrimination based on the sound of their voice.
・One linguist tried responding to local apartment listings using three accents — white, black, and Latino — and was offered more appointments when the landlord thought he sounded white.
While "Sorry to Bother You" may be a comedy, its premise is rooted in science. Language experts have recognized for years that people face discrimination not just based on their race but the sound of their voice — especially when they sound like a minority.
John Baugh, a linguist at Washington University in St. Louis, was the first to document the "linguistic profiling" some minorities face over the phone. It started in the late 1980s when Baugh, who is black, said he was discriminated against while searching for apartments in Palo Alto, California, where he was living as a fellow at Stanford University.
Baugh launched an experiment in which he made hundreds of phone calls to landlords who had listed apartments in the San Francisco area. He greeted each landlord with the same line: "Hello, I'm calling about the apartment you have advertised in the paper." But he didn't always say it in the same accent — he alternated between using an African-American accent, a Mexican-American accent, and his natural accent, what he called professional standard English.
Linguistic profilingなるものをBaugh教授が提唱したことはWikipediaにも載っているんですね。
（Wikipedia）
Linguistic profiling
Linguistic profiling is the practice of identifying the social characteristics of an individual based on auditory cues, in particular dialect and accent. The theory was first developed by Professor John Baugh to explain discriminatory practices in the housing market based on the auditory redlining of prospective clientele by housing administrators. Linguistic profiling extends to issues of legal proceedings, employment opportunities, and education. The theory is frequently described as the auditory equivalent of racial profiling. The bulk of the research and evidence in support of the theory pertain to racial and ethnic distinctions, though its applicability holds within racial or ethnic groups, perceived gender and sexual orientation, and in distinguishing location of geographic origin.
Baugh's theory is distinct from linguistic profiling as defined by Hans van Halteren from the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands. Van Halteren's theory deals with the categorization of linguistic features for the purposes of author identification and verification from a text, not necessarily specifically addressing the socially defined categories within which they are included.[1]
For Baugh, the issue goes far beyond fair housing — it cuts to the heart of the American identity.
"Many of the people who engage in linguistic profiling and linguistic discrimination are descendants of people that came from someplace where English is probably not spoken. And some of their ancestors at one point in time, whether they came from Italy, Germany, Vietnam, or the Philippines, were subject to a form of linguistic discrimination," Baugh said.
"Accepting others who speak different than you do can potentially be a step toward healing divisions in the country."
映画タイトルのSorry to bother youは電話勧誘の切り出し定番表現からきたものでしょう。少し脱線しますが、TOEICでのsorryの使われ方をおさらいしておきます。大阪なおみ選手の全米選手権優勝スピーチでSorryが使われた時に、謝罪なのか、単に残念に思うだけなのか、話題になりましたしいい機会です。
“Whether it actually is or not, ‘BlacKkKlansman’ feels like an extension of [NYPD] ad campaign,” ‘Sorry to Bother You’ director says of Spike Lee film
By ILANA KAPLAN
In his post, Riley recalled the actual history behind BlacKkKlansman, explaining that while he realizes directors in Hollywood take creative liberties in films that are based-on-a-true-story, he was disappointed with the director’s decision to portray the police in a more positive manner.
“[T]o the extent that people of color deal with actual physical attacks and terrorizing due to racism and racist doctrines — we deal with it mostly from the police on a day to day basis. And not just from White cops. From Black cops too. So for Spike to come out with a movie where a story points are fabricated in order make Black cop and his counterparts look like allies in the fight against racism is really disappointing, to put it very mildly,” he wrote.
Riley recalls that the real Ron Stallworth was a part of the FBI Counter Intelligence Program (Cointelpro) and actually “infiltrated a Black radical organization for years (not for one event like the movie portrays)” to sabotage it while fighting against racist oppression.
“Cointelpro’s objectives were to destroy radical organizations, especially Black radical organizations,” Riley wrote. “Cointelpro papers also show us that when White Supremacist organizations were infiltrated by the FBI and the cops, it was not to disrupt them. They weren’t disrupted. It was to use them to threaten and/or physically attack radical organizations.”
I play Connie Kendrickson who is the wife of wife of a member of the organization which is the Ku Klux Klan, Felix Kendrickson. I am a virulent individual who feels like she's not getting enough opportunities with the Klan and hankers to do something drastic and violent.
ちょうどこの人物をメインに取り上げている記事がありましたので抜粋しています。インタビューではvirulent individualと言っていますが、メンバーにとっては朗らかで気がきく女性なんです。そんな怖さをSmiling and non-threatening as she looks in her apron, Connie is just as dangerous as they are.と表現していました。
Perhaps one of the many issues that won’t get nearly enough attention is embodied by the character of Connie Kendrickson (Ashlie Atkinson), the all-American housewife who wants a bigger part in the Klan’s plan.
Connie is introduced to the story when her husband, Felix (Jasper Pääkkönen), hosts a Klan gathering in their suburban home. They have a pro-America sign out front, she greets Flip-posing-as-Ron at the front door with a smile and brings him into the living room where the white supremacists are discussing their next move.
