＜긴급 전달!＞ 탄핵과 대선에 이런 거대한 음모가 있네요!

 

긴급 전달!탄핵과 대선에 이런 거대한 음모가 있네요!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~전달합니다~끝까지…

 

 

 

----> 나는 지난 해에 수컷닷컴에 홍석현의 이상한 불교관과 그와 관련한 정치관에 대해 쓴 바 있다. 그는 자신의 불교적 철학을 정치에 투영하려는 사람인데, 그것이 좌파 사상과 닿아 있다는 데에 문제가 있다.  이번 탄핵에서 좌티비씨가 혁혁한 공을 세웠고, 또한 그의 누이의 아들까지 감옥에 보냈는데, 여전히 그가 자신의 기이한 불교관을 유지하고 있는지 궁금하다.

 

 

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

 

 

                                                   캐나다 설퍼 산의 풍경들

 

 

 

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

 

五代诗人 李煜 《虞美人》

 

问君能有几多愁？恰似一江春水向东流。

 

나에게 무슨 근심이 그리 많냐고 묻는다면

봄날에 동으로 흐르는 강물처럼 끊임없다 말하리

 

 

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

 

 

상춘곡(賞春曲)

 

정극인(丁克仁)

 

 

수풀에 우는 새는 春氣(춘기)를못내 계워 소리마다 嬌態(교태)로다.

 

物我一體(물아 일체)어니, 興(흥)이야 다를 소냐.

 

柴扉(시비)예 거러 보고, 亭子(정자)애 안자 보니,

 

逍遙吟詠(소요 음영)하야, 山日(산일)이 寂寂(적적)한데,

 

閒中眞味(한중 진미)를 알 니 업시 호재로다.

 

 

 

松間 細路에 杜鵑花(두견화)를 부치 들고,

 

峰頭(봉두)에 급피 올나 구름 소긔 안자 보니,

 

千村萬落(천촌 만락)이 곳곳이 버려 잇는 듯.

 

煙霞日輝(연하 일휘)는 錦繡(금수)를 재폇는듯 .

 

엇그제 검은 들이 봄빗도 有餘(유여)할샤.

 

功名(공명)도 날 꺼리고, 富貴(부귀)도 날 꺼리니,

 

淸風明月(청풍 명월) 外(외)예 엇던 벗이 잇올고.

 

簞瓢陋巷(단표 누항)에 흣튼 혜음 아니 하니. 아모타,

 

百年行樂(백년 행락)이 이만한들 엇지하리.

 

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

                       출처: 수컷닷컴

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

 차별의 권리는 기본적인 사유재산의 권리이다

The Right to Discriminate Is a Basic Property Right

 

 

03/24/2017•Laurence M. Vance

 

Back in 2013, Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, refused to provide flowers for a gay friend’s same-sex wedding. The legal battle that ensued has now ended: The Washington State Supreme Court just unanimously ruled that the florist violated the state’s anti-discrimination law.

 

The case has given rise to some misconceptions about discrimination.

 

Here is the back story.

 

In 2012, the state of Washington enacted Senate Bill 6239, which recognized same-sex marriage. Gay men Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, who had been a couple since 2004, decided to get married in September of 2013. At the time of his engagement, Ingersoll had been a customer of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts for at least nine years. Stutzman, an active member of a Southern Baptist church who believed that marriage can exist only between a man and a woman, knew that Ingersoll was gay and in a relationship with Freed. When Ingersoll spoke with Stutzman about providing flowers for his wedding, she told him that she would be unable to do so because of her religious beliefs. She gave Ingersoll the names of other florists who might be willing to serve him and hugged Ingersoll before he left the store.

 

Stutzman said she “draws a distinction between creating floral arrangements — even those designed by someone else — and selling bulk flowers and ‘raw materials,’ which she would be happy to do for Ingersoll and Freed.” But she said she believes that “to create floral arrangements is to use her ‘imagination and artistic skill to intimately participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony.’”

 

Ingersoll maintains that he left “feeling very hurt and upset emotionally.” His partner Freed posted something on Facebook about the incident and the story “drew the attention of numerous media outlets.” Ingersoll and Freed then “lost enthusiasm for a large ceremony” and got married in July in “a modest ceremony at their home.”

