캥거루 재판을 해놓고 국민들보고 그냥 승복하라고? 국민을 개, 돼지로 여기는 거야! 국가의 모든 권력은 국민으로부터 나온다고 입만 열면 침 튀기던 인간들이, 이제는 그 국민이 발언하는데 입을 닥치라고! 
-------------------------------------------


시민 박근혜님은 3월 18일의 시위 현장에 연사로 나와야 한다.

김일중

시민 박근혜님이 대의(大義)를 위해서 앞으로 할 일이 많다. 그는 결코 정치현장에서 떠나지 말아야 한다. 진실이 밝혀질 때까지는 누가 무엇이라 해도 선한 싸움을 하는 우리 태극기 세력의 선봉(先鋒)에 서야 한다. 그러므로 박근혜님은 3월 18일의 시위 현장에 연사로 나와야 한다. 그리고 태극기 세력들은 또다른 깃발을 만들어 하늘 높이 들어야 한다. (조갑제닷컴)


------------------------------------------
결정문에 성경 인용한 안창호 재판관

국교를 금지시킨 헌법정신 위반이다. 헌법 개정 방향까지 제시한 만용.

himmel
 

나아가 안창호 재판관은 결정문 80면 이하에서 ‘현행 헌법상 권력구조의 개혁과제’라는 제목하에 “이원집정부제, 의원내각제 또는 책임총리제의 실질화 등이 국민의 선택에 따라 현행 헌법의 대통령제에 대한 현실적 대안이 될 수 있다”(결정문 81면)라고 지적함으로써, 헌법개정의 기본방향까지 제시하고 있다.

 

흔히들 헌법재판소는 정치적 사법기관이라고 하지만 본질적으로는 사법기관에 속한다. 그렇다면 안창호 재판관의 이 보충의견은 사법기관인 헌법재판소가 입법부를 지도하고 나아가 국민의 주권행사(헌법개정안에 대한 국민투표)의 기본방향까지 제시하는 것으로서 역시 중대한 헌법위반 행위에 해당하며, 나머지 헌법재판관들 역시 이를 방조한 책임이 있다고 볼 수 있다.

(조갑제닷컴 발췌)

 

---> 이번 의회 쿠데타는 종북좌파 정당들과 새누리 비박계가 이원집정부제나 의원내각제 개헌을 합의하고, 그럼으로써 의회의 영구 독재를 획책하고 일으킨 반란이었다. 나의 책 <촛불 난동은 더불어민주당 주도의 쿠데타였다>에서 나는 줄곧, 이번 사건은 민주당의 조응천이 초반에 음모를주도하고 이후 민주당 전체, 나아가 반 박근혜 세력 전체가 가담한 쿠데타였다고 주장했다. 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

'대한민국이냐 공산전체주의화냐'의 선택에서 한국 언론은 後者를 택하였다고 간주하는 게 안전하다. ---조갑제

 

 

-------------------------------------------

RealKorean     2017-03-14 오전 2:32

 

 

오랜기간 전교조 교육과 선동 언론에 뇌수가 오염된 많은 국민들은 이 사태가 단순한 대통령 부정부패 사건으로 생각하고 있습니다.

하지만 저희는 이것이 남북한 전쟁의 연장선상에서 일어난 일이라는 것을 알고 있습니다. (조갑제닷컴)

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

진실     2017-03-13 오후 1:20

8:0의 의미는 "보신판결"이라는 걸 알아야합니다. 이걸 지적하는 사람들이 없는데, 비겁자들이 한두사람 소수의견 냈다가 그 소수자에게 미칠 후환이 두려워서 소수의견이라도 내지를 않은겁니다. 똘똘뭉쳐 몸보신한 결과를 8:0이니까 완승이다? 소가 웃을 일입니다. 공산당에서나 있을 법한 판결이지요.   (조갑제닷컴)

 

-------------------------------------------------

문무대왕

 

 

일본 다쿠소쿠(拓殖) 대학의 다나카 아키라(田中明) 교수는 그의 著書 《한국정치를 투시(透視)한다》에서 다음과 같이 지적했다.   
 <앞으로 한국에서 누가 대통령이 되든 한국 정치는 나라와 백성이야 어떻게 되든 오직 권력쟁탈에만 매달릴 것이다. 그것은 붕당(朋黨)정치의 원형이요, 한국 정치가 갖고 있는 전통이고 존재양식이다. 한국에는 국가를 생각하는 지도자는 없고 정객(政客)들만 남았다.>   (조갑제닷컴)

 

닐 퍼거슨 -- 한 나라의 역사는 그 나라의 성격이다. 