To prove she’s more useful to the Klan than just someone to bring them food, she offers a magazine clipping of a local black student activist, Patrice (Laura Harrier) and suggests to the men that they should shut her up for good. It’s an uncomfortably awkward moment, not only because this is when the movie’s version of the Klan establishes its gender hierarchy but also because she wants so desperately to be in on this boys’ club of violence. It’s not enough to orbit their hatred, she wants to participate in it. Smiling and non-threatening as she looks in her apron, Connie is just as dangerous as they are.
この記事の作者は彼女をトランプ支持者に重ね合わせて見ると同時に、The moment reveals how their deeply rooted hatred actually brought them together and strengthened their relationship, that they’ve found a mutual identity through fear and discrimination.と人種差別が深く浸透していること、人種差別こそが彼らを結びつけたのだとしています。
Connie’s character is part of the story for a reason. She’s a stand-in for the 53 percent of white women who voted for Trump, who either saw nothing wrong with his racist speeches or agreed with those views. Worries about economic insecurity never enter the conversation in the movie, but the characters’ insecurities about being white and in the minority do.
In what would normally be a tender scene between characters, Connie and Felix are snuggling in bed. Instead of normal pillow talk, they are reveling in their plans for violence against black people. The moment reveals how their deeply rooted hatred actually brought them together and strengthened their relationship, that they’ve found a mutual identity through fear and discrimination. “Thank you for giving me a purpose,” Connie purrs to her husband.
In another scene where Connie is running away from the black Ron Stallworth, she uses her tears and screams at other white cops for help. Chillingly, they oblige. Protecting white femininity is a recurring concern among the white supremacists. During a screening of “The Birth of a Nation,” the white supremacist men and women jeer at the black man committing assault and cheer when the Ku Klux Klan seeks revenge.
Hitler’s Furies is the untold story of the Holocaust.
History has it that the role of women in Nazi Germany was to be the perfect Hausfrau and a loyal cheerleader for the Führer. However, Lower’s research reveals an altogether more sinister truth.
Lower shows us the ordinary women who became perpetrators of genocide. Drawing on decades of research, she uncovers a truth that has been in the shadows – that women too were brutal killers and that, in ignoring women’s culpability, we have ignored the reality of the Holocaust.
‘Shocking’ Sunday Times‘ Compelling’ Washington Post ‘Pioneering’ Literary Review
‘Hitler’s Furies,’ by Wendy Lower, Examines German Women
Books of The Times
By DWIGHT GARNER OCT. 8, 2013
The last chapters of “Hitler’s Furies” are infuriating and sickening for different reasons. Ms. Lower explores these women’s experiences after the war. Most simply slipped back into civilian life. Few of these hundreds of thousands of German women were prosecuted, and even fewer were punished.
“What happened to them?” Ms. Lower asks. “The short answer is that most got away with murder.”
You’re clearly unhappy with the direction America’s headed in. Is one aim of your work to show our faults so that the country gets better?
I’m going to go back to “Wake up.” That’s been in almost all my films. Wake up. Be alert. Don’t fall asleep. Don’t go for the okey-doke. Don’t go for the shenanigans, subterfuge and skullduggery. Don’t go for it. Let’s make the best of the time we have on this earth, and not get into this hate and all this other bullshit.
後に続くDon’t go for the shenanigans, subterfuge and skullduggery.は彼にとって大切な表現のようでインタビューの別の部分でも触れています。
This presidency is always shrouded by culture-war stuff.
It’s a distraction. A misdirection play. You think one guy has the ball, and this other guy has the ball. And he’s high-stepping down to the goal line. So we just have to be smarter and not go for the three S’s: shenanigans, subterfuge and skullduggery! I got that from Mike Tyson.
The director’s provocative new film will change the way you think about racism
By Rembert Browne | Photographs by Carrie Mae Weems for TIME
August 9, 2018
Lee has used the refrain “Wake up” in many of his films; it’s the first line in Do the Right Thing and the last line in School Daze. You also hear it in BlacKkKlansman. To some, his repetition can feel heavy-handed. In BlacKkKlansman, he refuses to let the viewer miss the parallels between racism in the 1970s and today; between law enforcement then and now; between the Klan and the so-called alt right; and between KKK grand wizard David Duke and President of the United States Donald Trump. At one point, Stallworth tells his white sergeant that “America would never elect somebody like David Duke President.” His sergeant’s response is telling: “For a black man, you’re pretty naive.”
リーはお約束の「Wake up(寝覚めよ)」を自身のいくつもの映画で使ってきた。Do the Right Thingの最初のセリフで、School Dazeの最後のセリフで。BlacKkKlansmanでも聞くことになる。この繰り返しをくどく感じる人もいるだろう。BlacKkKlansmanでは彼は観客に様々な関連性を見落としてしまわないようにしている。1970年代と今の人種差別や、当時と今の警察、KKKとアルトライトと呼ばれる団体、KKKの大天才David Dukeと米国大統領のドナルド・トランプとの関連性。ある場面で主人公が上司の巡査部長に「アメリカがDavid Dukeを大統領に選ぶことはあり得ない」と話すが、上司の答えは「黒人にしてはお前は随分とおめでたいな」だった。
This is Lee’s way of wondering when black people, liberals and Americans in general will stop falling for what he repeatedly calls the “okey-doke.” By that he means the tricks—which Lee calls the skulduggery, the shenanigans, the subterfuge and the bamboozlement—that straight, white American men masterfully use to stay in control. Lee is a student of history, and so he understands where these tricks are hiding and what form they might take in the future. He’s obsessed with the okey-doke. And it explains so much of why Lee is the way he is.
