검찰의 압수수색이 야당에게 ‘축계망리(逐鷄望籬)’를 강요하는
政略的 잔꾀는 아닌가
이동복
그렇다면, 정작 9월2∼3일의 청문회에 나온 조국 후보가 의원들의 질의 가운데 자신에게 유리한 것에 대해서는 현장에서 답변하지만 불리하거나 곤란한 질의에 대해서는 “검찰의 수사가 진행 중이기 때문에 검찰의 수사를 통하여 밝혀지도록 하겠다”는 둔사(遁辭)로 답변을 회피하면 질의하는 의원들은 더 이상 추궁하지 못하고 '축계망리(逐鷄望籬∙닭 쫓던 개 울타리 쳐다보기)'의 처지가 될 것이 분명하다. 이러한 상황에서 2일간의 청문회 시간이 경과한다면 그 뒤에 문재인(文在寅) 대통령이 임의의 시간에 조국 법무장관 임명을 단행하더라도 야당은 이를 제지(制止)할 방도가 없어지는 것이 아니냐는 것이다.
결국, 이번 검찰의 전격적인 압수수색 단행은 최단시간 안에 조국 후보의 법무장관 임명을 단행하기 위하여 청와대와 더불어민주당이 치밀하게 계획한 고도의 정략적 잔꾀가 아니냐는 의혹이 제기되지 않을 수 없다. 이에 대한 야당의 대응책이 무엇인지가 궁금하다. (발췌)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why was "Beijing" surprised? There is infighting at the top of #China's political system. The symptoms of disorganization--disintegration?--should be a matter of great concern to all of us.
북경 당국은 왜 놀랐을까? 중국 정치의 최상부에서 내부 권력
다툼이 있기 때문이다.
Perhaps nobody was more surprised to hear that
China had called the Trump administration to restart
talks than the government in Beijing itself
중국측에서 트럼프 행정부에 회담 재개를 요청했다는
소식에 가장 놀란 사람들은 아마 북경의 정부일 것이
다.
---------------------------------------------------
Marco Rubio
Under the guise of a “public safety” product #Huawei is
setting up an overseas surveillance empire for #China.
It allows Huawei access to key government databases
& allows for 24 hour persistent video & technical
monitoring of key cities around the world.
공공 안전 상품이라는 구실로 화웨이는 중국을 위해
해외 감시 체제를 구축하고 있다. 그로 인해 화웨이는
주요 정부의 데이터베이스에 접근할 수 있고, 세계 주
요 도시의 기술적, 비디오적 감시를 24시간 내내 할 수
있다.
-----------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
“If your anger decreases with time, you did injustice; if it increases you suffered injustice” - @nntaleb
시간이 지남에 따라 분노가 감소한다면, 당신이 불의
(不義)한 것이다. 하지만 시간이 지나도 증가한다면, 당
신은 불의를 당한 것이다.
----------------------------------------------------------
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Now entropy methods, Mutual Information, i.e. "how much does someone's IQ tell you about his/her wealth or income?" or "how much more can you bet on Wealth knowing IQ or vice versa).
Answer: "zero".
한 사람의 아이큐로 그 사람의 재산이나 수입을 알 수 있을까?
대답은 "노"이다.
-----------------------------------------------------
Quillette
"The very writers, publishers, poets, musicians, comedians, media producers and artists who once worried about being muzzled by the government are now self-organizing on social media (Twitter, especially) to censor each other."
작가, 출판인, 시인, 음악가, 코미디언, 매체 피디, 예술가 등 한
때 정부의 검열을 걱정하던 사람들이, 이제는 소셜 미디어에서
단체를 결성해 서로를 검열하고 있다.
---------------------------------------------------
David Schmitt
benefits to sexual narcissism? perhaps some,
especially in women...
여성들은 상대를 기쁘게 하기 위해, 자신의 성적 쾌락
을 제한한다.
--------------------------------------------------
요즘 주변 사람들이랑 정치 얘기 하다보면
지금 분위기 바뀌고 있다고 희망이 보인다고 말하는 사람들 많음.
아직 넘어야할 산이 많지만 흐름이 바뀌고 있다는것에 대해선
나도 동감하고 희망을 보려고 많이 노력하고 있음.
그런데 얘기를 더 하다보면 문재인 끌어내리고 나면
마치 예전 상태로 바로 돌아가게 될거라고 생각하는 사람이 많더라.
물론 문재인은 한시라도 빨리 내려와야 하는건 맞지만
그건 시작에 불과하단걸 잊어서는 안된다.
이미 문재앙 집권 후 경제, 외교, 안보등 많은 부분에서
싸질러놓은 똥이 적지 않고.
문재앙이 집권하는 기간이 좀 더 길어진다면..
어쩌면 이전과 같은 대한민국은 다시 오기 힘들 수도 있을거란
생각도 든다..
