민주노총 조합원들이 경총 사무실을 찾아가서 시위를 했지만, 출동한 경찰은 바라만 보았다. 앞으로 법은 무의미해지고, 좌파의 폭력 단체들이 이 나라의 주요 사항을 결정하게 될지 모른다. 이미 성주의 사드 포대는 좌파 시민(?)들에 의해 통제되고 있다.
----------------------------------------------------------
오늘 정규재TV에서 이분이 나와서 4대강과 미세먼지에 대해 이야기했다. 지난번과 함께 2회에 걸쳐 이야기했는데, 미세먼지 얘길 듣고 충격먹었다.
결론은 미세먼지는 10년전에 비해 반으로 줄었다 이다.
미세먼지를 줄이는 원천은 화력발전을 줄이는 개짓거리가 아니라 '물청소'란다.
왜냐하면 우리가 마시는 공기는 지면에서부터 1~1.5m 사이에 있는 공기들이고
먼지는 재부유, 다시말해 땅으로 꺼졌다가 다시 부유하는 일종의 생활먼지들이 그 사이에 밀집해있으므로, 오세훈 때 특히나 도로 물청소를 열심히 해서 미세먼지 지수가 굉장히 좋아졌다고 한다.
2003년도에 국립환경과학원에서 미세먼지예보제 라는걸 만들었다. 즉 내일 미세먼지 농도는 어떻다 저떻다 라는걸 예측하는 기구인데, 이 미세먼지예보제 측정 기준은 지상에서 10m이다. 우리가 마시는 공기의 7배 이상 위의 공기까지 측정을 하니까
예보 자체도 잘 맞지 않을뿐더러 실질적인 우리가 마시는 미세먼지와는 관련 없는 수치가 잡힌다는거지.
재밌는건 이 예보제를 통해 뭐 중국발 미세먼지, 황사가 심해진다 이런 소리가 나오기 시작하면서 핫바지 교수들이나 학자들, 환경단체들이 쏠쏠하게 먹거리가 생겼고
공기청정기 사업은 그야말로 대박을 치게 된다라.
[출처] 오늘 정규재TV 보고 충격먹음./ 일베
---------------------------------------------------------------
안경환의 발언들
술자리에는 반드시 여자가 있어야 한다. 정 없으면 장모라도 곁에 있어야 한다
여자는 생존을 보장해주는 한 남자와 안정된 관계 속에 자녀를 양육하는 데 관심이 쏠려 있지만, 남자는 되도록 많은 정자를 많은 곳에 뿌리는 일에 관심을 둔다. 난교는 남자의 생래적 특징이다
대한민국이라는 나라를 조국으로 섬기도록 강요받게 되겠지만 너에게는 아메리카라는 또 하나의 조국이 있단다.
또 하나의 조국, 아메리카는 너의 충성을 애써 요구하지 않을 것이다.
아비는 굳이 고집하지 않으리라, 대한민국만이 너의 조국이라고
아비는 조국 대신 타국을, 사회적인 삶 대신 개인적인 삶을 동경해왔단다
---> 대한민국이 아니라 아프리카 야생에서 살아야 할 사람이, 이곳에 잘못 태어났다. 그곳에서 장모 껴안고 술도 마시고, 난교도 하고, 개인적인 삶도 누리며 살아야 했다.
----------------------------------------------------------
大青龍湯
【製法用量】
麻黃去節18克(6兩) 桂枝去皮6克(2兩) 甘草炙6克(2兩) 杏仁去皮尖12克(40枚) 生薑切9克(3兩) 大棗擘10枚 石膏碎30克(如雞子大)
【功效】
發汗解表，兼清裏熱。
【主治】
外感風寒表實兼裡有熱證。發熱惡寒，寒熱俱甚，身疼痛，不汗出而煩躁，苔白薄，脈浮緊者。
【方義】
本方為麻黃湯加石膏、生薑、大棗、治太陽傷寒證而兼有煩躁之裡熱證。方中麻黃湯重用麻黃加生薑，辛溫發汗，以散表實之邪；石膏辛寒，以清裡熱；大棗和中，以資汗源。為表裡雙解之劑。方名大青龍者，以其服藥後汗出邪去，猶如龍升雨降之象，鬱熱頓除故名。
마황탕에 석고, 생강, 대추를 넣은 방제로, 태양 상한증에 煩躁之裡熱證이 겹쳤을 때 쓴다. 약을 복용한 후에, 용이 승천하고 비가 내리듯이, 鬱熱이 단번에 해소되기 때문에, 대청룡탕이라 이름하였다.