 

------------------------------------------------------
禹鍾昌 전 월간조선 편집위원은 3월14일, 헌법재판관 8명을 직무유기, 직권남용, 허위공문서 작성 등의 혐의로 서울중앙지방검찰청에 고발장을 제출했다.

출처: 조갑제닷컴

-------------------------------------------------------------

광주는 민주화가 아니다

------------------------------------------------------------

헌재의 탄핵인용 결정은 원천무효입니다! 재심 청구부터 시작합시다!

이런 위헌적인 사법만행에 대해 결코 승복할 수 없습니다.
저는 법률가로서 끝까지 법적투쟁에 나설 것입니다. 

박근혜 대통령께서 위임하신다면 재심 청구서를 내어
헌재 판결의 위헌·위법성을 만천하에 공표하겠습니다.

김평우 (전대한변협 회장)       

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

예경(豫警) 원칙(precautionary principle)이란 어떤 행동을 피하는 데에는 복잡한 모델이 필요 없다는 주장이다. 모델은 오류가 자주 나므로, 무엇인가를 분명히 이해하지 못하고 또 그것이 시스템적인 영향을 드러내고 있다면, 그것을 회피해야 한다는 것이다.

중개인 문제가 있다. 가디언 지의 언론인과 밀라노의 식당 주인 사이에는 별 차이가 없다. 만일 당신이 밀라노 식당에서 택시를 부르면, 주인은 그의 사촌을 부르는데, 사촌은 시내를 한 바퀴 돌아 요금을 뻥튀기 한다.

과거 정보는 입에서 입으로 유기적으로 전달되었다. 고대 로마에서 사람들은 중앙의 선별기관 없이 정보를 접했다.

신용이 없는 사람의 말은 신용 있는 사람에 비해 가치가 낮았다. 사람들을 두 번 속일 수는 없었다.

관료에 의해 통제될 수 있는 티비나 신문 등에 일방적으로 의존하던 시기는 20세기 중반부터 2016년 미국 대선까지 이어졌다.

언론인은 대중이 아니라 다른 언론인의 의견을 더욱 걱정한다. 이에 반해 식당 주인은 다른 식당주의 의견이 아닌 고객의 의견을 경청한다. 그럼으로써 식당은 집합적으로 자신의 이익에서 벗어나지 않는다. 또 자신의 돈을 걸고 사업을 하기 때문에(스킨 인 더 게임) 다양성이 나타난다.

 

그런데 경제가 어려워지면 상황을 악화시킨다. 즉 언론직은 구하기가 극히 어려운데, 만일 동료의 배척을 받으면 직장을 잃게 된다. 따라서 그들은 로비스트 등의 통제를 받게 된다. 만일 언론계에서 브렉시트나 유전자 조작 식품, 푸틴 등에 대해 시류에 영합하지 않는 발언을 하면 그 언론인은 곧바로 매장되고 만다. 따라쟁이들이 벌칙을 받는 비즈니스 계와는 정반대의 상황이 벌어지는 것이다.

언론의 사기꾼들은 누군가의 입장을 비난하지 않고, 그의 특정 발언을 집중해서 공격한다. 누군가의 입장을 비난하려면 그가 주장하는 생각을 모두 이해하고 있어야 한다.

일찍이 볼테르(또는 리실리외, 탈리랑)는 “나에게 몇 문장만 주면, 나는 그 필자를 목매달 수 있는 구실을 찾을 수 있다”고 선언했다.

도날드 트럼프가 말했듯이 “사실은 진실이지만, 뉴스는 가짜이다.”

중상(重傷)은 바빌론에서 이미 중범죄여서, 거짓 주장을 한 사람은 마치 그 범죄를 저지른 사람처럼 처벌 받았다.

 

The Facts are True, the News is Fake

 

나심 탈레브

 

How to Disagree with Yourself

 

In the summer of 2009, I partook of a an hour long discussion with David Cameron, who was in the running for, and later became, the U.K. Prime Minister. The discussion was about how to make society robust, even immune to Black Swans, what structure was needed for both decentralization and accountability, and how the system should be built, that sort of thing. It was an interesting fifty-nine minutes around the topics of the Incerto and I felt great communicating all the points in bulk for the first time. The room in the elegant Royal Society for the Arts was full of journalists. I subsequently went to a Chinese restaurant in (London’s) Soho to celebrate with a few people when I received a phone call by a horrified friend. All London newspapers were calling me a “climate denier”.

 

The entire fifty-nine minutes were summarized by the press and reported from a tangential comment that lasted twenty seconds taken in reverse. Someone who didn’t attend the conference would have been under the impression that that was the whole conversation.

