LISTENING REVIEW (7/16) JAN, 2007
THE WEB INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON
STORY7: NUCLEAR SECRETS
The US government has (1. 공식 웹사이트 중의 하나를 폐쇄하다: _____ _____ one of its ________s) that displayed tens of thousands of official documents captured in Iraq. Scientists reviewing the documents said some of them (2. 개괄적 설명이 들어있다: ________ed an _______) for (3. 핵무기 제조법: how to _______ a ________ _____). Here's ABC’s national security correspondent, Jonathan Karl.
One weapons expert calls the documents a nuclear cookbook. Instructions on how to turn nuclear material into a bomb. Former weapons inspector, David Albright, told ABC News he downloaded the documents with ease.
What we're looking at here is (4. 단면도: the ______ ________) of a nuclear device or (5. 핵폭탄의 핵심 부품: the _____ of a _______ _______)?
Yes. This is a cross section of a core of a nuclear device. It's the critical material. (6. 고농축 우라늄: The ______ ______ed _______). So, yeah, this is the, in a sense, the (7. 핵심 부분: _____s) of the nuclear weapon.
All of this and more had (8. 일반에 이용되다: been _______ly ________) on this government website for weeks, alarming (9. 국제원자력기구: the I_________ A______ E______ A_______), which says it (10. 우려를 유발하다: ______d ________s) to a US ambassador last week. The Bush administration denies that. The website was finally shut down yesterday, only after the "New York Times" asked questions about it. Experts worry the material may be especially useful to nuclear scientists in
I think they'd be fascinated. They'd be deeply disappointed that the government pulled this website down.
(11. 이 민감한 자료: The _________ _________) was among tens of thousands of official Iraqi documents seized by the US after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Congress asked the administration to make the Iraqi documents public. But, Charlie, sensitive ones like these were supposed to be remained secret.
All right, Jonathan Karl. There's one other question and one other story I wanna ask you about. Because we learned today that the government's own (12. 감사단장: _________-________), who has exposed a lot of waste in (13. 재건 사업들: ___________ _______s) in Iraq, (14. 해고 조치되다: ____ the _____ _____). How come?
Yeah, this is something else. Congress (15. 끼워넣다: ______) this in (16. 거의 주목을 받지 않는 입법 항목: a little ______d _________) in a much larger bill. It says that the inspector-general, Stuart Bowen, who by the way is a Republican, will (17. 임무가 종료되도록 하다: _____ his _________ ________) by October of next year.
Now, Bowen is somebody who has exposed all that waste and corruption. And he has done it in a way that has (18. 많은 혼란과 분노를 유발하다: ________d a lot of ________s), Charlie. Because he has not only criticized the (19. 방위산업체들: ________s), he's also criticized the State Department and (20. 육군공병대: the _____ ______ of __________s), the Pentagon for failing to really oversee those projects adequately.
All right. Jonathan Karl, thanks very much.
LISTENING REVIEW (8/16) JAN, 2007
JOBS REPORT INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON
STORY8: GOVERNMENT RELEASED LAST MAJOR ECONOMIC REPORT
The government, today, released the last, major, economic report before Tuesday's elections. George Stephanopoulos mentioned it earlier.
It shows (1. 5년 내 최저인 실업률: ___________ (전) a ____-_____ ____). The jobless rate last month dropped to 4.4%. And businesses added 92,000 new jobs.
STORY8-1: ENLISTMENT LIES?
Tonight, we have (2. 신분 위장 취재: an _________ __________) of how some (3. 모병관들: ________ _________s) are misleading potential recruits. The army (4. 작년의 모병 목표를 가까스로 달성하다: _______ _____ last year's ________ing _____). It was achieved by (5. 제한 연령을 높이다: _____ing ____ _____s), (6. 자격 요건을 완화하다: ______ing __________s) and (7. 인센티브를 크게 높이다: ________ing ________s). The army says such changes were necessary after missing its 2005 recruiting goal. Jim Hoffer of our New York City affiliate, WABC TV, found out, in an undercover investigation, that many recruiters are also (8. 진실을 과장하다: ________ing the ______).
We're not at war. War ended a long time ago.
About half the recruiters our undercover students talked to compared risk here at home to being in
I like Subway sandwiches and Subway salads. And I watched the news yesterday. A guy got killed at Subway.