【辨證要點】
1.發熱惡寒。
2.不汗出而煩躁。
3.舌苔白薄。
4.脈浮緊。
【加減】
1.頭痛身疼：加川芎、白芷。
2.口渴甚：加天花。
3.咽痛：加竹葉、蘆根、穿心蓮、射干、桔梗。
4.咳嗽甚：加桑葉、桔梗、款冬花。
【注意禁忌】
服後大汗出，則不宜再服。
약을 복용한 후에 크게 땀을 흘리면, 다시 복용하지 않는다.
【現代應用】
本方發汗退熱，抗菌消炎，增強肺的換氣功能。用於感冒、流感、肺炎、支氣管炎、麻疹、風疹、蕁麻疹、急性腎炎、結膜炎，關節炎、丹毒、皮膚癢、腦膜炎等。
출처: yibian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
大青龍湯的功效
大青龍湯症---病人出現怕冷,無汗,發燒,咳嗽重,咳出黃痰,身體痛,口渴重,喜喝冷水,沒有胃口時,就吃大青龍湯,這就是SARS與禽流感的主要症狀.
대청룡탕증은 SARS와 禽流感의 증상과 동일하다.
...給疾病管制局的建議,請你們去購買桂枝湯與大青龍湯,將它們分開做兩堆,置於戶外,當你們看到有鳥類來吃大青龍湯時,這些就是被感染到禽流感的鳥,去吃桂枝湯的鳥就是沒有得到禽流感的,此法也可以用在養雞場,禽類吃了大青龍湯之後會排糞便出來,此時你們就可以去取些樣本來化驗,就知道我對否? 根本不需要趕盡殺絕的,這是削足適履的行為.....
조류독감에 걸린 조류는 대청룡탕으로 치료할 수 있다.
這個時候，研究傷寒論的人會去比較，發現它的症狀是: 「怕冷，發高燒不退，呼吸短促,咳嗽，全身痠痛。」 這剛好全部都是傷寒論太陽病的 「大青龍湯」証。所以相信傷寒論的中醫師，會用大青龍湯來治療SARS，具非官方私下報導，效果是非常好的，讓許多人逃離死神的魔掌。
【方藥】麻黃（去節）18克，桂枝（去皮）、甘草（炙）各6克，生薑（切）、石膏（碎）各9克，杏仁40枚（去皮尖），大棗（掰開）12枚。
【用法】加水9升，先煮麻黃，減2升後，去沫，入諸藥，煮取3升，去渣，溫服1升。
【功效】發汗解表，清除鬱熱。
【主治】外感風寒，內有鬱熱。表現為發熱惡寒，時寒時熱，身體疼痛，不出汗而煩躁，四肢、面部浮腫，發熱惡寒，無汗，咳喘。
主治病症
１.濾過性病毒 바이러스 병균
善用仲景方的同道，通常用本方治小朋友感冒發燒，有意想不到的效果；而且本方是麻桂的變方，口感不錯、患者多能接受。凡罹患濾過性病毒流感，可加連翹；腸胃性嘔吐，加葦根。
本方之所以能退熱是因為內有石膏劑。仲景用藥，通常有內熱煩躁才會用石膏，本方是麻黃湯及桂枝湯的合方去芍藥改石膏而成，有內熱就表示體溫升高，甚至高熱，石膏劑就是很好的退熱劑。曾有一位醫學會理事長公開演講中，特別推崇並感謝仲景先生留給後世寶貴方劑。但同道又擔心過用麻黃汗出過多會亡陽，殊不知石膏正有一寒一熱的制衡作用。因此不必多慮。
【注意】
◆本方發汗作用強烈。體質較好者，用之無妨；體質較弱者，應當慎用；若脈搏微弱，出汗容易受涼者，絕對不可使用。臨床應用中，患者一出汗即停藥，不可過量服用，否則，會因出汗過多而傷身。
◆現代醫家認為，麻黃的有效成分麻黃鹼，有興奮中樞神經和心臟的作用。用藥過量時易引起精神興奮、失眠、不安、神經過敏、震顫等症狀；有嚴重器質性心臟病或接受洋地黃治療的患者，可引起心律紊亂。
◆麻黃是大青龍湯的主要藥物，過量服用會出現多種不良反應，特此提醒患者必須在醫師指導下應用。
大青龍湯解表清裡，其發汗力量比麻黃湯更強，現代臨床多用大青龍湯治療毛孔閉塞、不出汗且身體內熱患者。主治呼吸系統疾患，如感冒、支氣管炎、哮喘等，亦用於治療鼻出血、汗腺閉塞征、風濕性關節炎者。
◆支氣管哮喘。表現為咳喘氣促，痰黃黏稠，渴喜冷飲，面赤髮熱，無汗煩躁，舌紅苔黃。證屬寒邪外束，內熱壅肺。治療應以宣肺清熱，止咳平喘為主。
處方：麻黃、杏仁、甘草、桂枝、生薑各10克，石膏60克，桔梗15克，大棗7枚。
用法：水煎服，每日1劑。
功效：5劑後，汗出煩解，咳喘減輕；繼服10劑，症狀即可消除。
◆汗腺閉塞症。表現為夏季大汗出時用冷水沖浴，此後再未出汗，在盛夏或劇烈運動後仍無汗出，伴心中煩躁，頭昏身熱，汗孔突起，舌質紅，苔薄黃。
處方：麻黃、杏仁、桂枝、生薑各15克，生石膏30克（先煎30分鐘），黨參20克，甘草10克，大棗4枚。
用法：水煎20分鐘後取汁分2次服。
功效：若服1次後便出汗，可不必再服，避免風寒；若服藥1次，未出汗，可感覺身熱灼手，心煩意亂，過3小時可再服余藥，服後20分鐘開始汗出，逐漸增多。1個月後，出汗逐漸正常，病告痊癒。
◆鼻出血。表現為發熱惡寒，頭身痛，煩躁時甚，繼後鼻出血，初時點滴，斷斷續續，而後長淌不止，舌尖紅，苔白厚膩中微黃。治療應以發汗解表、清熱止血為主。
處方：淨麻黃（先下）、薏苡仁各12克，桂枝、炙甘草各4克，杏仁10克，石膏40克（先下），大棗8克，生薑6克。
用法：水煎服，每日1劑。
출처: 安馬家
-------------------------------------------------------------
인간이 이해하기에는 너무나 복잡한 세상에서 우리는 살고 있다. 그 대책은?
It’s complicated
For centuries, humans have been creating ever-more complicated systems, from the machines we live with to the informational systems and laws that keep our global civilisation stitched together.