 

It turned out that I presented my version of the precautionary principle during the conversation, worth restating here. It asserted that one does not need complex models as a justification to avoid a certain action. If we don’t understand something and it has a systemic effect, just avoid it. Models are error prone, something I knew well with finance; most risks only appear in analyses after harm is done. The burden is on those who pollute –or introduce new substances in larger than usual quantities –to show their lack of risk. In fact the more uncertainty about the models, the more conservative one should be. Ironically the same newspapers had lauded The Black Swan in which this very point was flushed out very clearly.

 

I managed to defend myself by making a lot of noise, and with explicit legal threats, forced every newspaper to publish my correction. Even then someone at The Guardian tried (unsuccessfully) to tone down my letter by showing that it was some type of disagreement with what I said, not a correction of their misrepresentation. In other words I was disagreeing with myself.

 

But if I eventually cleared my ideas, thanks to my bully pulpit, other can’t do the same. The London newspapers were actively misrepresenting something to their own public. Someone who read the paper was mistaking the journalist for an intermediary between himself or herself and the product, the piece of news.

 

So clearly there is an agency problem. There is no difference between a journalist at The Guardian and the restaurant owner in Milan, who, when you ask for a taxi, calls his cousin who does a tour of the city to inflate the meter before showing up. Or the doctor who willfully misdiagnoses you to sell you a drug in which he has a vested interest.

 

Journalism isn’t Lindy compatible. Information transmits organically by word-of-mouth, which circulates in a two-way manner. In ancient Rome, people got information without a centralized filter. In the Ancient Mediterranean marketplaces, people talked; they were the receivers and the purveyors of news. Barbers offered comprehensive services; they doubled as surgeon, dispute resolution experts, and news reporters. If people were left to filter their own rumors; they were also part of the transmission. Same with pubs and London coffee houses. In the Eastern Mediterranean (currently Greece and the Levant), condolences were the source of gathering and transmission –and represented the bulk of social life. Dissemination of the news took place at these gathering. My social grandmother would have her “rounds” of visits of condolences some days in Beirut’s then significant Greek Orthodox community, and knew practically everything down to the most insignificant details. If the child of someone prominent flunked an exam, she knew it. Practically every affair in town was detected.

 

Unreliable people carried less weight than reliable ones. You can’t fool people more than twice.

 

The period of time that corresponds to the reliance on one-sided accounts such as television and newspapers, which can be controlled by the mandarins, lasted from the middle of the twentieth century until the U.S. elections of 2016. In that sense, social networks, allowing a two-way flow of information, put back the mechanism of tidings in its natural format. As with participants in markets and souks, there is a long term advantage to being dependable.

 

Further, such an agency problem as that of the current press is systemic, as its interests will keep diverging from that of its own public, until the eventual blowup as we saw with the skewness-fragility theorem. I was less frustrated by the misinterpretation than by the fact that no reader would have realized that ninety-nine percent of my discussion with Cameron was about other things than climate change. If the former could have been a misunderstanding, the latter is a structural defect. And you never cure structural defects; you let the system collapse.

 

Agora: news and merchandise

 

The divergence is evident in that journos worry considerably more about the opinion of other journalists than that of the general public. Compare to a healthy system, say that of restaurants. As we saw in the [Lindy Chapter], restaurant owners worry about the opinion of their customers, not those of other restaurant owners, which keeps them in check and prevent the business from straying collectively away from its interests. Further, skin in the game creates diversity, not monoculture. Economic insecurity worsens the condition: journalists are currently in the most insecure profession you can find: the majority lives hand to mouth and ostracism by their friends would be terminal. Thus they become easily prone to manipulation by lobbyists, as we saw with GMOs, the Syrian wars, etc. You say something unpopular in the profession about Brexit, GMOs, Putin, and you become history. This is the opposite of business where me-tooism is penalized.

 

The Ethics of Disagreement

 

Now let us get deeper into the application of the Silver Rule in intellectual debates. You can criticize either what a person said or what the person meant. The former is more sensational, hence lends itself more readily to dissemination. The mark of a charlatan –say the journalist Sam Harris –is to defend his position or attack a critic by focusing on some of his/her specific statement (“look at what he said”) rather than blasting his exact position (“look at what he means” or, more broadly, “look at what he stands for”), the latter of which requires an extensive grasp of the proposed idea. Note that the same applies to the interpretation of religious texts, often extracted from their broader circumstances.

