Google で調べる

検索ワード: there could be a bomb under your seat (英語 - ヒンズー語)

人による翻訳

プロの翻訳者、企業、ウェブページから自由に利用できる翻訳レポジトリまで。

翻訳の追加

英語

ヒンズー語

情報

英語

there could be a bomb under your seat

ヒンズー語

आपकी सीट के नीचे एक बम हो सकता है

最終更新: 2018-07-31
使用頻度: 2
品質:

参照: 匿名

英語

i wish You could be a Mine

ヒンズー語

काश मैं एक खान हो सकता है

最終更新: 2020-01-29
使用頻度: 1
品質:

参照: 匿名

英語

i wish i could be a better me for you

ヒンズー語

मैं चाहता हूं कि मैं आपके लिए बेहतर हो जाऊं

最終更新: 2018-06-07
使用頻度: 1
品質:

参照: 匿名

英語

When I saw the former D.M. Kamini Chauhan Ratan, I felt that there could be no woman more beautiful than her, but the new D.M. (Dhanlaxmi) is even more beautiful than her.

ヒンズー語

जब मैंने जिले की पूर्व डीएम कामिनी चौहान रतन को देखा, तो लगा कि उनसे खूबसूरत महिला हो ही नहीं सकती है, लेकिन यह नई डीएम (धनलक्ष्मी) तो उनसे भी खूबसूरत हैं।

最終更新: 2014-10-20
使用頻度: 2
品質:

参照: 匿名

英語

can be considered. Banks need to take advantage of this fast changing environment, where product life cycles are short, time to market is critical and first mover advantage could be a decisive factor in deciding who wins in future. Post-M&A, the resulting larger size should not affect agility. The aim should be to create a nimble giant, rather than a clumsy dinosaur. At the same time, lack of size should not be taken to imply irrelevance as specialized players can still seek to provide niche and boutique services.

ヒンズー語

बैंकिंग क्षेत्र के रुझानों और इस अध्ययन में उजागर मामलों से अंतर्दृष्टि के आधार पर, एक भविष्य के लिए कुछ चरणों को सूचीबद्ध कर सकता है जो बैंकों को विचार करना चाहिए, दोनों समेकन और सामान्य व्यापार के संदर्भ में। सबसे पहले, बैंक एक तालमेल आधारित विलय योजना की दिशा में काम कर सकते हैं जो एक लक्ष्य के रूप में प्रौद्योगिकी से संबंधित व्यय को कम करने के साथ 2009 के अंत तक नवीनतम आकार ले सकता है। यह भी ध्यान देने की जरूरत है कि विलय या बड़े आकार में सिर्फ एक सुविधा है, लेकिन सुधार की कोई गारंटी नहीं है

最終更新: 2019-06-02
使用頻度: 1
品質:

参照: 匿名
警告:見えない HTML フォーマットが含まれています

英語

It is true that we are experiencing a shortage of qualified human resources across the industry. There could be several reasons for these. First, as I mentioned earlier banking is not the biggest, or only, employer of choice for millennials--they are more open to working in other sectors, which align more closely with their personal interests. Second, there has been a massive expansion drive in the financial sector over these last few years, which has resulted in an acute shortage of qualified human resources, especially in the mid-management level. The pool of available resources is being stretched very thin, which is creating a risk within the banking job ecosystem as people without adequate experience are moving into jobs that have more responsibility and accountability. And last, we are also experiencing people migrating out of Nepal, which is creating a vacuum--it is a big loss for an institution and the industry when someone who has been trained to take up higher roles suddenly leaves the country for good. This is a big financial loss for society as significant money is invested in that person's education and professional training, which is being put to productive use by some other country.

ヒンズー語

tanlesion

最終更新: 2019-04-30
使用頻度: 1
品質:

参照: 匿名

英語

D-St focus shifts to earnings. Top 10 stocks that can return up to 55% in 1 year Analysts feel India, which imports more than 80 percent of its oil requirements, can manage to absorb up to $80 per barrel but beyond that it could be a major risk.. Market Live: Nifty tests 10,700, Sensex dips 100 pts amid higher oil prices; rupee trims gains See support for Bank Nifty around 26,100 levels, 10,700 for Nifty Macros turning shaky due to rise in oil prices; bullish on consumer durables: Dipen Sheth