Technology continues its fantastic pace of accelerating complexity — offering efficiencies and benefits that previous generations could not have imagined — but with this increasing sophistication and interconnectedness come complicated and messy effects that we can’t always anticipate.
It’s one thing to recognise that technology continues to grow more complex, making the task of the experts who build and maintain our systems more complicated still, but it’s quite another to recognise that many of these systems are actually no longer completely understandable.
We now live in a world filled with incomprehensible glitches and bugs. When we find a bug in a video game, it’s intriguing, but when we are surprised by the very infrastructure of our society, that should give us pause. (발췌)
Samuel Arbesman is a Senior Adjunct Fellow of the Silicon Flatirons Center at the University of Colorado. His work has appeared in The New York Times and others. He is the author of The Half-Life of Facts (2012).
인간이 이해하기에는 너무나 복잡한 세상에서 우리는 살고 있다. 그 대책은?
It’s complicated
For centuries, humans have been creating ever-more complicated systems, from the machines we live with to the informational systems and laws that keep our global civilisation stitched together.
Technology continues its fantastic pace of accelerating complexity — offering efficiencies and benefits that previous generations could not have imagined — but with this increasing sophistication and interconnectedness come complicated and messy effects that we can’t always anticipate.
It’s one thing to recognise that technology continues to grow more complex, making the task of the experts who build and maintain our systems more complicated still, but it’s quite another to recognise that many of these systems are actually no longer completely understandable.
We now live in a world filled with incomprehensible glitches and bugs. When we find a bug in a video game, it’s intriguing, but when we are surprised by the very infrastructure of our society, that should give us pause. (발췌)
Samuel Arbesman is a Senior Adjunct Fellow of the Silicon Flatirons Center at the University of Colorado. His work has appeared in The New York Times and others. He is the author of The Half-Life of Facts (2012).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
아이언 브레머
Worst-case scenario right here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
한나 아렌트의 책 <전체주의의 기원>에서 "왜 지도자들은 충성을 요구하고, 그의 보좌관과 협력자들은 그것을 서약하는지에 관해"
전체주의 국가에서 엘리트의 최고 덕목은 지도자에 대한 충성이다. 그들 엘리트들은 현실을 있는 그대로 바라보지 않고, 거짓과 현실을 비교하려고도 하지 않는다. 그들은 지도자가 거짓과 허구로 진실과 현실을 억누를 수 있다고 믿는다.