 

It is impossible for anyone to write a perfectly rationally argued document without a segment that, out of context, can be transformed by some dishonest copywriter to appear totally absurd and lend itself to sensationalization, so politicians, charlatans and, more disturbingly, journalists hunt for these segments. “Give me a few lines written by any man and I will find enough to get him hung” goes the saying attributed to Richelieu, Voltaire, Talleyrand, a vicious censor during the French revolution phase of terror, and a few others. As Donald Trump said “The facts are true, the news is fake” –ironically at a press conference in which he suffered the same selective reporting as my RSA event.

 

The great Karl Popper often started with an unerring representation of the opponents positions, often exhaustive, as if he were marketing them as his own ideas, before proceeding to systematically dismantle them. Also, take Hayek’s diatribes Contra Keynes and Cambridge: it was a “contra” but not a single line misrepresents Keynes or makes an overt attempt at sensationalizing. (I have to say that it helped that people were too intimidated by Keynes’ intellect and aggressive personality to risk triggering his ire.)

 

Read Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, written eight centuries ago; you will notice sections with Questio, then Praeteria, Objectiones, Sed Contra, etc., describing with a legalistic precision the positions being challenged and looking for a flaw in them before submitting a compromise. If you notice a similarity with the Talmud, it is no accident: it appears that both methods originate with Roman pagan legal reasoning.

 

Note the associated straw man arguments by which one not only extracts a comment but also provides an interpretation, or promotes misinterpretation. As an author, I consider straw man no different from theft.

 

Some types of lies in an open market cause other traders to treat the perpetrator as if he were invisible. It is not about the lie; it is about the system that requires some modicum of trust. For historically, purveyors of calumnies did not survive in ancient environments.

 

The principle of charity and the repulsion at its violations are Lindy compatible. Isaiah, 29–21 states: That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought. The wicked ensnare you. Calumny was already a very severe crime in Babylon, where the person who made a false accusation was punished as if he committed the exact crime.

However, in philosophy, the principle –as principle — is only sixty years old. As with other things, if the principle of charity had to become a principle, it is because an old practice had to have been abandoned because of modernity.

 

APPENDIX: CITIZENS vs GAWKER and CITIZENS vs JOURNALISM

 

One way journalism will self destruct [from its divergence away from the public] is illustrated by the Gawker story. A voyeurism outfit realized that there are tort laws in the U.S. protecting private citizens. America has tort laws and a legal mechanism by which people harmed by corporations can be compensated for it –a mechanism that flourished thanks to Ralph Nader. It, along with the First Amendment, protect citizens by putting skin in the game of the corporations. So eventually Gawker which bullied its financially weaker victims (often twenty-one-year old in revenge porn scenes) got bullied by someone richer and went bankrupt.

 

What was quite revealing is that journalists sided with Gawker on grounds of “freedom of information”, the most misplaced exploitation of that concept, rather than with the public who sided, naturally, with the victim. Nobody is a saint, nobody wants his or her sexual scenes or private information to spread without some type of punishment; nobody likes the industrialization of voyeurism.

 

 

  --------------------------------------------------------

 

 

생전 처음 전국단위 선거에 나갑니다. 벼랑끝에 혼자 서있는 기분입니다. 잘못하면 정치적으로 죽을 수도 있습니다. 그러나 나 혼자 살겠다고 애국시민들이 내미는 손을 뿌리치긴 어려웠습니다. 아직 훌륭하신 선배님들에 비해 경험도 능력도 부족하지만 도전해 보겠습니다. 진실에 대한 열망, 자유에 대한 투지만큼은 그 누구보다도 자신있습니다.

--------------------------------------------------

 

Robbie Gramer‏

 

Big scoop: Trump plans to slash US funding for UN programs by 50% including programs that monitor NK nuclear program

 

특종: 트럼프가 유엔 프로그램에 대한 미국의 지출을 50% 삭감하는데, 여기에는 북한의 핵 프로그램을 감시하는 프로그램도 포함된다.

 

 

아래는 포린 폴리시 기사 제목

White House Seeks to Cut Billions in Funding for United Nations

U.S. retreat from U.N. could mark a “breakdown of the international humanitarian system as we know it.”

-------------------------------------------------

 

콜로라도 주의 마리화나 합법화 효과

 

by ConvergEx's Nicholas Colas,

 

 

Believe it or not, there was no change in the number of marijuana users in Colorado between 2014 and 2015 after legalization of the sale of recreational cannabis went into effect. At least that’s what Colorado’s Retail Marijuana Public Advisory Committee reported in their latest research on the effects of marijuana on public health. They also found that calls to poison centers for exposure to marijuana and emergency room visits continue to fall. The State Department of Public Safety also reported that the number of marijuana arrests nearly halved, down by 46% between 2012 and 2014. Moreover, Colorado has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, and the legal marijuana industry has certainly helped by adding 18,000 new full-time jobs in 2015 according to the Marijuana Policy Group. Perhaps the most significant benefit to the state is tax receipts, as Colorado received $198.5 million in tax revenue last year from marijuana sales of $1.3 billion.