잘나가던 직장인이 삶에 염증을 느끼고 욜로를 외치며
직장을 때려치고 막 살기 시작했다고 생각해보자..
그간 조금 모아둔 재산이 마르지 않는 우물이라 여기며
여행과 향락에 취해 떠돌다가..
어느새 잔고는 비어있고..충동적으로 땡겨쓴 현금서비스와
대출들..아차! 이건 아니구나 하고 정신차려서
예전으로 돌아가야겠다.
앞으로는 이전보다 더 열심히 살아야 겠다고
마음을 먹었다 한들..
그동안 땡겨쓴 빚이 탕감 되는건 아님.
거기다 예전 직장에선 나이 많다고..괘씸하다고 받아주질 않고..
다른 직장은 경력을 앞세워 쉽게 구할수 있을줄 알았지만.
이미 동종 업계에선 안좋은 소문이 나버려서..
시궁창 같은 현실을 직시하게 되겠지..
여기서 다시 밑바닥 부터 다시 시작한단 다지을 한다면 모르지만
갑자기 마누라는 이혼도장 찍자고 하고..
자식 새끼들은 돈 못벌어오는 아빠 벌레 보듯 하고..
가슴 아프다고 술에 취하고..
예전의 좋은 날들에 취해..잠깐이라도 인생을 허비하기 시작한다면
되돌이킬 수 없는 나락으로 빠져들지 않겠음?
하..지난 역사를 공부하고..현재 상태를 진단해서 미래를 그려보니
저런 상황이 떠오르네..
지금이라도 빨리 정신 차려서 문재앙 끌어내야 겠지만.
그 뒤로도 한참이나 긴 시간들을 쏟아 부어야
예전의 모습을 되찾을 수 있을거라는..아니 어쩌면
예전과 같은 좋은 시절은 이제..우리 세대에선
영원히 안녕 이라는 것을 마음 속에 새겨야 할지 모르겠다.
몇 년 지나서..우연히 이 글을 발견하고.
이불킥 차는 날이 오길 간절히 소망해 본다..
대부분 간과하고 있는 부분(문재앙 탄핵이 끝이 아니다.) / 일베
-----------------------------------------------------
문재인이 조국을 절대 포기할 수 없는 결정적 이유
--------------------------------------------------------
우리의 기적적인 번영은?
인간은 계약이 지배하는 시장경제 속에 살도록 계획되지는 않았다. 처음에 인간은 원래 150며 정도의 작은 집단 속에서 살아왔고, 당시의 행동 습관이 지금까지 뇌리에 각인되어 있다. 우리가 사회주의에 경도되는 이유는, 바로 고대의 소집단의 기억이 아직 남아 있기 때문일 것이다.
우리들은 지금까지 지구 위에 살았던 모든 사람들 중에서도 가장 운이 좋은 세대이다. 그렇다면 우리의 행운에 걸 맞는 행동을 하자는 것이, 너무 무리한 요구일까?
Explaining Our Miraculous Flourishing
By Marian L. Tupy | @HumanProgress
There is no God in Jonah Goldberg’s new book, Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics is Destroying American Democracy. But the book nonetheless revolves around a miracle. “The Miracle” is the shorthand Goldberg, a bestselling author, syndicated columnist, senior editor at National Review and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, uses to describe the escape of our species from the depths of ignorance, poverty and every-day conflict to the heights of scientific achievement, material abundance and relative peace.
To appreciate Goldberg’s Miracle, consider the following. Homo sapiens are between 200,000 and 300,000 years old. Yet the modern world, with all the conveniences that we take for granted (I wrote this article sitting on a plane 8 kilometers above ground, using an internet connection provided by a satellite orbiting 37,000 kilometers above the surface of the Earth), is merely 250 years old. Put differently, for the first 99.9 percent of our time on earth, progress was painfully slow. Then everything suddenly changed. Why? That’s the question that Goldberg strives to answer.
Goldberg has written two previous and popular books, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change and The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas. Goldberg’s writing style, as the titles of his books suggest, is geared towards a mainstream audience, but the AEI fellow researches his books with care. Of human nature, Goldberg writes:
“Humans were not designed to live in the market order of contracts, money, or impersonal rules, never mind huge societies governed by a centralised state. We were designed to live in bands, or what most people think of as tribes. The human brain is designed so that we can manage stable social relationships with roughly 150 people… We were designed by evolution to be a part of a group, but that group was very limited in size. These groups took on a variety of structures, but the basic anatomy was generally the same. There was a Big Man or some other form of chieftain or ‘alpha.’ …In the most basic sense, these bands were socialist or communist in that resources were generally shared. But the genetic programming clearly emphasised us over me. We still hold on to that programming and it rubs up against modernity constantly.”