Some army recruiters told our students if they enlisted, there was little chance they'd (9. 전쟁에 파병되다: ___ (전) ____).
Aren't people still being shipped out?
No, they're bringing people back.
As long as you don't pick a job that falls right here, then you won't have to worry about, you know, going over there.
We also found some recruiters suggesting ways to (10. 약물 검사를 불법으로 통과하다: ____ (전) _____ _____s).
If you're hot, meaning that, you know, it's still in your system, we'll just give you more time. You'll keep on cleaning it out. We would never - we work with you.
Colonel Robert Manning is (11. 육군 모병을 관장하다: (전) _______ of ____ _______ing) for the entire Northeast.
The news never said war.
I find it hard to believe some of the things that they are telling (12. 지원 가능성이 있는 사람들: _________ ________s). I still believe that this is the exception more than the norm.
What are you saying, then? That we just got wildly lucky to find recruiters, more than half of the ten that we visited to be stretching the truth or, even worse, lying?
I've visited many stations myself. And I know that we have many wonderful Americans serving in uniform as recruiters.
Sue Neiderer says she's all too familiar with recruiters' lies. Her son, Seth, joined the army in 2002.
He was told he wouldn't see combat?
Absolutely. Absolutely.
Seth was killed by (13. 도로 매설 폭탄: a __________ ______) in Iraq.
90% are going to be putting their lives on the line for our country. Tell them the truth. That's all. Just tell them the truth.
Jim Hoffer for ABC News in
INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON
George Bush in
Useful diplomacy, but little else, at the summit in Hanoi
On his first foreign tour after losing both houses of Congress to the Democrats, Mr Bush wanted to reassure[5] his peers (and perhaps himself) that he was still in the game, fighting for freer trade and a safer world. One particular goal was to persuade other Asia-Pacific leaders to take a resolute[6] line over
However,
Getting
Mr Bush’s meeting with Mr Putin was all the warmer given that, shortly beforehand, their ministers had signed a pact in which
The
Since a global trade deal remains elusive[11], Mr Bush had proposed that Asia-Pacific countries speed up their plans to achieve a giant free-trade zone among themselves. Alas, other leaders insisting on putting off such a big decision until at least next year’s summit. Instead they issued a long, waffly statement, the “Hanoi Action Plan to Implement the Busan Roadmap Towards the Bogor Goals”, making vague and non-binding[12] promises to work towards such a free-trade zone by 2020.
Still, APEC’s leaders mostly went home satisfied.
[1] A distraction is something that turns your attention away from something you want to concentrate on.
[2] If there is a one-to-one match between two sets of things, each member of one set matches a member of the other set.
[3] Someone's or something's counterpart is another person or thing that has a similar function or position in a different place.
[4] If you say that someone's claims or promises are just hot air, you are criticizing them because they are made mainly to impress people and have no real value or meaning.
[5] If you reassure someone, you say or do things to make them stop worrying about something.
[6] If you describe someone as resolute, you approve of them because they are very determined not to change their mind or not to give up a course of action. (FORMAL)
[7] You use moderate to describe something that is neither large nor small in amount or degree.
[8] You use hitherto to indicate that something was true up until the time you are talking about, although it may no longer be the case. (FORMAL)
[9] If you abstain during a vote, you do not use your vote.
[10] If a situation is gloomy, it does not give you much hope of success or happiness.
[11] Something or someone that is elusive is difficult to find, describe, remember, or achieve.
[12] A binding promise, agreement, or decision must be obeyed or carried out.
[13] If you describe a person as jovial, you mean that they are happy and behave in a cheerful way. (WRITTEN)
[14] Cordial means friendly. (FORMAL)
[15] Someone who is amiable is friendly and pleasant to be with. (WRITTEN)
[16] You can use trenchant to describe something such as a criticism or comment that is very clear, effective, and forceful. (FORMAL)
SIGHT TRANSLATION (REVIEW) (3/8) JAN, 2007
INSTRUCTOR KIM SOO-YEON
3. Trust is the key
(Alexander Pechtold Minister for Government Reform of the Netherlands and Chair of the 2005 OECD Ministerial Meeting on Strengthening Trust in Government November 2005)
Even a few short decades ago, power and politics seemed to be played out only at election time, when politicians would consult the people, then return to government or opposition to take care of the affairs of the state. The next election was barely on their minds. Citizens, whether through trust or ignorance, generally would ask no more of them than that.