 

 

Bottom line, retail marijuana legalization has had its fair share of pros and cons in Colorado, but it’s not been nearly as bad as critics had forecast.

 

 

--------------------------------------------

 

North Korea Threatens US With "Merciless Strikes" As US Carrier Arrives

 

by Tyler Durden

 

Mar 14, 2017 7:12 AM

 

 

One day after South Korea press reported that US special forces, including a Delta Force team and the infamous SEAL Team 6 are participating in local drills, practicing the removal of Kim Jong-un as well as the infiltration and destruction of North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction, North Korea threatened the US with "merciless" attacks if an aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS Carl Vinson, which is currently taking part in joint South Korean drills "infringes on its sovereignty or dignity", Reuters reported on Tuesday.

 

North Korea said the arrival of the U.S. strike group was part of a "reckless scheme" to attack it.

 

"If they infringe on the DPRK's sovereignty and dignity even a bit, its army will launch merciless ultra-precision strikes from ground, air, sea and underwater," the North's state news agency KCNA adding that "on March 11 alone, many enemy carrier-based aircraft flew along a course near territorial air and waters of the DPRK to stage drills of dropping bombs and making surprise attacks on the ground targets of its army."

 

Meanwhile, a US Navy spokesman told Reuters the Carl Vinson was on a regular, scheduled deployment to the region during which it would take part in exercises with the forces of ally South Korea. Last week, North Korea fired four ballistic missiles into the sea off Japan in response to annual U.S.-South Korea military drills, which the North sees as preparation for war.

 

North Korea's warning comes as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is due to make his first visit to South Korea on Friday. Last week, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said President Donald Trump's administration was re-evaluating its North Korea strategy and "all options are on the table."

 

As reported last night, and adding regional tension, China has been vehemently opposed to the deployment in South Korea of an advanced U.S. anti-missile system. According to the SCMP, a retired PLA general, Wang Hongguang, said that China is set to deploy anti-radar countermeasures which will neutralize the South Korean THAAD.

 

“We will complete our deployment before THAAD begins operations. There is no need to wait for two months [before the election of the next South Korean president],” he said on the sidelines of the political sessions in Beijing. “We already have such equipment in place. We just have to move it to the right spot.”

 

The United States and South Korea say the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system is for defense against North Korea, but China fears its powerful radar can probe deep into its territory and compromise its security. The United States began to deploy the system a week ago, a day after North Korea launched its latest four missile tests.

 

As a reminder, South Korean and U.S. troops began the large-scale joint drills, which are billed as defensive in nature, on March 1. The exercise last year involved about 17,000 American troops and more than 300,000 South Koreans. South Korea has said this year's exercise would be of a similar scale.

 

Additionally, the United States has also started to deploy "Gray Eagle" attack drones to South Korea, a U.S. military spokesman said on Monday. China says the exercises do nothing to ease tension. Last week, it called on North Korea to stop its weapons tests and for South Korea and the United States to stop their drills.

 

A state-run Chinese newspaper said the USS Carl Vinson was taking part in a simulation of a preemptive strike against North Korea's nuclear and missile facilities. The drills sent the North "an explicit radical threat", to which it could not be expected to remain indifferent, the influential Global Times said. North and South Korea were "equally hysterical", it said. "The U.S. and South Korea often accuse China of being uncooperative, but the reality is they are uncooperative over China's mediation," it said, referring to complaints that China does not do enough to rein in old ally North Korea.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

China Prepares Countermeasures Against South Korea Missile Shield

 

by Tyler Durden

 

Mar 13, 2017

 

Stated differently, the ongoing diplomatic escalation between China and South Korea over THAAD is really just China lashing out against the ongoing interefence by the US, which seeks to blanket its allies in the region in a mesh that would eliminate China's tactical first strike advantage, in the process putting the precariouar nuclear balance of power in the region in jeopardy, the same way that the deployment of the US Aegis ashore anti-missile shielf system in Eastern Europe has put Russia on edge, as it too, has lost its first strike capabilities, if only for now. The question, for both China and Russia, is what deterrence they will unveil in response, as a "game theoretical" layout in which two nuclear-armed superpowers suddenly finds themselves questioning their offensive supriority never leads to favorable outcomes, at least in (game) theory.

(발췌)

 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

 

 

(美 CNN 칼럼) " 박 대통령은 확실한 비리 증거없이 국민 감정으로 탄핵되었다 ", " 미국에선 있을 수 없는 일 "

-----------------------------------------------------------------