---> 앞으로 문죄인의 관료 집단이 이와 같이 행동할 것이다. 아니 이미 이렇게 행동하고 있다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free trade is God’s diplomacy, and there is no other certain way of uniting people in bonds of peace.’ ------- Richard Cobden
-----------------------------------------------------------
사회기반 시설이 가치를 창출하는 것은 상품과 에너지 등의 운송비를 낮춰 생산력을 상승킬 때이다. 상승된 생산력에 의해 창조된 가치는 비용을 초과해야만 한다.
The Myth of Infrastructure Spending
Ryan McMaken
Trump's $1-trillion infrastructure spending plan continues to be one of his less controversial proposed policies. In Washington, and even among many in the general public, there is a consensus that government spending on more roads and bridges is always necessarily a slam dunk.
This is stated matter-of-factly in a recent CNN article about the president's plan:
Infrastructure spending is a proven winner for the economy: It creates jobs, fuels growth and allows Americans to get from point A to B faster, making them more productive.
This statement is not a quotation from any supporter of the the plan. The author of the article is simply stating what he believes to be an indisputable fact.
The fact that statements like this are made in such a blasé way should not surprise us.
This attitude goes back at least to the early nineteenth century when it was assumed that government infrastructure programs were all necessarily "proven winners" for the metaphorical construct known as "the economy."
200 Years of Boondoggles
Perhaps the most famous example of this is the transcontinental railroad which is still held up as the great "proof" that massive infrastructure projects are indisputably net gains for the nation.
In reality, the transcontinentals were never "proven winners" and were actually huge engines of debt and corruption in nineteenth century America. They siphoned off vast amounts of wealth from other uses where money would have been better spent.
Even worse, the railroads — like all infrastructure — required constant upkeep. Thus, the creation of new infrastructure was really a creation of future government commitments for more government spending.
In his huge study of the intercontinental railroads, historian Richard White noted:
[The transcontinental railroads] were less an asset that one generation passed on to the next than a debt that the past imposed on present and future. I mean this quite literally. The seeming durability of the iron, steel, and stone that made up a railroad was, if not an illusion, then largely relative. The wind and rain, the ice and the snow, the flood and the landslides, the rust, the rot, and the fire that ate away at railroads meant that they had to be constantly repaired and rebuilt, or they ceased to function. When nineteenth-century editorialists proclaimed that the fraud, deception, and loss of capital that the railroads entailed ultimately did not matter, because Americans now had the railroad, they did not know what they were talking about. Without constant new investment and labor, the railroads would have been useless...
All of the watered stock, the money siphoned off into private pockets, waste, and fraud that characterized the building of the railroads created a corporate debt that had to be paid through higher rates and scrimping on service. A shipper in 1885 was still paying for the frauds of the 1860s.
Thus, infrastructure spending is not some one-time thing that blesses the nation with new wonderful things that everyone can use indefinitely. It is often a commitment to simply spend much more money in the future. So, you'd better be sure you're buying exactly what you need.
White also observed that shipping through the railroads did not become competitive with sea-based shipping for decades. Western states did not become wealthier in the wake of railroad construction across the frontier. In fact, incomes in Western states went down during the same period. So much for the economic slam dunk.
In spite of it all, we continue to ignore the true costs of this sort of spending. Charles Hugh Smith observes:
Building bridges to nowhere isn't just a waste of money in the present; it saddles the economy with productivity-draining costs for decades to come.
If there is anything the political left, right and center can agree upon, it's the lasting benefits of spending more (borrowed) money on infrastructure: roadways, rail lines, airports, seaports, pipelines, dams, electrical lines and so on: the physical networks of advanced civilization.
That Roman roadways constructed 2,000 years ago are still visible illustrates the longstanding value of reliable infrastructure: Roman political control and trade depended on roadways and sea transport to tie the sprawling empire together.
This is the basic assumption behind the notion that virtually any and all infrastructure spending will create value far into the future.
But is this really true? Does rebuilding and/or adding infrastructure create economic value?
To answer, we need to look at two issues: productivity and cost-benefit.
Infrastructure creates new value when it boosts productivity, generally by lowering costs of moving goods, energy, etc.
The value created by increased productivity must far outweigh the cost.