For decades now, Spike Lee has been characterized as indignant, a coded way of saying, “Why, rich man, are you still so angry?” It’s a common trap: main-stream society can make successful black people prioritize smiling more and complaining less. And many successful black people, as Lee sees it, forget who they are and who came before them. “People become delusional and think they’re not black anymore because they are accepted—it’s the okey-doke,” Lee says. “You can say that now, but they still think you’s a nigger.”
I’ll tell you, Milwaukee, the hardest thing in life is changing a stubborn status quo. And it’s even harder when it seems like some of the folks in power, all they care about is keeping power. But there are plenty of folks who count on you to get cynical and not vote because you don’t think you can make a difference. That’s how they’re going to stay in power. They believe you won’t get involved. They believe you won’t organize. They believe you won’t vote. And that way, the special interests stay in power. And they will try to divide us, and they’ll try to distract you, and they’ll try to run the okey-doke on you, and bamboozle you, and hoodwink you -- don’t buy it. Don’t buy it.
なぜ読みやすいのかは、以下のような書評が述べているように分析的な話はせずにWoodward’s flat, reportorial tone / Woodward’s words are quotidianとあるように、起こったことを淡々と書いているからでしょう。この本にあまり興味がない方はNew York Timesの編集長だったJill Abramsonの書評がバランスよく書いているのでこの書評を読むだけでもいいかもしれません。
In his previous books about eight presidents, Woodward has always eschewed making judgments or inserting his own analytic spin. His insistence on relying on dialogue drawn from interviews has prompted harsh assessments from various critics, including the writer Joan Didion, who famously called him a “stenographer.” (A reviewer for The Post, writing about his book “The Price of Politics,” described his style as the “literary equivalent of C-SPAN3.”) But these days Woodward’s flat, reportorial tone seems like the perfect antidote to the adversarial roar on Fox or Twitter. The authority of dogged reporting, utterly denuded of opinion, gives the book its credibility.
The Watergate reporter has written another sober, must-read dissection of corruption and rot at the White House
Lloyd Green
Sat 8 Sep 2018 06.00 BST
Like Joe Friday on Dragnet, Jack Webb’s television classic, Woodward’s Fear is big on facts and short on hyperventilation. It is not Fire and Fury redux or Omarosa 2.0. Rather, it is a sober account of how we reached this vertiginous point. Woodward’s words are quotidian but the story he tells is chilling. Like Trump himself, the characters that populate Woodward’s narrative are Runyonesque and foul-mouthed.
Woodward has always eschewed making judgments or inserting his own analytic spinについては、著者本人は価値判断は読む人に委ねていると語っています。そうは言っても、トランプのとんでもな振る舞いのエピソードをこれでもかと盛り込んでいるので、十分に価値判断をしていると思います。。。
There is something jaw-dropping on virtually every other page.
Bob Woodward, did you come away believing that Donald Trump is not fit to govern?
Bob Woodward:
See, that that's not for me to judge. That's up to individuals in the political system.
As a reporter, having done this, this is my ninth president. And the goal is to really understand, what's happening behind the scenes, what's real? What are the motives? Who is this person? Where is the advice coming from? And, ultimately, what does it mean for the country?
But that's not for me to decide. So, I step back on that.
そうなるとあえて読まなくていいじゃないかとなります。確かにそうですが、本を読むとYou might have already sensed this, but you didn’t know it with such nauseating specificity.とより具体的にトランプ政権の酷さを感じることができるのです。
Almost half a century later, the ghost of the scandal that launched Woodward’s career haunts the Trump White House.
By George Packer
No one has any respect for Trump. In the course of the book, his chief of staff calls him “an idiot”; his Secretary of State ups it to “a fucking moron”; his Secretary of Defense compares him to an eleven-year-old; his top economic adviser and his personal lawyer consider him, respectively, “a professional liar” and “a fucking liar.” (Various denials have been issued.) Gary Cohn, the economic adviser, tells the President to his face that he’s “a fucking asshole,” while Trump calls Cohn “a fucking globalist.” When Cohn first tries to resign, Trump mocks him for being under his wife’s thumb, not to mention treasonous. There’s no end to the Cabinet members and generals whom Trump is eager to insult in front of their colleagues, or to fire by tweet. A coarse and feckless viciousness is the operating procedure of his White House, and the poison spreads to everyone. Only snakes and sycophants survive.
You might have already sensed this, but you didn’t know it with such nauseating specificity. In the absence of an Oval Office taping system like the one that destroyed Nixon during Watergate, Woodward’s interviews, conducted under the shroud of deep background, are a pretty comprehensive substitute.