Based on the above paragraph, readers will be able to deduce the crux of Goldberg’s argument. The Miracle happened not because of, but in spite of, hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Our rule-based society, where equality before the law takes precedence over the social and economic status of the individual, a staggeringly complex global economy that turns strangers from different continents into instant business partners, and a meritocratic system of social and economic advancement that ignores people’s innate features, such as race and gender, is both very new and extremely fragile.
The Miracle emerged, probably by chance and after hundreds of years of trial and error, in the splendidly quirky island of Great Britain. It then spread, however imperfectly, into other parts of the world. Today, the outposts of the Miracle can be found not only in Western Europe, North America and Oceania (Australia and New Zealand), but also in Asia (Hong Kong), Africa (Botswana) and Latin America (Chile). An extraordinary achievement.
In a refreshingly non-relativistic manner, which is one of Goldberg’s trademarks, he writes, “I believe that, conceptually, we have reached the end of history. We are at the summit, and at this altitude [political] left and right lose most of their meaning. Because when you are at the top of the mountain, any direction you turn – be it left toward socialism or right toward nationalism … the result is the same: You must go down, back whence you came.”
And that descent (decline, if you will) is the key threat that we all ought to keep in mind. The forces of tribalism always linger just below the surface and are never permanently subdued. From Russia and China to Turkey and, to some extent, the United States, the all-mighty chieftain is back in charge. From the darkest corners of the web, where nationalists and anti-Semites thrive, to the university campuses, where identity politics flourish, group loyalty takes precedence over the individual. These dangerous sentiments originate, it is true, in human nature. But their renewed lease on life springs, as Goldberg reminds us, from something much more banal – ingratitude defined as “forgetfulness of, or poor return for, kindness received.”
We are the luckiest generation that has ever lived. On average, we are longer living, richer, healthier, more educated, safer and, even, happier, than any other people who have ever lived. Is it too much to ask that we start behaving in a manner that is commensurate with our good fortune?
Suicide of the West is a rich and highly readable book. The progress of our species is described with an appropriate sense of marvel and, perhaps, a little bit of well-earned pride. It is also a deeply humane work, with the author genuinely concerned about the threats to human progress that lurk ahead and for the well-being of his fellow creatures.
--------------------------------------------
좌파들이 노예제가 자본주의 탓이라고 계속해서 반복하는 이유는?
최근 좌파들은 현대 자본주의가 노예제 위에 건설되었다고 주장하고 있다.
이 논리에 따르면 자본주의는 노예제의 계승자이고, 자본주의 하에서 풍족한 생활을 하는 사람들은 오래전 노예들의 노동으로부터 혜택을 입고 있다는 것이다.
이는 자본주의를 혐오스럽게 만드는 좌파들의 전술인데, 사실은 그렇지 않다. 우선 노예 경제는 미국 경제 성장의 엔진이 아니었고, 자본주의 체제는 노예제로 인해 성공한 것이 아니다.
미국 남부가 전세계 면화의 대부분을 생산했고, 이 면화가 서구 북반구의 산업 발전을 촉진했다. 따라서 프랑스, 미국 북부, 영국 등은 사실 남부의 농장주들에 의해 지배되고 있다는 게 킹 코튼King Cotton 논리이다.
하지만 세계가 면화 없이 살 수 없다는 건 사실이 아니었고, 노예 노동에 의한 면화는 더더욱 그러했다.
노예 경제는 세계 경제의 견인차가 아니라, 남부 경제를 가로막던 장애물이었다.
Why They Keep Trying to Blame Capitalists for Slavery
Ryan McMaken
In recent months, several national media outlets and public figures have begun pushing the idea that modern capitalism is built on the foundation of slavery. Last week, while linking to a New Your Times article on the topic, Bernie Sanders claimed "America’s rise relied on treating Black people as literal property. "Meanwhile, a recent Vox headline proclaims "How slavery became the building block of the American economy."
Conveniently, this narrative is perfect for doing two things at once. It sets up capitalism as the moral heir of slavery. And at the same time, it pushes the idea that those who lead a relatively comfortable life under the capitalist system are benefiting from the toil of slaves from long ago. By this thinking, if every modern day business owner, entrepreneur, and middle-class property owner has benefited from capitalism, then that person — whether or not his ancestors were in any way connected to the slave economy — has also benefited from slavery. If the strategy succeeds, then modern day capitalists can be shown to be, in a sense, on the same moral plane as the slave masters of old. And, of course, capitalism is also shown to be morally repugnant.
Fortunately, the evidence doesn't support the theory. The slave economy was never the engine of American economic growth, and capitalist systems never needed slavery to succeed.
Reviving the Arguments of Slave Owners
Modern-day anti-capitalists aren't the first to use this tactic. This version of history claiming everyone gets rich off slavery has a lot in common with the propaganda spun by slave owners in the antebellum South. The goal was to attack the idea that non-slaveholding northerners were morally superior to slave-owning southerners. The message was "we are all equally responsible for slavery."