ヒンズー語

डी-सेंट फोकस कमाई में बदल जाता है। शीर्ष 10 शेयर जो 1 साल में 55% तक लौट सकते हैं विश्लेषकों का मानना ​​है कि भारत अपनी 80% से अधिक तेल आवश्यकताओं को आयात करता है, 80 डॉलर प्रति बैरल तक अवशोषित कर सकता है लेकिन उससे परे यह एक बड़ा जोखिम हो सकता है .. मार्केट लाइव : निफ्टी 10,700 का परीक्षण करता है, उच्च तेल की कीमतों के बीच सेंसेक्स 100 अंक गिरता है; रुपए ट्रिम्स लाभ बैंक निफ्टी के लिए 26,100 के स्तर के लिए समर्थन देखें, तेल की कीमतों में वृद्धि के चलते निफ्टी मैक्रोज़ के लिए 10,700 रुपये कमजोर हो रहा है; उपभोक्ता टिकाऊ वस्तुओं पर उत्साहित: दीपेन शेथ

最終更新: 2018-05-17
使用頻度: 1
品質:

参照: 匿名

英語

Fukuyama Francis Fukuyama From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama image from BloggingHeads.tv podcast Fukuyama in 2005 Born October 27, 1952 (age 63) Chicago, Illinois, U.S Website fukuyama.stanford.edu Institutions George Mason University[1] Johns Hopkins University Stanford University Main interests Developing nations Governance International political economy Nation-building and democratization Strategic and security issues Notable ideas End of history Influences [show] Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama (born October 27, 1952) is an American political scientist, political economist, and author. Fukuyama is known for his book The End of History and the Last Man (1992), which argued that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free market capitalism of the West and its lifestyle may signal the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and become the final form of human government. However, his subsequent book Trust: Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity (1995) modified his earlier position to acknowledge that culture cannot be cleanly separated from economics. Fukuyama is also associated with the rise of the neoconservative movement,[2] from which he has since distanced himself.[3] Fukuyama has been a Senior Fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University since July 2010.[4] Before that, he served as a professor and director of the International Development program at the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University. Previously, he was Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University.[4] He is a council member of the International Forum for Democratic Studies founded by the National Endowment for Democracy and was a member of the Political Science Department of the RAND Corporation.[5] Contents 1 Early life 2 Education 3 Writings 3.1 Neoconservatism 3.2 Fukuyama's current views 4 Affiliations 5 Personal life 6 See also 7 Selected bibliography 7.1 Scholarly works (partial list) 7.2 Books 7.3 Essays 8 See also 9 References 10 External links Early life Francis Fukuyama was born in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. His paternal grandfather fled the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and started a shop on the west coast before being interned in the Second World War.[6] His father, Yoshio Fukuyama, a second-generation Japanese American, was trained as a minister in the Congregational Church, received a doctorate in sociology from the University of Chicago, and taught religious studies.[7][8][9] His mother, Toshiko Kawata Fukuyama, was born in Kyoto, Japan, and was the daughter of Shiro Kawata, founder of the Economics Department of Kyoto University and first president of Osaka City University.[10] Francis grew up in Manhattan as an only child, had little contact with Japanese culture, and did not learn Japanese.[7][8] His family moved to State College, Pennsylvania in 1967.[10] Education Fukuyama received his Bachelor of Arts degree in classics from Cornell University, where he studied political philosophy under Allan Bloom.[8][11] He initially pursued graduate studies in comparative literature at Yale University, going to Paris for six months to study under Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida, but became disillusioned and switched to political science at Harvard University.[8] There, he studied with Samuel P. Huntington and Harvey Mansfield, among others. He earned his Ph.D. in political science at Harvard for his thesis on Soviet threats to intervene in the Middle East.[8][11] In 1979, he joined the global policy think tank RAND Corporation.[8] Fukuyama lived at the Telluride House and has been affiliated with the Telluride Association since his undergraduate years at Cornell, an education enterprise that was home to other significant leaders and intellectuals, including Steven Weinberg, Paul Wolfowitz and Kathleen Sullivan. Fukuyama was the Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University from 1996 to 2000. Until July 10, 2010, he was the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy and Director of the International Development Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C. He is now Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow and resident in the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University.[11] Writings Fukuyama is best known as the author of The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies is largely at an end, with the world settling on liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Fukuyama predicted the eventual global triumph of political and economic liberalism: What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such.... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. Authors like Ralf Dahrendorf argued in 1990 that the essay gave Fukuyama his 15 minutes of fame, which will be followed by a slide into obscurity.[12][13] He continued to remain a relevant and cited public intellectual leading American communitarian Amitai Etzioni to declare him "one of the few enduring public intellectuals. They are often media stars who are eaten up and spat out after their 15 minutes. But he has lasted."