Don’t lecture Trump. He doesn’t like professors. He doesn’t like intellectuals. Trump was a guy who “never went to class. Never got the syllabus. Never took a note. Never went to a lecture. The night before the final, he comes in at midnight from the fraternity house, puts on a pot of coffee, takes your notes, memorizes as much as he can, walks in at 8 in the morning and gets a C. And that’s good enough. He’s going to be a billionaire.
Cohn found out that getting votes in the Senate was all about giving individual senators their favorite loopholes or tax breaks. “It's a candy store,” he said. Senators Chuck Grassley, John Thune and Dean Heller were among those who wanted credits for alternative fuel, including windmills. Susan Collins insisted on a deduction for schoolteachers who bought supplies for their classrooms. She would not vote for the bill if the deduction was not included. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin was concerned about pass-through businesses. McConnell made other promises including one to Jeff Flake on immigration.
The final bill was a dizzying labyrinth of numbers, rules, and categories. There was no doubt that it was a Republican tax bill, benefiting corporations and the wealthy most. The bill, however, would reduce taxes for all income groups in 2018, and according to the Tax Policy Center, after-tax income would go up an average of 2.2 percent.
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.
But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold.
シリアつながりですが、2012年に残念ながらシリア取材中に亡くなったMarie Colvinを取り上げたUnder The Wireというドキュメンタリーがあるようです。彼女と一緒に取材をしていたカメラマンPaul Conroyが記した本がベースになっているとか。日本人ジャーナリスト山本美香さんがシリアでは亡くなったのも同じ2012年のことです。最後の取材となってしまったCNNでThere's nowhere to runと語っていたことが印象的です。まさにこの言葉はイドリブでも言われていることですので。。。
戦争の惨劇なんてどこも同じだし変わり映えしないという批判に対してはthis suffering is always in danger of being covered up by politiciansという真っ当な答えを返すしかないでしょう。
War photographer Paul Conroy is magnetic as he untangles the nuances of his profession in this screen version of his memoir
Peter Bradshaw Fri 7 Sep 2018 08.00 BST
As ever with war journalism, the objection is that it creates an undifferentiated, apolitical spectacle of horror in which only the names of the countries and cities change, and I sometimes felt myself growing restive. But Conroy’s argument is that we have to bear witness to human suffering, that this will always be valid, because this suffering is always in danger of being covered up by politicians.
Rosamund Pike’s Marie Colvin finds herself in the middle of a hellish war in the majority of the intense first trailer for “A Private War.”
The trailer opens with Pike in a devastated combat zone, yelling, “I’m not armed.”
“A Private War” chronicles the life of the late American-born British war correspondent Marie Colvin, portrayed by Pike, and is based on Marie Brenner’s 2012 Vanity Fair article “Marie Colvin’s Private War.” Colvin died in 2012 while covering the siege of Homs in Syria.
By the time Marie Colvin got herself smuggled into Syria last winter, to report on the slaughter for the London Sunday Times, she was a legend, for her style (the eye patch, the La Perla bra under the flak jacket) as well as her courageous dispatches championing the innocent victims of war. It would be her last story. Marie Brenner reveals the price Colvin paid for the work she couldn’t give up.
We go to remote war zones to report what is happening. The public have a right to know what our government, and our armed forces, are doing in our name. Our mission is to speak the truth to power. We send home that first rough draft of history. We can and do make a difference in exposing the horrors of war and especially the atrocities that befall civilians.
*****
In an age of 24/7 rolling news, blogs and Twitters, we are on constant call wherever we are. But war reporting is still essentially the same – someone has to go there and see what is happening. You can't get that information without going to places where people are being shot at, and others are shooting at you. The real difficulty is having enough faith in humanity to believe that enough people be they government, military or the man on the street, will care when your file reaches the printed page, the website or the TV screen.
Still, Mendes is, by his own admission, “addicted to the creative process. I’m built to move on. Pleasure is in the doing.” By mid-June of this year, he was back in the cavernous National Theatre Rehearsal Studio 1, directing a streamlined version of Stefano Massini’s “The Lehman Trilogy,” adapted by Ben Power. (The eleven characters of the original script were now being played by three actors.) Although the opening was still a month away, the reimagined production was already sold out. With the help of a revolving stage and projections, the play was a kind of theatrical kaleidoscope—an expressionistic blend of characterization, exposition, and visualization, which told the story of the rise of the immigrant Bavarian brothers from Southern peddlers to finance capitalists and then of the collapse of their bank. “I’m the happiest I’ve ever been at rehearsal,” Mendes said, as the actors—Simon Russell Beale, Ben Miles, and Adam Godley—took up their positions in a wooden mockup of the boardroom. “I don’t have any idea how it will come out,” he added, smiling.