 

That, of course, should have been the end of it. But

 

 

after the state became aware of Stutzman’s refusal to sell flowers to Ingersoll and Freed, the Attorney General’s Office sent Stutzman a letter. It sought her agreement to stop discriminating against customers on the basis of their sexual orientation and noted that doing so would prevent further formal action or costs against her. The letter asked her to sign an “Assurance of Discontinuance,” which stated that she would no longer discriminate in the provision of wedding floral services.

 

Stutzman refused.

 

The state then filed a complaint about injunctive and other relief against both Stutzman and Arlene’s Flowers under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). Stutzman answered by “asserting, among other defenses, that her refusal to furnish Ingersoll with wedding services was protected by the state and federal constitutions’ free exercise, free speech, and freedom of association guarantees.” Ingersoll and Freed then filed a private lawsuit against Stutzman and Arlene’s Flowers, which the trial court consolidated with the state’s case.

 

The trial court ultimately decided against the defendant and awarded “permanent injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages for Ingersoll and Freed to cover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.” The court ruled not only that Stutzman violated the WLAD’s “public accommodations” provision, violated the CPA by refusing to sell floral services, and was personally liable, but also made five constitutional rulings. It concluded that the application of the WLAD’s “public accommodations” provision to Stutzman in this case:

 

(1) did not violate Stutzman’s right to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution,

 

(2) did not violate Stutzman’s right to religious free exercise under the First Amendment,

 

(3) did not violate her right to free association under the First Amendment,

 

(4) did not violate First Amendment protections under the hybrid rights doctrine, and

 

(5) did not violate Stutzman’s right to religious free exercise under article I, section 11 of the Washington Constitution.

 

Stutzman appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court’s rulings last month.

 

There are a number of misconceptions that people have about discrimination, including Barronelle Stutzman, the attorneys who represented her, and the state’s attorney general.

 

Stutzman contended that her floral arrangements were “artistic expressions protected by the state and federal constitutions and that the WLAD impermissibly compels her to speak in favor of same-sex marriage.” She contended that her floral arrangements are “speech” for purposes of First Amendment protections “because they involve her artistic decisions.” She argued that the WLAD violated her First Amendment protections against “compelled speech” because it “forces her to endorse same-sex marriage.” She sought “an exemption permitting discrimination in public accommodations.” She argued, “discrimination cannot be ‘invidious’—and thus subject to governmental prohibition—if it is based on religious beliefs.”

 

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys who represented Stutzman argued: “It’s wrong for the state to force any citizen to support a particular view about marriage or anything else against their will. Freedom of speech and religion aren’t subject to the whim of a majority; they are constitutional guarantees.”

 

Washington’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, said that “Arlene’s Flowers in Richland doesn’t have to sell wedding flowers at all.” However, “if they choose to sell wedding flowers, they cannot choose to sell wedding flowers only for heterosexual couples and deny that same service to gay couples.”

 

We Don't Need a Special Right to Speech when We Have Property Rights

 

Let’s clear up these and other misconceptions about discrimination from the libertarian perspectives of property rights, the non-aggression principle, and individual liberty.

 

Designing, making, selling, or not selling floral arrangements has nothing to do with free speech or speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has greatly erred by labeling certain actions as a form of speech in order to protect them instead of just recognizing property rights.

 

Refusing to sell a product has everything to do with property rights. Since no potential customer has a claim on the property of any business owner, he has no legal recourse if the owner of the property refuses to sell it to him.

 

Selling someone a product has nothing to do with endorsing the buyer’s opinions or use of the product.

 

Discrimination is a crime in search of a victim. Every real crime needs a tangible victim with measurable damages. Discrimination is not aggression, force, or threat. It should never be a crime.

 

To outlaw discrimination is to outlaw freedom of thought.

 

Public accommodations are still private businesses. Just because they serve the public by offering to sell them goods and/or services doesn’t mean that they should be regarded as public libraries, public parks, and public buildings that have to accept all members of the public.

 

If discrimination is wrong, immoral, unjust, hateful, and bigoted, then it doesn’t suddenly cease to be these things because the entity doing the discriminating is religious in nature or the person doing the discriminating is doing it for religious reasons.

 

There is no “right to service.” In a free society, business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason on any basis.