[14] One of the main reasons for the massive criticism against The End of History was the aggressive stance that it took towards postmodernism. Postmodern philosophy had, in Fukuyama's opinion, undermined the ideology behind liberal democracy, leaving the western world in a potentially weaker position.[15] The fact that Marxism and fascism had been proven untenable for practical use while liberal democracy still thrived was reason enough to embrace the hopeful attitude of the Progressive era, as this hope for the future was what made a society worth struggling to maintain. Postmodernism, which, by this time, had become embedded in the cultural consciousness, offered no hope and nothing to sustain a necessary sense of community, instead relying only on lofty intellectual premises.[16] Being a work that both praised the ideals of a group that had fallen out of favor and challenged the premises of the group that had replaced them, it was bound to create some controversy. Fukuyama has written a number of other books, among them Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity and Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. In the latter, he qualified his original "end of history" thesis, arguing that since biotechnology increasingly allows humans to control their own evolution, it may allow humans to alter human nature, thereby putting liberal democracy at risk.[17] One possible outcome could be that an altered human nature could end in radical inequality. He is a fierce enemy of transhumanism, an intellectual movement asserting that posthumanity is a desirable goal. In another work, The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, Fukuyama explores the origins of social norms, and analyses the current disruptions in the fabric of our moral traditions, which he considers as arising from a shift from the manufacturing to the information age. This shift is, he thinks, normal and will prove self-correcting, given the intrinsic human need for social norms and rules. In 2006, in America at the Crossroads, Fukuyama discusses the history of neoconservatism, with particular focus on its major tenets and political implications. He outlines his rationale for supporting the Bush administration, as well as where he believes it has gone wrong. In 2008, Fukuyama published the book Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap Between Latin America and the United States, which resulted from research and a conference funded by Grupo Mayan to gain understanding on why Latin America, once far wealthier than North America, fell behind in terms of development in only a matter of centuries. Discussing this book at a 2009 conference, Fukuyama outlined his belief that inequality within Latin American nations is a key impediment to growth. An unequal distribution of wealth, he stated, leads to social upheaval, which then results in stunted growth.[18] Neoconservatism As a key Reagan Administration contributor to the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine, Fukuyama is an important figure in the rise of neoconservatism, although his works came out years after Irving Kristol's 1972 book crystallized neoconservatism.[19] Fukuyama was active in the Project for the New American Century think tank starting in 1997, and as a member co-signed the organization's 1998 letter recommending that President Bill Clinton support Iraqi insurgencies in the overthrow of then-President of Iraq Saddam Hussein.[20] He was also among forty co-signers of William Kristol's September 20, 2001 letter to President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks that suggested the U.S. not only "capture or kill Osama bin Laden", but also embark upon "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq".[21] In a New York Times article from February 2006, Fukuyama, in considering the ongoing Iraq War, stated: "What American foreign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a 'realistic Wilsonianism' that better matches means to ends."[22] In regard to neoconservatism he went on to say: "What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world – ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about."[22] Fukuyama's current views Fukuyama began to distance himself from the neoconservative agenda of the Bush administration, citing its excessive militarism and embrace of unilateral armed intervention, particularly in the Middle East. By late 2003, Fukuyama had voiced his growing opposition to the Iraq War[23] and called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as Secretary of Defense.[24] At an annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute in February 2004, Dick Cheney and Charles Krauthammer declared the beginning of a unipolar era under American hegemony. "All of these people around me were cheering wildly,"[25] Fukuyama remembers. He believes that the Iraq War was being blundered. "All of my friends had taken leave of reality."[25] He has not spoken to Paul Wolfowitz (previously a good friend) since.