Mendes hankers for the exhilaration of discovery. “The small triumphs, the victories every day, are what you live for,” he said. With “The Lehman Trilogy,” he worked to excavate the play’s rhythms and its storytelling shorthand. “Animate the idea,” he wrote in his first notes to his stage designer, Es Devlin. “Make concrete the shape of history. . . . Understand in your head . . . because you can feel it in your gut.” Every nanosecond of the production—the actors’ glances, their gestures, their positions, their crosses between scenes, the counterpoint of image and action, the music—was shaped by Mendes. At one point, Beale stood on a table playing a “piano” made of cardboard boxes. “Let’s just block it out,” Mendes called up to the actors, who did as they were told. “Sit,” he said. He stood back and pondered the tableau. “Now stand.” He studied the stage picture again. “I think that’s better,” he said. “Let’s see what happens in the next scene.” “It’s like a dance and Sam’s choreographing it,” Beale told me during a break. But the experience was more revelatory than that. Mendes’s work was like sculpture—a continual molding and remolding of space, speech, and gesture. (The show, which opened to rave reviews, will transfer to New York’s Park Avenue Armory next March.)
リーマントリロジーは7月から上演されているものですが、レビューも上々のようです。3人のみの舞台ですから語りが中心になっているのですが、そのあたりをThis is a play that is more tell than show.と表現しています。リーマン兄弟の発展はThe story itself is a familiar rags-to-riches tale of immigrants coming to America and making it big.とrags to richesというイディオムが使われています。
This is a play that is more tell than show. The actors narrate the Lehman Brothers story to the accompaniment of a single upright piano that helps drive the production forward like those ever-present music beds beloved by podcast producers.
The story itself is a familiar rags-to-riches tale of immigrants coming to America and making it big. It starts when Hayum Lehman (who changed his name to Henry), a young Jewish man from Rimpar, Bavaria, arrives in New York, having spent many arduous weeks travelling by sea. He is very happy to be there, and proudly announces the auspicious date.
For most of us, the name Lehman Brothers stirs memories of the financial crash of 2008, when this Wall Street institution filed for bankruptcy: an event with global consequences. But Massini’s play traces the family’s progress from the arrival of three brothers from Bavaria in the America of the 1840s. Starting modestly with the opening of a general store in Montgomery, Alabama, they move into buying and reselling raw cotton and expand into banking, coffee and the burgeoning railway business.
Power passes from one generation to the next, but there is a decisive shift in the late 1960s with the creation of a trading division run by non-family members. Eventually it leads to the firm’s demise with the collapse of the mortgage bond market.
You can see the story in many ways: as a dynastic drama, as a study of the decline and fall of an immigrant Jewish family, as a parable about the dangers of market deregulation.
Ben Edwards: Multiple airports, runways, two successful landings, we are simply mimicking what the computer already told us.
Charles Porter: Now, a lot of toes were stepped on in order to set this up for today, and frankly... I really don't know what you gentlemen plan to gain by it.
Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger: Can we get serious now?
Charles Porter: Captain?
Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger: We've all heard about the computer simulations, and now we are watching actual sims, but I can't quite believe you still have not taken into account the human factor.
Charles Porter: Human piloted simulations show that you could make it back to the airport.
Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger: No, they don't. These pilots were not behaving like human beings, like people who are experiencing this for the first time.
何かが起こった後に「ああだ」「こうだ」言うのは簡単ですよね。以下ではHindsight is always 20-20, and everyone is always the wiser afterwards.のように表現しています。
One theme that comes up a lot in Sully, and is passionately defended by Captain Sullenberger, is the “human factor”. Hindsight is always 20-20, and everyone is always the wiser afterwards. This does not mean that we shouldn’t investigate and analyze, but the problem with the so-called experts’ initial analysis of Flight 1549, was that an engine-failure so soon after take-off was completely unprecedented, and nobody could confidently say how a human being would respond. It turns out that the computer simulations that were used by the NTSB were incorrectly stating that a pilot could have made it back safely to a runway. In actuality however, only after a large number of attempts, did any simulator pilot make it back safely (and that was using the assumption that they knew immediately what had happened and what to do). Captain Sullenberger’s defense of his own actions turned out to be right, and it was in fact only the human factor i.e. Captain Sully’s actions, that saved the lives of all 155 people on board. Turns out no computer would have done that.
とっさの判断で満点回答を出すのは難しいですよね。People are going to go off-script and make choices that may seem irrational.であることを肝に銘ずべきではないかと思うのです。
12. There’s a difference between simulations and real life
The NTSB continuously told Sully and his co-pilot Skiles that the simulations said they could have made the landing at either airport they had the option of landing at. Sully knew this wasn’t accurate.
He constantly pushed back and told them the simulation was wrong. Even at the final hearing where they performed 2 human simulations and saw success.
In the viewing of the simulations, Sully saw something was wrong. There was no account for the human element.
Once they attributed the human factor into the flight simulations, both simulations crashed and burned.
As a leader, you have to account for the human factor in all that you do. People are going to go off-script and make choices that may seem irrational.
Those decisions may be. But that’s the human factor.
Be ready and willing to engage with those on your teams that have to make decisions. Don’t think the simulations or trials that you have run are the end.
Pelley: These aircraft, and the 777 in particular, is so wondrous advanced in terms of their technology. Are we in a day and age now where pilots are just sitting in the seat while the airplane does so many things automatically, that the pilots have not had enough practice landing the airplane manually that way?