 

If a florist can choose not to sell a particular type of flower arrangement, then why can’t it choose not to sell a flower arrangement to a particular person? If the government is so interested in stamping out discrimination, they why doesn’t it mandate that florists sell every type of flower arrangement for every situation? Aren’t florists who don’t sell flower arrangements for weddings discriminating against customers who want to buy them and suppliers who want to provide the necessary raw products to the florists?

 

If an individual can discriminate against a business owner in any way, for any reason, and on any basis, then why can’t a business owner likewise discriminate against an individual?

 

That discrimination may be based  on stereotypes, prejudice, hate, sexism, xenophobism, homophobism, bigotry, or racism is immaterial.

 

That discrimination may be because of race, creed, religion, sex, color, age, national origin, political ideology, IQ, physical appearance, marital status, socio-economic status, disability, gender identity or sexual orientation is irrelevant.

 

That someone thinks an act of discrimination is unfair, illogical, irrational, nonsensical, unreasonable, or just plain stupid is of no consequence.

 

Barronelle Stutzman should be able to choose to whom she will sell flowers or floral arrangements. Discrimination is the exercise of freedom

 

 

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

 

다와(이슬람의 포교): 길 잃은 영혼들을 외로운 늑대로 만드는 이슬람주의

정신의 독(毒)

Niall Ferguson

 

March 26 2017, The Sunday Times

 

Dawa: the Islamist mind poison that turns lost souls into ‘lone wolves’

 

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

 

Matt Ridley 님이 리트윗했습니다

 

George Smeeton‏ @GSmeeton · 3월 23일

 

Govt's future energy policy will be about cutting costs, not emissions.

 

 

(영국) 정부의 미래 에너지 정책은 배출가스가 아닌 비용 절감에 중점을 둘 것이다.

 

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

 

하이에크와 집합적인 지성

 

인간들은 개별적으로 자신의 삶을 유지할 수 없고, 자립자족의 추구는 반사회적인 행동이다.

하이에크의 1945년 <사회에서 지식의 사용>의 요점은, 중앙에 의한 계획은 작동하지 않는데, 그 이유는 지역에 분산되고 상호 연결된 지식, 더구나 그 대부분은 암묵적인 지식을 전지적(全知的)인 지성을 지닌 개인으로 대체하려 하기 때문이라는 것이다. 그것은 반엘리트주의의 결정, 또는 포퓰리즘의 결정이다.

 

 

Friedrich Hayek and the collective brain

 

By Matt Ridley

23 March 2017

 

It is possible to go through an entire education to PhD level in the very best schools and universities in the British system without any of your teachers or professors breathing the words “Friedrich Hayek”. This is a pity.

 

Hayek died 25 years ago today, yet his ideas are very relevant to the 21st century. He was the person who saw most clearly that knowledge is held in the cloud, not the head, that human intelligence is a collective phenomenon.

 

If Hayek is mentioned at all in academia, it is usually as an alias for Voldemort. To admire Hayek is to advocate selfishness and individualism. This could not be more wrong. What Hayek argued is that human collaboration is necessary for society to work; that the great feature of the market is that it enables us to work for each other, not just for ourselves; and that authoritarian, top-down rule is not the source of order or progress, but a hindrance.

 

I would go further, and add that the individual human being is not – and had not been for 120,000 years – able to support his lifestyle; and that there is nothing so anti-social (or impoverishing) as the pursuit of self-sufficiency.

 

These are not conservative or reactionary ideas: that society works best through egalitarian sharing and mutual service, rather than through state control, hierarchy and planning, is surely as liberal and egalitarian as it could possibly be.

 

Hayek’s point in his famous essay of 1945, “The Uses of Knowledge in Society”, is that central planning cannot work because it is trying to substitute an individual all-knowing intelligence for a distributed and fragmented system of localised but connected knowledge, much of which is tacit. It is the essence of anti-elitism, of – dare I say it – populism, the prescient harbinger of what is sometimes called “dot communism” – the flattening of human society as a result of the internet.

 

In Hayek’s words, “how valuable an asset in all walks of life is knowledge of people, of local conditions, and of special circumstances…the method by which such knowledge can be made as widely available as possible is precisely the problem to which we have to find an answer.” His answer, of course, was the price mechanism.

 

A couple of artists have reinforced this point recently by trying to make consumer goods from scratch. One tried to make a suit from material sourced within 100 miles and failed. The other tried to make a toaster of the kind he could buy for $5 in the store. After many months and a large amount of money, he had a big, unreliable, messy machine that just about scorched bread. Self-sufficiency is another word for poverty.