[25] Fukuyama declared he would not be voting for Bush,[26] and that the Bush administration had made three major mistakes:[citation needed] Overstating the threat of radical Islam to the US Failing to foresee the fierce negative reaction to its "benevolent hegemony". From the very beginning showing a negative attitude toward the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations and not seeing that it would increase anti-Americanism in other countries Misjudging what was needed to bring peace in Iraq and being overly optimistic about the success with which social engineering of western values could be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general. Fukuyama believes the US has a right to promote its own values in the world, but more along the lines of what he calls "realistic Wilsonianism", with military intervention only as a last resort and only in addition to other measures. A latent military force is more likely to have an effect than actual deployment. The US spends 43% of global military spending,[27] but Iraq shows there are limits to its effectiveness. The US should instead stimulate political and economic development and gain a better understanding of what happens in other countries. The best instruments are setting a good example and providing education and, in many cases, money. The secret of development, be it political or economic, is that it never comes from outsiders, but always from people in the country itself. One thing the US proved to have excelled in during the aftermath of World War II was the formation of international institutions. A return to support for these structures would combine American power with international legitimacy. But such measures require a lot of patience. This is the central thesis of his 2006 work America at the Crossroads. In a 2006 essay in The New York Times Magazine strongly critical of the invasion, he identified neoconservatism with Leninism. He wrote that neoconservatives:[28] believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support. Fukuyama announced the end of the neoconservative moment and argued for the demilitarization of the War on Terrorism:[28] [W]ar is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" [quoting John F. Kennedy's inaugural address] whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world. Fukuyama endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 US presidential election. He states:[29] I'm voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don't work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would be a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale. Affiliations Between 2006 and 2008, Fukuyama advised Muammar Gaddafi as part of the Monitor Group, a consultancy firm based in Cambridge, MA.[30] In August 2005, Fukuyama co-founded The American Interest, a quarterly magazine devoted to the broad theme of "America in the World". He is currently chairman of the editorial board.[11] Fukuyama was a member of the RAND Corporation's Political Science Department from 1979 to 1980, 1983 to 1989, and 1995 to 1996. He is now a member of the Board of Trustees.[11] Fukuyama was a member of the President's Council on Bioethics from 2001 to 2004.[11] Fukuyama is a Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS). Fukuyama is on the steering committee for the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust.[31] Fukuyama is a long-time friend of Libby. They served together in the State Department in the 1980s. Fukuyama is a member of the Board of Counselors for the Pyle Center of Northeast Asian Studies at the National Bureau of Asian Research.[32] Fukuyama is on the board of Global Financial Integrity. Fukuyama is on the executive board of the Inter-American Dialogue. Personal life Fukuyama is a part-time photographer. He also has a keen interest in early-American furniture, which he reproduces by hand.[33] He is keenly interested in sound recording and reproduction, saying, "These days I seem to spend as much time thinking about gear as I do analyzing politics for my day job."[25] Fukuyama is married to Laura Holmgren, whom he met when she was a UCLA graduate student after he started working for the RAND Corporation.[8][11] He dedicated his book Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity to her. They live in California, with their three children, Julia, David, and John away in school. See also Daniel Bell Selected bibliography Scholarly works (partial list) The Soviet Union and Iraq since 1968, Rand research report, 1980 Books The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press, 1992. ISBN 0-02-910975-2 Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press, 1995. ISBN 0-02-910976-0 The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. Free Press. 1999. ISBN 0-684-84530-X Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2002. ISBN 0-374-23643-7 State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-8014-4292-3 America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 2006. ISBN 0-300-11399-4 US edition After the Neo Cons: Where the Right went Wrong. London: Profile Books. 2006. ISBN 1-86197-922-3 UK edition Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap between Latin America and the United States (editor). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-536882-6 The Origins of Political Order. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2011. ISBN 978-1-846-68256-8 Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2014. ISBN 978-0-374-22735-7 Essays The End of History?, The National Interest, Summer 1989 Women and the Evolution of World Politics, Foreign Affairs October 1998 Immigrants and Family Values, The Immigration Reader 1998. ISBN 1-55786-916-2 Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, The Atlantic Monthly, May 1999 Social capital and civil society, paper prepared for delivery at the International Monetary Fund Conference on Second Generation Reforms, October 1, 1999 The neoconservative moment, The National Interest, Summer 2004 After neoconservatism, The New York Times Magazine, February 19, 2006 Supporter's voice now turns on Bush, The New York Times Magazine, March 14, 2006 Why shouldn't I change my mind?, Los Angeles Times, April 9, 2006 The Fall of America, Inc. Newsweek, October 13, 2008 The New Nationalism and the Strategic Architecture of Northeast Asia Asia Policy January 2007 Left Out, The American Interest, January 2011 Is China Next?, The Wall Street Journal, March 12, 2011 The Future of History; Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class?, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2012 What is Governance? Governance (journal), March 2013