Consider the classic "bridge to nowhere" infrastructure project: a bridge is constructed between a sparsely populated island and the mainland. The payoff is a handful of residents are spared the time and inconvenience required to ship their vehicles between the island and mainland on a ferry.
Does this time savings translate into increased productivity, or merely extra leisure? And what was the cost to gain this very modest increase in leisure/productivity? Spending tens of millions of dollars on the bridge actually reduces the productivity of the entire economy due to the opportunity cost: the millions of dollars could have been more productively invested elsewhere, and spending the money on a low-value-creating bridge deprived the economy of the capital, labor etc. that could have been better invested in productivity-generating projects.
This is especially true of new projects, of course. Building a new bridge or a new road brings totally unproven or hypothetical benefits, especially — as the railroads proved — in less industrially dense areas. What's worse, the promoters of such spending do not take into account the opportunity cost of the spending.
After all, this sort of spending requires that the money must first be removed from the pockets of taxpayers. It is assumed that this is justified because it creates "stimulus." It creates new jobs in building highways, and makes roads everyone can use. But what would the taxpayer and the worker have done in the absence of that spending?
Patrick Trombly wonders:
The government, via taxation, produces something that the consumers have not already chosen to buy. If they were already producing and buying such things, no government intervention would be “necessary.” Thus, whenever the government spending program — on infrastructure or anything else — ends, we end up with workers who took the “stimulus” jobs instead of the jobs that would have been created by the private economy’s spending or investing the same money. Those workers will have invested their time and energy in the development of skills not actually in demand by the consumers. This is a form of malinvestment, and it impacts employees of these firms in a manner similar to the workers who were misled by Fed-created malinvestment booms into the home construction fields in the 2000s or the oil drilling fields in the 2010s. Of course, workers need not worry about other employment if interest groups can convince politicians to keep pouring billions into these industries indefinitely, even though the taxpayers couldn’t be bothered with voluntarily investing in those industries to the same degree.
"But we're only repairing the infrastructure we already have!" will be the refrain of some supporters of the new spending.
First of all, given the experience of the past, we can say that this claim is almost certainly untrue. Federal infrastructure plans designed for "repairs" have always tended to also result in bridges to nowhere, and shiny new expensive projects where far less extravagant spending would have sufficed quite well but for the easy access to federal largesse.
But even if spending were made merely on repairing existing facilities, the debt and cost that appears on the back end is usually ignored.
Smith continues:
Replacing existing infrastructure is also problematic. It may well be necessary, but since it won't boost regional productivity (since it's merely replacing existing structures), it acts as a tax on the regional economy: if the replacement costs $1 billion and generates no real gains in productivity, it is in essence a tax that bleeds capital from the economy that could have been productively invested elsewhere.
Rebuilding a bridge generates higher spending on materials and wages, but if it doesn't generate additional productive capacity equal to its cost, this additional spending (in our world, always paid for with borrowed money that accrues interest for decades to come) runs out once the project is complete, but the costs of paying for the replacement continue on for decades.
As a rule of thumb, if a replacement bridge costs $1 billion, it will cost users and taxpayers $3 billion over the life of the loan/bond that funded the project.
Borrowing immense sums to spend on infrastructure that doesn't boost productivity actually cripples an economy by channeling scarce capital and tax revenues into projects that only boost spending for a few years at best, while the costs of borrowing the money pile up for decades to come.
In other words, building bridges to nowhere isn't just a waste of money in the present; it saddles the economy with productivity-draining costs for decades to come.
This high future cost for no-productivity gain infrastructure effectively bleeds the economy of income and capital for decades, for the temporary sugar-high of infrastructure spending today.
A rigorous cost-benefit analysis might conclude that some aging, marginal infrastructure should be torn down rather than replaced. If self-driving vehicles will reduce vehicles on the roads significantly — and some estimates range as high as an 80% reduction in traffic — perhaps we should wait for this technology to mature before spending trillions of dollars on infrastructure that is about to be under-utilized.
We should instead ask: where are the big gains in productivity going to come from going forward? The answers to that question should guide our public and private investment decisions.
In the meantime, we should question whether proposed infrastructure spending is actually an "investment in our future" or just another bureaucratic boondoggle designed to enrich crony-cartels and justify rising bureaucratic budgets.
Indeed, the tactics of the infrastructure-spending enthusiasts are very similar to that of the global-warming zealots. They put forward massive government spending plans, while ignoring the opportunity cost of the spending or the economic realities involved. But who needs to consider costs when the benefits of the spending — in the minds of supporters — are 100% completely and obviously good?