Sullenberger: That's a growing concern within the industry globally. But we must remember is that each of these airplanes, no matter how sophisticated, is at its core an airplane. It must still be flown and flown well by human pilots. We have to remember that even though this there's technology involved, human skill is involved and we must have enough practice that we can effectively manually control the airplane, and even when we're using technology, we must be engaged and aware and mentally flying the airport even if the actuation of the controls is being done by a computer.
Success turned liberals into a complacent elite. They need to rekindle their desire for radicalism
to champion free trade, free markets, and limited governmentと簡潔にまとめていた信条をここでは universal commitment to individual dignity, open markets, limited government and a faith in human progress brought about by debate and reformともう少し詳しめに書いています。
For The Economist this is profoundly worrying. We were created 175 years ago to campaign for liberalism—not the leftish “progressivism” of American university campuses or the rightish “ultraliberalism” conjured up by the French commentariat, but a universal commitment to individual dignity, open markets, limited government and a faith in human progress brought about by debate and reform.
Yutaがフランシス・フクヤマの本を読んだばかりなのかもしれませんが、彼の主張とこのEconomistの主張は似たものを感じます。皆のためを考える、全体を配慮するcivic respect for all、common interestの方をおろそかになっているというのです。特にヌクヌクと暮らしているエリートに手厳しいです。
Liberals have forgotten that their founding idea is civic respect for all. Our centenary editorial, written in 1943 as the war against fascism raged, set this out in two complementary principles. The first is freedom: that it is “not only just and wise but also profitable…to let people do what they want.” The second is the common interest: that “human society…can be an association for the welfare of all.”
Today’s liberal meritocracy sits uncomfortably with that inclusive definition of freedom. The ruling class live in a bubble. They go to the same colleges, marry each other, live in the same streets and work in the same offices. Remote from power, most people are expected to be content with growing material prosperity instead. Yet, amid stagnating productivity and the fiscal austerity that followed the financial crisis of 2008, even this promise has often been broken.
Instead people are retreating into group identities defined by race, religion or sexuality. As a result, that second principle, the common interest, has fragmented. Identity politics is a valid response to discrimination but, as identities multiply, the politics of each group collides with the politics of all the rest. Instead of generating useful compromises, debate becomes an exercise in tribal outrage. Leaders on the right, in particular, exploit the insecurity engendered by immigration as a way of whipping up support. And they use smug left-wing arguments about political correctness to feed their voters’ sense of being looked down on. The result is polarisation. Sometimes that leads to paralysis, sometimes to the tyranny of the majority. At worst it emboldens far-right authoritarians.
It is the moment for a liberal reinvention. Liberals need to spend less time dismissing their critics as fools and bigots and more fixing what is wrong. The true spirit of liberalism is not self-preserving, but radical and disruptive. The Economist was founded to campaign for the repeal of the Corn Laws, which charged duties on imports of grain into Victorian Britain. Today that sounds comically small-bore. But in the 1840s, 60% of the income of factory workers went on food, a third of that on bread. We were created to take the part of the poor against the corn-cultivating gentry. Today, in that same vision, liberals need to side with a struggling precariat against the patricians.
Corn Lawsはロングマンも見出しに立ててくれています。
（ウィズダム）
Corn Laws
｟英｠;〖the ～〗〘史〙穀物法〘輸入穀物に重税を課した; 1846年廃止〙.
（ロングマン）
Corn ˌLaws, the
laws in Britain in the 19th century controlling the price of foreign corn, and making it more expensive than corn produced in Britain. This protected British farmers from competition, but hurt the ordinary people, and after much protest, the laws were changed in 1846.
Three million Sunnis are taking refuge in and around the city of Idlib in the north of Syria. Syria, Russia, and Iran are tempted to attack the city, but the pressure from the west is growing to not make a move.
The occupying forces are now gathering around the north-western province of Idlib, where there has been a series of rebel groups and extremist combatants, many of whom are considered “terrorists” by the world’s powers.
(CNN)Our people suffered mass atrocities in different places and times, but we are united in our shared humanity -- and our desire for action to stop ongoing atrocities in Syria. Ms. Kor is a survivor of the Auschwitz death camp during the Holocaust, in which German dictator Adolf Hitler launched a systematic campaign to annihilate the Jewish people. Mr. Ghanem lived almost all his life in the Syrian capital Damascus, where some of the worst atrocities in the world today are ongoing.
The Ghouta suburbs of Damascus have been particularly devastated recently by the ongoing crisis in Syria. It may not compare in death toll to the vastness of the slaughter that took place in the Holocaust, but there are a number of hallmarks that bear striking resemblance.
Like Hitler, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad uses poison gas against civilians, most famously in the 2013 Sarin massacre in Ghouta and most recently, it's suspected, in a strike in the same area. Like Hitler, Assad uses starvation as a weapon against civilians, having placed over 400,000 people in Ghouta under siege. Assad also uses Blitzkrieg-style scorched earth tactics, along with his brutal partner, Russian President Vladimir Putin, to target hospitals, bakeries and schools.