One part of the strategy consisted of claiming that some northern abolitionists were hypocrites for participating in the slave trade as owners of shipping firms that served the slave economy.
As recounted by Matthew Karp in This Vast Southern Empire, pro-slavery politician — and US diplomat in Brazil — Henry A. Wise chronicled the hypocrisy of northern merchants who claimed to oppose slavery while making money off the slave trade in Brazil:
The Americans involved in the trade, Wise reported, "are all from North of Balt[imore ]," and northern abolitionists were deeply complicit in the cruel traffic. One notorious ship, which landed about six hundred slaves in Brazil, "was owned by a Quaker of Delaware who would not even eat slave sugar." Another American vessel, Wise declared, "which has made several trips to the coast under the charter party of notorious slave traders here, is also the owner of an abolition newspaper in Bangor, Maine.
While this no doubt made some northern merchants look bad, these claims nonetheless failed to make the case that northerners in general were getting rich from slavery.
Far more useful in spreading the blame about slavery was the "King Cotton" argument which pushed the notion that most of the industrialized world depended on the cotton economy. Karp continues:
Slaveholders in the 1850s seldom passed up an opportunity to sketch the inexorable syllogism of King Cotton: the American South produced nearly all the world's usable raw cotton; this cotton fueled the industrial development of the North Atlantic; therefore, the advanced economies of France, the northern United States, and Great Britain were ruled, in effect, by southern planters.
The conclusions southerners drew from this King Cotton model were no less grandiose than their premises. De Bow's encyclopedia declared that cotton was "the most beneficent product that commerce has ever transported for the comfort of the human family."
Without southern cotton, it was claimed, northern industry — assumed to be dependent on cotton for textiles — would suffer a crippling blow. Thus, the northern and European capitalists were thought to be at the mercy of the cotton producers, and to owe their success to the slave economy.
So widespread was this belief that southern political theorists believed the South ought to forget about diversifying its economy. George Fitzhugh, for example, insisted the South should focus on putting all its eggs in the cotton basket:
It matters little who makes our shoes. Indeed, the South will commit a fatal blunder if, in its haste to become nominally independent, it loses its present engines of power, and thereby ceases to be really independent. Cotton is king; and rice, sugar, Indian corn, what, and tobacco, are his chief ministers. ... We should not jeopard this great lever of power in the haste to become, like Englishmen, shop-keepers, cobblers, and common carriers for the universe.
Ultimately, so confident were many southerners that they could use the cotton economy to control the world, Sen. James Hammond of South Carolina concluded: "[Y]ou dare not make war on cotton. No power on earth dares to make war upon it."
Needless to say, Hammond and the purveyors of the King Cotton theory were wrong about the extent of global political power generated by cotton.
It turned out that the world could survive without southern cotton, and — more importantly — the world did not need cotton produced specifically by slaves. Nor was it true that the world needed the "cheap labor" of slavery to produce goods and services economically. Northern immigrants disproved this even before the war.
The pretensions about the "necessity" of slave cotton became more abundantly clear after the war. Even in the wake of the Union army's scorched earth campaign against the South, cotton production began to recover within only a few years of the war's end. Cotton production, now using non-slave labor, had returned to peak levels by the 1870s. By the end of the nineteenth century, cotton production was more than double what it had been during the antebellum years.
Moreover, even during the slave-labor era, the northern economy was hardly doomed to failure without southern cotton. Textiles were not the only thing people needed to meet their basic needs. And slaves were not the only thing merchants could make money shipping. Northern states produced immense amounts of food stuffs. Northern merchants shipped growing amounts of crops, building materials, and other resources unconnected to the cotton economy.
Rather than be an engine of the world's economy, it is more likely the slave economy held the southern economy back. According to Karl Smith at Bloomberg this week:
Just before independence, the per capita gross domestic product of the South, adjusted for inflation, was $3,100 per year — compared with just $1,832 in New England. Over the next 60 years Southern per capita GDP actually declined, to $2,521. British demand for cotton helped it to recover to $4,000 per person in 1860, but by then the comparable figure for New England was $5,337.
Slave labor was no match for canals, railroads, steel mills and shipyards. Slavery — and the parochial rent-seeking culture it promoted — inhibited the growth of capitalism in the South.
The fact that many industries in the US North and in Western Europe benefited from slave-produced southern cotton does not prove that these economies needed slave cotton to thrive or survive. The world's industrial economies have gotten along just fine without it.
Nonetheless, certain leftists are now trying to revive the old antebellum theory that the capitalist economy is built on the backs of slaves. The slave drivers of old would no doubt agree. But the theory is just as wrong now as it was then.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기