Anyone who raises questions of cost is simply dismissed as a hopelessly small-time thinker, or a "denier" of reality.
As Always: Decentralize
If a new highway is needed in Peoria, let the Peorians pay for it, either with a toll road or local taxes. If the benefits of infrastructure spending is so abundantly obvious, then it will pay off for every metro area that builds a new road. The great benefit of federal spending on infrastructure, however, is that the new spending can be forced on the taxpayers with much less political effort than would be required to obtain a new local tax. Members of Congress — who are far more insulated from voters than state and local policymakers — need not sorry about how it will be paid for. They can simply rely on the central bank to help the Feds go more deeply into debt to spend another few hundred billion dollars.
---> 전라도에 섬과 섬, 섬과 육지를 연결하는 거대한 교량들이 생각난다. 엄청난 세금을 헛된 공사에 쏟아 부은 대표적인 예이다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mobility and Nobility
•Theodore Dalrymple
영국의 의사로 빈민층, 범죄자들을 많이 다루었고, 사회문제에 관한 글들을 발표해왔다.
A few years ago, I was taken to lunch in a grand New York club by some very rich men. They gave me the benefit of their opinion on Britain’s rigid class system. They appeared not to notice that, at that very moment, they were being served by a flurry of obsequious men, whose grovelling was certainly the equal of any that I had seen anywhere in the world.
Since my hosts were obviously highly intelligent and cultivated, I concluded that they must have felt uneasy about the notion of class, perhaps even guilty at being themselves so obviously members of an upper class, and quite a rarefied one at that. I have had similar experiences in Australia, another supposedly classless society.
It seemed to me that the embarrassment of my New York interlocutors stemmed from a common confusion between a class society and a closed one. They are not at all the same thing. Indeed, a classless society, if such a thing were possible, would in a sense be the most closed of all, because in it there could be no social mobility, upward or downward. Everyone would stay exactly where he was because there was nowhere else to go.
This confusion between a class society and a closed one runs through Nancy Isenberg’s White Trash, which is instinct with totalitarian longing. According to her, America remains what it has been from the very start: a caste society in which social position at birth determines the whole of a person’s biography in the way that orthodox Hindus always regard an Untouchable as an Untouchable, no matter his conduct or achievements. Her method and historiography is that of Michel Foucault: she starts with a conclusion and then trawls history for confirmatory evidence, disregarding all other.
* * *
Isenberg’s totalitarian leanings can be seen in the passage which occurs in the conclusion or summing up of her book:
But let us devote more thought to what Henry Wallace wrote in 1936: what would happen, he posed, if one hundred thousand poor children and one hundred thousand rich children were all given the same food, clothing, education, care, and protection? Class lines would likely disappear. This was the only conceivable way to eliminate class, he said — and what he didn’t say was that this would require removing children from their homes and raising them in a neutral, equitable environment. A dangerous idea indeed!
And obviously an attractive one too, at least to Isenberg, a professor of American history at Louisiana State University, for her entire book is a protest against the effects of social class — the evil of evils and the root of all misery. Moreover, the only meaning that can be attached to the words “neutral” and “equitable” in connection with the proposed childhood environment is identical. Since no one would admit to wishing anything inequitable, it follows that Isenberg favors, though perhaps she does not quite realize it, hatcheries along the lines of Brave New World. Cloning becomes imperative as well, since it can hardly be denied that children differ in their genetic endowment. (No neutral, equitable environment would have turned me into a Mozart or Einstein, for example.) Along the way in her history of, or rather tract on, class in America, she disparages the eugenicists — rightly, in my view. Their transgression, as she sees it, was to evince the immemorial disdain of the American upper classes for the lower. To adapt slightly Shigalyov’s famous argument in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Devils, Isenberg does not realize that she starts off from absolute opposition to eugenics, and arrives at its absolute enforcement. (발췌)
This article first appeared in the Spring 2017 issue of the Claremont Review of Books.
----------------------------------------------------------------
*안경환 법무부 장관 후보 참여연대 출신
*조국도 참여연대 출신
*청와대 정책실과 경제 부처에도 참여연대 출신
*장하성도 참여연대 출신
*김상조도 참여연대 출신
*청와대 행정관도 참여연대 출신 상당수 포진
[출처] 요즘은 서울 연고대가 아닌, 참여연대(大)를 나와야 공직자 될 수 있음/ 일베
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기