こちらのアトランティックの記事は少し冷静に距離をとって分析しています。ホロコーストの類似性を見出す態度には“Never be a passive victim; never forsake your brothers; never be a passive bystander; and never be a perpetrator.”と4つに分けられるという研究を紹介しています。
Why religious leaders say yes and political leaders say no
SIGAL SAMUEL APR 8, 2017
In a 2013 psychology study, a research team argued that Israelis’ Holocaust narrative has dramatically transformed over time: Whereas it defined “what Israeliness is not” in the decade after World War II, today it represents a core part of Israeli identity. The researchers further argued that among Israelis, the Holocaust narrative yields different psychological responses, which can be classed into four categories: “Never be a passive victim; never forsake your brothers; never be a passive bystander; and never be a perpetrator.”
These different psychological responses play out again and again in Israeli society, as different elements within it react to world events. In the aftermath of the Idlib attack and the U.S. strike in Syria, the country’s religious leaders are loudly giving voice to the “never be a passive bystander” response, while the political top brass is mostly privileging the “never be a passive victim” response.
In the 1990s, atrocities in the Balkans and Rwanda raised choruses, after the fact, of ‘never again.’ The again is now, in Ghouta, Syria, and nobody’s doing anything to stop it.
Roy Gutman 03.02.18 5:26 AM ET
Where it will end is now in the hands of the major powers, starting with the United States. But if history is any guide, their silence and inaction will be viewed as a green light by Russia and Syria to continue their attacks on Eastern Ghouta indefinitely.
And when the smoke finally clears amid the rubble and the bodies, we will hear, no doubt, the phrase “never again.”
CORNISH: How do you see it playing out in U.S. politics today? And is it playing out for the worse?
今日のアメリカ政治でどんな役割を果たしているとみていますか。悪化する方向になっていますか。
FUKUYAMA: I think that the real problem in American politics is we've shifted from arguing about economic policies to arguing about identities, where you have a number of identities rooted, unfortunately, in biology on both the left and the right, where you really can't compromise or negotiate, you know...
FUKUYAMA: That's right. I mean, if it's based on the way I was born, I can't change that. And so you're stuck with that identity. And I think that that's really toxic for democratic politics because it makes communication, discussion, compromise much more difficult. And it also erodes the necessary commonly held beliefs that are necessary to maintain a democracy.
FUKUYAMA: I think it's perhaps not surprising, although I must say that it's very dispiriting. There's been racism and xenophobia for a long time. I think what's unique about this moment is that a lot of people on the "alt-right," white nationalists that borrow the framing of left-wing identity politics to say we white people are an oppressed minority. That's something I think is quite new in our politics.
FUKUYAMA: I think that this is something behind the Trump vote; that a lot of the working-class people that had lost jobs, that were not living in coastal cities, not connected to the global economy except, you know, as they were victimized by it - simply felt ignored by the elites that were doing very well. And I think it reflected the fundamental economic inequalities that have appeared over the last 30 years as a result of advances in technology and globalization. And so the real claim, I think, was being invisible to people that were part of the elite.
CORNISH: At the end of the day, is there any way off this kind of path? Like, if it's tied to who we are and how we feel about ourselves, each and every person and voter, it's very hard to kind of lower those stakes.
FUKUYAMA: I think it's actually quite possible because we're actually not born with identities. Our identities aren't necessarily biological. We construct identities all the time. And I think one of the tasks is to reconstruct an American national identity that is open to everybody, bound together on the basis of political principles - like the Constitution, like the rule of law, like the principle of equality in the Declaration of Independence. That's the kind of constructed identity that we need as an antidote to the kinds of polarizing identities that our politics has fallen prey to.
Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America.
The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too: We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
The former president didn’t have much success helping other Democrats get elected in 2010 or ’14.
By Jason L. Riley
2018 年 9 月 12 日 13:52 JST
Despite this track record, Democrats are turning to Mr. Obama because he remains the biggest star in the party. They’re also turning to him because they believe his brand of identity politics is the best way to beat Mr. Trump. Earlier this summer, Mr. Obama implored his fellow Democrats to “engage with people not only who look different but who hold different views.” Apparently, he had second thoughts.
Japanese player won her first grand slam title on Saturday
Final was overshadowed by allegations of sexism
Guardian sport
Mon 10 Sep 2018 15.48 BST
“I felt a little bit sad because I wasn’t really sure if [the crowd] were booing at me or if it wasn’t the outcome that they wanted,” said Osaka on Monday in an interview with NBC’s Today. “I also could sympathise because I’ve been a fan of Serena my whole life. And I knew how badly the crowd wanted her to win, I don’t know, I was just really emotional up there.”
The 20-year-old apologised after the match, and on Monday said she felt like the crowd had not got the ending they wanted. “I felt like everyone was sort of unhappy up there and I know that it wasn’t really … the ending wasn’t what people wanted it to be,” she said. “In my dreams, I won in a very competitive match so I don’t know, I just felt very emotional and I felt like I had to apologise.”