ヒンズー語

Francis Fukuyama From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama image from BloggingHeads.tv podcast Fukuyama in 2005 Born October 27, 1952 (age 63) Chicago, Illinois, U.S Website fukuyama.stanford.edu Institutions George Mason University[1] Johns Hopkins University Stanford University Main interests Developing nations Governance International political economy Nation-building and democratization Strategic and security issues Notable ideas End of history Influences [show] Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama (born October 27, 1952) is an American political scientist, political economist, and author. Fukuyama is known for his book The End of History and the Last Man (1992), which argued that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free market capitalism of the West and its lifestyle may signal the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and become the final form of human government. However, his subsequent book Trust: Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity (1995) modified his earlier position to acknowledge that culture cannot be cleanly separated from economics. Fukuyama is also associated with the rise of the neoconservative movement,[2] from which he has since distanced himself.[3] Fukuyama has been a Senior Fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University since July 2010.[4] Before that, he served as a professor and director of the International Development program at the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University. Previously, he was Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University.[4] He is a council member of the International Forum for Democratic Studies founded by the National Endowment for Democracy and was a member of the Political Science Department of the RAND Corporation.[5] Contents 1 Early life 2 Education 3 Writings 3.1 Neoconservatism 3.2 Fukuyama's current views 4 Affiliations 5 Personal life 6 See also 7 Selected bibliography 7.1 Scholarly works (partial list) 7.2 Books 7.3 Essays 8 See also 9 References 10 External links Early life Francis Fukuyama was born in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. His paternal grandfather fled the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and started a shop on the west coast before being interned in the Second World War.[6] His father, Yoshio Fukuyama, a second-generation Japanese American, was trained as a minister in the Congregational Church, received a doctorate in sociology from the University of Chicago, and taught religious studies.[7][8][9] His mother, Toshiko Kawata Fukuyama, was born in Kyoto, Japan, and was the daughter of Shiro Kawata, founder of the Economics Department of Kyoto University and first president of Osaka City University.[10] Francis grew up in Manhattan as an only child, had little contact with Japanese culture, and did not learn Japanese.[7][8] His family moved to State College, Pennsylvania in 1967.[10] Education Fukuyama received his Bachelor of Arts degree in classics from Cornell University, where he studied political philosophy under Allan Bloom.[8][11] He initially pursued graduate studies in comparative literature at Yale University, going to Paris for six months to study under Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida, but became disillusioned and switched to political science at Harvard University.[8] There, he studied with Samuel P. Huntington and Harvey Mansfield, among others. He earned his Ph.D. in political science at Harvard for his thesis on Soviet threats to intervene in the Middle East.[8][11] In 1979, he joined the global policy think tank RAND Corporation.[8] Fukuyama lived at the Telluride House and has been affiliated with the Telluride Association since his undergraduate years at Cornell, an education enterprise that was home to other significant leaders and intellectuals, including Steven Weinberg, Paul Wolfowitz and Kathleen Sullivan. Fukuyama was the Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University from 1996 to 2000. Until July 10, 2010, he was the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy and Director of the International Development Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C. He is now Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow and resident in the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University.[11] Writings Fukuyama is best known as the author of The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies is largely at an end, with the world settling on liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Fukuyama predicted the eventual global triumph of political and economic liberalism: What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such.... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. Authors like Ralf Dahrendorf argued in 1990 that the essay gave Fukuyama his 15 minutes of fame, which will be followed by a slide into obscurity.[12][13] He continued to remain a relevant and cited public intellectual leading American communitarian Amitai Etzioni to declare him "one of the few enduring public intellectuals. They are often media stars who are eaten up and spat out after their 15 minutes. But he has lasted."[14] One of the main reasons for the massive criticism against The End of History was the aggressive stance that it took towards postmodernism. Postmodern philosophy had, in Fukuyama's opinion, undermined the ideology behind liberal democracy, leaving the western world in a potentially weaker position.[15] The fact that Marxism and fascism had been proven untenable for practical use while liberal democracy still thrived was reason enough to embrace the hopeful attitude of the Progressive era, as this hope for the future was what made a society worth struggling to maintain. Postmodernism, which, by this time, had become embedded in the cultural consciousness, offered no hope and nothing to sustain a necessary sense of community, instead relying only on lofty intellectual premises.[16] Being a work that both praised the ideals of a group that had fallen out of favor and challenged the premises of the group that had replaced them, it was bound to create some controversy. Fukuyama has written a number of other books, among them Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity and Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. In the latter, he qualified his original "end of history" thesis, arguing that since biotechnology increasingly allows humans to control their own evolution, it may allow humans to alter human nature, thereby putting liberal democracy at risk.[17] One possible outcome could be that an altered human nature could end in radical inequality. He is a fierce enemy of transhumanism, an intellectual movement asserting that posthumanity is a desirable goal. In another work, The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, Fukuyama explores the origins of social norms, and analyses the current disruptions in the fabric of our moral traditions, which he considers as arising from a shift from the manufacturing to the information age. This shift is, he thinks, normal and will prove self-correcting, given the intrinsic human need for social norms and rules. In 2006, in America at the Crossroads, Fukuyama discusses the history of neoconservatism, with particular focus on its major tenets and political implications. He outlines his rationale for supporting the Bush administration, as well as where he believes it has gone wrong. In 2008, Fukuyama published the book Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap Between Latin America and the United States, which resulted from research and a conference funded by Grupo Mayan to gain understanding on why Latin America, once far wealthier than North America, fell behind in terms of development in only a matter of centuries. Discussing this book at a 2009 conference, Fukuyama outlined his belief that inequality within Latin American nations is a key impediment to growth. An unequal distribution of wealth, he stated, leads to social upheaval, which then results in stunted growth.[18] Neoconservatism As a key Reagan Administration contributor to the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine, Fukuyama is an important figure in the rise of neoconservatism, although his works came out years after Irving Kristol's 1972 book crystallized neoconservatism.