 

By contrast, trade creates a collective problem-solving brain as big as the trade network itself. It draws upon dispersed and fragmented knowledge to create things that nobody can even comprehend, wholes that are more complex than the sum of their individual mental parts.

 

No other animal does this. There is exchange and specialisation within families, even huge families such as ant colonies, which gives an ant colony considerable collective intelligence. But that’s among kin. Exchange between strangers is a unique feature of us modern hominids. As Adam Smith said, “no man ever saw a dog make fair and deliberate exchange of a bone with another dog”.

 

Exchange, as practised by people for about the last 100,000 years (but possibly not by Neanderthals) is a fast breeder, a chain reaction. The more you exchange, the more it pays to specialise, and the more you specialise, the more it pays to exchange. There’s a positive feedback loop.

 

As Hayek put it, “That the division of labor has reached the extent which makes modern civilization possible we owe to the fact that it did not have to be consciously created but that man tumbled on a method by which the division of labor could be extended far beyond the limits within which it could have been planned.”

 

The invention of exchange had the same impact on human culture as sex had on biological evolution – it made it cumulative. So human technological advancement depended not on individual intelligence but on collective idea sharing.

 

The “cloud”, the crowd-sourced, wikinomic cloud, is not a new idea at all. It has been the source of human invention all along. That is why every technology you can think of is a combination of other technologies, and why simultaneous invention is so common as ideas come together to meet and mate when mature.

 

Which is, of course, why the internet is such an exciting development. For the first time, humanity has not just some big collective brains (called trade networks), but one truly vast one in which almost everybody can share and in which distance is no obstacle.

 

Instead of regretting this loss of economic leadership, British consumers or patients should be thrilled that they no longer have to rely only on their own citizens to discover new consumer goods or cures for cancer: Asians, Africans, Americans are now also eager to supply them.

 

Moreover, by contrast with the industrial system, the internet allows us to contribute as producers rather than just consumers. The internet is to radio as a conversation is to a lecture.

 

Truly something very weird has happened to the world when, for advocating this bottom-up, egalitarian, collectivist idea, for advocating freedom for people to exchange ideas and serve their fellow human beings thus encouraging social change, Hayek is condemned by left-leaning commentators as a right-wing zealot.

 

His accusers demand more power for Leviathan to control our lives, charge that free trade is bad for the people who freely choose it and muse about the suspension of democracy to advance the greater, greener good and prevent “populism”.

 

Hayek taught us to distrust the idea of putting people in charge of other people. Given that government has been the means by which people have committed unspeakable horrors again and again and again, from Nero and Attila to Hitler and Mao, why are people so forgiving of the state and so mistrustful of the market?

 

Visiting Auschwitz recently I was struck not by the “industrialisation” of death – it is a surprisingly low-tech place – but the “nationalisation” of death: the bureaucratic central planning and meticulous hierarchical organisation of mass murder: it takes a government to do an Auschwitz.

 

By contrast, free markets have generally produced flowerings of prosperity, invention, cultural experimentation and – yes – peace wherever they have been tried, from Song China to Silicon Valley.

 

We live in a world richly furnished with technological and cultural marvels, because we have networked our minds as a collective brain. It was exchange and specialisation that enabled us to do so. That’s Hayek’s great discovery.

 

 

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

 

NassimNicholasTaleb‏

 

A book is something that can be read ten years after publication. A real book, twenty. Otherwise it is a magazine report with bookbinding.

 

책이란 출판 후 10년 후에도 읽을 만한 물건이다. 진정한 책은 20년 후에도 읽을 만하다. 그렇지 않다면 그것은 책을 가장한 잡지에 지나지 않는다. 

 

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

 

방금 일베에 올라온 김형곤의 2시간짜리 스탠딩 코미디를 들었다. 사실 김 씨의 이런 코미디가 정통 코미디라고 할 수 있는데, 그가 죽은 이후로 이런 코미디를 하는 사람도, 할 수 있는 능력을 지닌 사람도 거의 없다.
오래 전에 나의 즐거움 중의 하나는 저녁에 미군 방송에서 제이 레노의 스탠딩 코미디를 보는 거였다. 지금은 코미디가 유치한 장난이거나 좌파들의 선전선동 도구가 되어 버렸다.

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

 

 

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