Those times are over. People are more educated and demanding of those they elect (and pay) to govern them. Governments in turn have responded by modernising themselves and becoming more prepared. In recent decades, they have adapted not only their policies to new demands and expectations, but have also changed their ways of working. They have become more open and transparent, reformed their regulatory systems and transformed their public services to become more client-oriented.
Nevertheless, despite these recent developments, it is far from certain that the relationship between citizens and government has improved. In fact, as polls, elections and referenda show, people’s confidence in government seems to have weakened and their sense of dissatisfaction grown. This disenchantment spills beyond the ballot box, as is shown by demonstrations, occasionally even ending in disorder.
All democratic governments depend on public support. That means garnering trust, which people will invest as long as they are convinced that government will act in their interest and that of society as a whole. Without trust, there can be no democratic, legitimate and effective government. Trust is not a luxury. It is a cornerstone of all healthy democracies.
Ordinary people not only have a right to good government, but more than ever they also need leadership to help them cope with the major challenges of today. People feel exposed on several fronts: cost of living, unemployment, pensions, health care, threats to safety and security, globalisation and internationalisation. At the same time, government needs public trust to be able to play its roles properly, and to serve the interests of society in general. Strengthening trust of citizens has quite simply become a matter of survival for open, democratic government.
What must be done? This is the question facing OECD ministers meeting in
To steer the debate, allow me to offer a few pointers. For a start, the weakening of trust in government does not seem to be caused by mere indifference to the “public good”. On the contrary, surveys in my country show that people crave for more involvement in public matters, not less. Sure enough, voters’ turnout at elections has declined, but it seems that people no longer consider elections as the only effective means of expressing their opinions, demands, feelings and interests.
But if free elections, however key to democracy, are no longer a sufficient means for knowing what people think and want, then what is? How can government act in accordance with the needs and demands of their citizens? Should it adapt its structures and procedures, for example, by making more use of direct forms of decisionmaking, such as referenda on important issues? Should there be more “collaborative and deliberative decisionmaking” between interested citizens and professional government officials?
The role of the media also demands our attention. Television and newspapers have long been fundamental for freedom of expression and debate in our democracies, and that role may have intensified with the emergence of the Internet, and blogs in particular. Should the media be further harnessed as an “interface” in articulating the feelings and opinions of citizens and society and in shaping the agenda of government? Personally, I am not convinced, but the question demands close reflection nonetheless.
Perhaps the causes of the weakening of trust are cultural rather than procedural, or else a public reaction to behaviour and attitudes in government. Are governments still too remote and out of touch with their citizens, or on the contrary, are we seen as being too interfering?
Performance may also offer an explanation. Public management theories argue that public trust relies on the quality of government performance. By emulating private sector principles, such as effectiveness and efficiency, government can satisfy citizen interests and demands. Certainly, there is a lot to gain in further improving service delivery, but according to this idea, if people trusted their governments more in the past, then government performance must also have been better then than it is today. Frankly, I doubt if this is the case.
Trust cannot be bought, it must be earned. People will accept occasional lapses in performance as long as they feel the government and its representatives are on their side. Perhaps thanks to higher levels of wealth and education, citizens have become more demanding. Two contradictory trends are at work: on the one hand, people increasingly want to be left alone, decide about their lives and their community themselves, with less government involvement; on the other, people demand a lot from government, particularly when things go wrong. Perhaps citizens expect too much! Politicians may be to blame for this, by raising expectations about their capacity to solve every problem. All too soon, realism sets in, followed by disillusion, then frustration and even despair. Governments cannot make people happy, but perhaps we can do more to help people build trust in themselves.
I invite you to tackle these issues with open, self-critical, minds. We can and must learn from each other by exchanging experiences and views. It is my goal for this conference to come up with some original concrete proposals to help us governments win back and strengthen public trust in the society of the 21st century. The OECD, which is already examining the issues, should step up this crucial area of its work. For as we all know, trust is really at the heart of sustainable economic and social development in free democracies.