[19] Fukuyama was active in the Project for the New American Century think tank starting in 1997, and as a member co-signed the organization's 1998 letter recommending that President Bill Clinton support Iraqi insurgencies in the overthrow of then-President of Iraq Saddam Hussein.[20] He was also among forty co-signers of William Kristol's September 20, 2001 letter to President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks that suggested the U.S. not only "capture or kill Osama bin Laden", but also embark upon "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq".[21] In a New York Times article from February 2006, Fukuyama, in considering the ongoing Iraq War, stated: "What American foreign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a 'realistic Wilsonianism' that better matches means to ends."[22] In regard to neoconservatism he went on to say: "What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world – ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about."[22] Fukuyama's current views Fukuyama began to distance himself from the neoconservative agenda of the Bush administration, citing its excessive militarism and embrace of unilateral armed intervention, particularly in the Middle East. By late 2003, Fukuyama had voiced his growing opposition to the Iraq War[23] and called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as Secretary of Defense.[24] At an annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute in February 2004, Dick Cheney and Charles Krauthammer declared the beginning of a unipolar era under American hegemony. "All of these people around me were cheering wildly,"[25] Fukuyama remembers. He believes that the Iraq War was being blundered. "All of my friends had taken leave of reality."[25] He has not spoken to Paul Wolfowitz (previously a good friend) since.[25] Fukuyama declared he would not be voting for Bush,[26] and that the Bush administration had made three major mistakes:[citation needed] Overstating the threat of radical Islam to the US Failing to foresee the fierce negative reaction to its "benevolent hegemony". From the very beginning showing a negative attitude toward the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations and not seeing that it would increase anti-Americanism in other countries Misjudging what was needed to bring peace in Iraq and being overly optimistic about the success with which social engineering of western values could be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general. Fukuyama believes the US has a right to promote its own values in the world, but more along the lines of what he calls "realistic Wilsonianism", with military intervention only as a last resort and only in addition to other measures. A latent military force is more likely to have an effect than actual deployment. The US spends 43% of global military spending,[27] but Iraq shows there are limits to its effectiveness. The US should instead stimulate political and economic development and gain a better understanding of what happens in other countries. The best instruments are setting a good example and providing education and, in many cases, money. The secret of development, be it political or economic, is that it never comes from outsiders, but always from people in the country itself. One thing the US proved to have excelled in during the aftermath of World War II was the formation of international institutions. A return to support for these structures would combine American power with international legitimacy. But such measures require a lot of patience. This is the central thesis of his 2006 work America at the Crossroads. In a 2006 essay in The New York Times Magazine strongly critical of the invasion, he identified neoconservatism with Leninism. He wrote that neoconservatives:[28] believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support. Fukuyama announced the end of the neoconservative moment and argued for the demilitarization of the War on Terrorism:[28] [W]ar is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" [quoting John F. Kennedy's inaugural address] whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world. Fukuyama endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 US presidential election. He states:[29] I'm voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don't work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would be a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale. Affiliations Between 2006 and 2008, Fukuyama advised Muammar Gaddafi as part of the Monitor Group, a consultancy firm based in Cambridge, MA.[30] In August 2005, Fukuyama co-founded The American Interest, a quarterly magazine devoted to the broad theme of "America in the World". He is currently chairman of the editorial board.[11] Fukuyama was a member of the RAND Corporation's Political Science Department from 1979 to 1980, 1983 to 1989, and 1995 to 1996. He is now a member of the Board of Trustees.[11] Fukuyama was a member of the President's Council on Bioethics from 2001 to 2004.[11] Fukuyama is a Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS). Fukuyama is on the steering committee for the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust.[31] Fukuyama is a long-time friend of Libby. They served together in the State Department in the 1980s. Fukuyama is a member of the Board of Counselors for the Pyle Center of Northeast Asian Studies at the National Bureau of Asian Research.[32] Fukuyama is on the board of Global Financial Integrity. Fukuyama is on the executive board of the Inter-American Dialogue. Personal life Fukuyama is a part-time photographer. He also has a keen interest in early-American furniture, which he reproduces by hand.[33] He is keenly interested in sound recording and reproduction, saying, "These days I seem to spend as much time thinking about gear as I do analyzing politics for my day job."[25] Fukuyama is married to Laura Holmgren, whom he met when she was a UCLA graduate student after he started working for the RAND Corporation.[8][11] He dedicated his book Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity to her. They live in California, with their three children, Julia, David, and John away in school. See also Daniel Bell Selected bibliography Scholarly works (partial list) The Soviet Union and Iraq since 1968, Rand research report, 1980 Books The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press, 1992. ISBN 0-02-910975-2 Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press, 1995. ISBN 0-02-910976-0 The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. Free Press. 1999. ISBN 0-684-84530-X Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2002. ISBN 0-374-23643-7 State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-8014-4292-3 America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 2006. ISBN 0-300-11399-4 US edition After the Neo Cons: Where the Right went Wrong. London: Profile Books. 2006. ISBN 1-86197-922-3 UK edition Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap between Latin America and the United States (editor). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-536882-6 The Origins of Political Order. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2011. ISBN 978-1-846-68256-8 Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2014. ISBN 978-0-374-22735-7 Essays The End of History?, The National Interest, Summer 1989 Women and the Evolution of World Politics, Foreign Affairs October 1998 Immigrants and Family Values, The Immigration Reader 1998. ISBN 1-55786-916-2 Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, The Atlantic Monthly, May 1999 Social capital and civil society, paper prepared for delivery at the International Monetary Fund Conference on Second Generation Reforms, October 1, 1999 The neoconservative moment, The National Interest, Summer 2004 After neoconservatism, The New York Times Magazine, February 19, 2006 Supporter's voice now turns on Bush, The New York Times Magazine, March 14, 2006 Why shouldn't I change my mind?, Los Angeles Times, April 9, 2006 The Fall of America, Inc. Newsweek, October 13, 2008 The New Nationalism and the Strategic Architecture of Northeast Asia Asia Policy January 2007 Left Out, The American Interest, January 2011 Is China Next?, The Wall Street Journal, March 12, 2011 The Future of History; Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class?, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2012 What is Governance? Governance (journal), March 2013