Naomi Osaka is one of the few women in pro tennis with a forehand shot clocked at more than 100 miles per hour. The shot has been an integral part of her game — a game that has landed the 20-year-old Osaka in her first Grand Slam final, against the also-powerful Serena Williams. Mark Kovacs, a sports scientist and coach at Kovacs Institute outside Atlanta, helps explain what is happening in the blur of Osaka’s forehand, and how she generates so much power.
I would, first, urge future generations of Europeans to remember my generation as we really were, not as they may wish us to have（まずヨーロッパの未来の世代にお願いしたいのは、私たちの世代をそうであって欲しいというあり方ではなく、あるがままに知ってほしいということだ）
*******
Confronting lies sometimes means confronting difficult truths about one’s self and one’s own country. It is much easier to forgive yourself and condemn another, than the other way round（嘘と向き合うには自分自身と祖国について厄介な真実と向き合わないといけないときがある。自分を許し誰かを非難する方がその逆よりもずっと簡単だ）
Given what I’ve learned over my lifetime I would, first, urge future generations of Europeans to remember my generation as we really were, not as they may wish us to have been. We had all the same vices and weaknesses as today’s young people do: most of us were neither heroes nor monsters.
Second, just as there is no such thing as a “heroic generation”, there is no such thing as a “heroic nation” – or indeed an inherently malign or evil nation either. （中略）
The truth is that, as a Pole and as a Jew, as a soldier and as a refugee, I experienced a wide spectrum of behaviour at the hands of Poles – from those who sheltered me at risk to their own lives, to those who sought to take advantage of my vulnerability, and all possible shades of concern and indifference in between.
Third, do not underestimate the destructive power of lies. When the war broke out in 1939, my family fled east and settled for a couple of years in Soviet-occupied Lwów (now Lviv in western Ukraine). The city was full of refugees, and rumours were swirling about mass deportations to gulags in Siberia and Kazakhstan. To calm the situation, a Soviet official gave a speech declaring that the rumours were false – nowadays they would be called “fake news” – and that anyone spreading them would be arrested. Two days later, the deportations to the gulags began, with thousands sent to their deaths.
Confronting lies sometimes means confronting difficult truths about one’s self and one’s own country. It is much easier to forgive yourself and condemn another, than the other way round; but this is something that everyone must do. I have made my peace with modern Germany, and hope that all Europeans can do the same.
Finally, do not ever imagine that your world cannot collapse, as ours did. This may seem the most obvious lesson to be passed down, but only because it is the most important. One moment I was enjoying an idyllic adolescence in my home city of Lodz, and the next we were on the run. I would only return to my empty home five years later, no longer a carefree boy but a Holocaust survivor and Home Army veteran living in fear of Stalin’s secret police, the NKVD. I ended up moving to what was then the British mandate of Palestine, fighting in a war of independence for a Jewish homeland I didn’t even know I had.
Many Poles remember Soviet soldiers saving them from Nazi occupation. But a growing number are rejecting that narrative, and the monuments that come with it.
By Matthew Luxmoore
Fri 13 Jul 2018 06.00 BST
ただ、にわかの僕でもMany Poles remember Soviet soldiers saving them from Nazi occupation.（多くのポーランド人はソビエト兵がナチスの占領からポーランド人を救ったことを記憶している）はおやっと思いました。先ほどのAronsonさんもポーランドの国内軍に入っていたため社会主義政権下では危険分子扱いされたでしょうから、ポーランド人にとってはソ連は占領軍だと思うのです。Matthew Luxmoore氏はMoscow-based journalist who writes about Russia and eastern Europeとあるのでソ連＝ロシア寄りで見ているようです。ですから、ポーランド人読者から反論がきていました。
The German occupation of the Channel Islands lasted for most of the Second World War, from 30 June 1940 until their liberation on 9 May 1945. The Bailiwick of Jersey and Bailiwick of Guernsey are two British Crown dependencies in the English Channel, near the coast of Normandy. The Channel Islands were the only part of the British Isles to be occupied by the Wehrmacht (German Armed Forces) during the war.
Anticipating a swift victory over Britain, the occupiers experimented by using a very gentle approach that set the theme for the next five years. The island authorities adopted a similar attitude, giving rise to accusations of collaboration. However, as time progressed the situation grew gradually worse, ending in near starvation for both occupied and occupiers during the winter of 1944–45.
an island in the English Channel near northwest France. Guernsey is one of the Channel Islands. It is popular for holidays and known as a place where people pay very little tax.
（オックスフォード）
Guernsey the second largest of the Channel Islands. It is famous for its milk products, as a tourist centre, and as a place where the people pay very little tax. Its capital is St Peter Port.
*********
the Channel Islands
a group of islands near the north-western coast of France that belong to Britain but have their own parliaments and laws
Culture
The Channel Islands have belonged to Britain since the Normans arrived in the 11th century, although they are not officially part of the United Kingdom. Each island has its own parliament and laws. The main islands are Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark. They are popular with British tourists because of their pleasant climate. They are also popular with people who want to invest money or avoid British taxes, since their taxes are lower than in Britain.