最終更新: 2016-07-05
使用頻度: 1
品質:

参照: 匿名
警告:見えない HTML フォーマットが含まれています

英語

IFE is too short and time is very valuable for everyone. Unfortunately, many of us waste time in many ways and when we realise that life could be different and could be led in a much better way, it is already too late. It is always wise to have aim in life since one’s childhood-this may be very helpful for one to lead life in a very fruitful way. Having aim fixed helps one work with all his or her energy. A big ship with a good captain departs the port with the tank full of oil but it does not know which port to go to. Ultimately the ship will be roaming on the sea with no particular destination. That means the ship had all potentials to arrive at port but it cannot arrive there. Similarly, the whole life can be spent but not well spent if someone does not have an aim. The role of parents, guardians and school management is of great importance as far as setting aim of one’s life is concerned. They need to be very friendly with a child and can show him or her various career options in life and a child can decide for himself/herself which one to choose. They never should impose any particular option that the child should choose. They should never say like: “ No, no….you have to be a doctor” or “you have to be an engineer”. Let the young student decide himself/herself which profession to choose. His or her likings should be given importance. Only in this way, we can expect the best efforts of the child. If someone has aim fixed in childhood, he or she can gradually prepare himself for fulfilling his dreams. If someone wishes to be a scientist, he should attend the science fairs, read all the interesting articles from newspapers, should know about the life-history of the renowned scientists, should have a own laboratory where he or she will be spending hour after hour, should grow a very calm and quiet mind which is a pre-requisite for any kind of innovation. Such a pattern of life will surely make one a scientist in course of time.

ヒンズー語

मेरा जीवन का लक्ष्य-डॉक्टर में हिंदी

最終更新: 2014-11-17
使用頻度: 1
品質:

参照: 匿名

英語

Subhas Chandra Bose, affectionately called as Netaji, was one of the most prominent leaders of Indian freedom struggle. Though Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru have garnered much of the credit for successful culmination of Indian freedom struggle, the contribution of Subash Chandra Bose is no less. Subhas Chandra Bose was born on January 23, 1897 in Cuttack, Orissa. His father Janaki Nath Bose was a famous lawyer and his mother Prabhavati Devi was a pious and religious lady. Subhas Chandra Bose was the ninth child among fourteen siblings. Subhas Chandra Bose was a brilliant student right from the childhood. He topped the matriculation examination of Calcutta province and graduated with a First class in Philosophy from the Scottish Churches College in Calcutta. He was strongly influenced by Swami Vivekananda's teachings and was known for his patriotic zeal as a student. To fulfill his parents wishes he went to England in 1919 to compete for Indian Civil Services. Subhas Chandra Bose was deeply disturbed by the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre, and left his Civil Services apprenticeship midway to return to India in 1921 After returning to India Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose came under the influence of Mahatma Gandhi and joined the Indian National Congress. In 1928 the Motilal Nehru Committee appointed by the Congress declared in favour of Domination Status, but Subhas Chandra Bose along with Jawaharlal Nehru opposed it, and both asserted that they would be satisfied with nothing short of complete independence for India. Subhas also announced the formation of the Independence League. Subhas Chandra Bose was jailed during Civil Disobedience movement in 1930. He was released in 1931 after Gandhi-Irwin pact was signed. He protested against the Gandhi-Irwin pact and opposed the suspension of Civil Disobedience movement specially when Bhagat Singh and his associates were hanged. Clouds of World War II were on the horizon and he brought a resolution to give the British six months to hand India over to the Indians, failing which there would be a revolt. There was much opposition to his rigid stand, and he resigned from the post of president and formed a progressive group known as the Forward Block. Subhas Chandra Bose now started a mass movement against utilizing Indian resources and men for the great war. There was a tremendous response to his call and he was put under house arrest in Calcutta. In January 1941, Subhas Chandra Bose disappeared from his home in Calcutta and reached Germany via Afghanistan. Working on the maxim that "an enemy's enemy is a friend", he sought cooperation of Germany and Japan against British Empire. In January 1942, he began his regular broadcasts from Radio Berlin, which aroused tremendous enthusiasm in India. In July 1943, he arrived in Singapore from Germany. In Singapore he took over the reins of the Indian Independence Movement in East Asia from Rash Behari Bose and organised the Azad Hind Fauj (Indian National Army) comprising mainly of Indian prisoners of war. He was hailed as Netaji by the Army as well as by the Indian civilian population in East Asia. Azad Hind Fauj proceeded towards India to liberate it from British rule. Enroute it lliberated Andeman and Nicobar Islands. The I.N.A. Head quarters was shifted to Rangoon in January 1944. Azad Hind Fauj crossed the Burma Border, and stood on Indian soil on March 18 ,1944. However, defeat of Japan and Germany in the Second World War forced INA to retreat and it could not achieve its objective. Subhas Chandra Bose was reportedly killed in an air crash over Taipeh, Taiwan (Formosa) on August 18, 1945. Though it is widely believed that he was still alive after the air crash not much information could be found about him.

ヒンズー語

Maza प्रिया नेता में मराठी पर निबंध

最終更新: 2014-11-15
使用頻度: 1
品質:

参照: 匿名
警告:見えない HTML フォーマットが含まれています

人による翻訳を得て
4,401,923,520 より良い訳文を手にいれましょう

ユーザーが協力を求めています。



ユーザー体験を向上させるために Cookie を使用しています。弊社サイトを引き続きご利用いただくことで、Cookie の使用に同意していただくことになります。 詳細。 OK