조갑제 티비의 제목이다. 트럼프가 '미국 우선주의'를 들고 나왔을 때, 이런 일은 어쩌면 예견할 수 있는 사태였다.
미국은 제국으로서 너무 방만하게 확장했고, 경제 역시 깊은 수렁에 빠져 있다. 그래서 미국은 이제 자기 앞가림도 힘들게 된 지경에 이르게 되었다.
트럼프는 현실을 직시하고 제국의 팽창에 제동을 건 대통령일 뿐이다.
이런 미국의 변화 속에서 한국이 그 희생물이 될 수도 있지만, 어쨌든 그건 미국의 알 바가 아니다.
한국은 위기에 처해 있고. 대담한 지혜와 상상력을 지닌 정치가가 나타나야만 이런 곤경을 해쳐나갈 수 있다.
---------------------------------------------
한국의 적화에 혁혁한 공을 세웠다1
-------------------------------------------------
12월 내란 썰
문재인정부의 지지율이 계속 떨어지기 사작하면
독도에서 우연을 가장한 한국군의 도발로 일본과의 전쟁이 발발 할수 았다고 하네 .
반일감정을 기폭제로 자자율을 올리려는 계획이라네...
또 다룬 썰은. 도람뿌도 버란 문재인울 끌어 내리눈 가열천 " 반문잡회" 로
내전을 일으킬수도 있고. 총선에서의 팹배할것을 우려해
악랄한 탄압을 기획할것 같더고....(게엄령 포함)
암튼 올 12월엔 백두산 폭팔과 맘 먹는 큰 혁명? 재앙이 닥칠꺼란다
개 무섭노 이기...각자도생. 살아서 만나자 / 일베
일본발 오늘자 뉴우스ㅡ( 이 봉규 방송 제공)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
#NorthKorea almost always telegraphs its punches. Consider this photo a warning
북한은 언제나 그들의 펀치를 통신으로 전달했다. 이 사진은 경고로 여겨야 한다.
CNN Newsroom
"I feel sorry for the horse," quips @GordonGChang, in response to a photo of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un riding a white horse atop a snowy, sacred mountain.
Chang says the photo is proof "something big will occur" shortly.
고든 창에 따르면 위의 사진은 조만간 큰 사건이 일어날 거라는 증거이다.
Gordon G. Chang
Nothing good ever happens after we see images of Kim rulers on horseback. We don't know what #KimJongUn has in store for us this time, but I'm sure we're not going to like it.
---> 위의 12월 내란설과 김정은의 백마 사진을 연결해서 생각
해보면, 조만간 정말 큰 사건이 터질 수도 있다는 생각이 든다.
저들은 정치적 위기와 난관에 부딪쳤을 때, 노무현 자살, 광우병 난동, 세월호 난동, 노회찬 자살, 태블릿 사건 등을 터뜨려 오히려 정치적 이익을 얻었다. 저들은 내년 총선에 이기기 위해 어떤 짓이라도 할 집단이다. 예상이 틀리기를 바란다.
---------------------------------------------------
낸시 펠로시
On one side, you have a repressive regime crushing democratic freedoms in #HongKong. On the other, you have young people speaking out for freedom & democratic reforms. Proud to stand with @RepMcGovern in support of today’s bipartisan
votes showing the House’s commitment to HK.
미 의회에서 홍콩 인권법안 통과
-----------------------------------------------
트럼프가 온라인 대선전에서 승리하고 있다.
Trump Is Winning the Online War
The technical superiority and sophistication of the president’s digital campaign is a hidden advantage of incumbency. ---뉴욕타임즈
By Thomas B. Edsall
--------------------------------------
185 years ago today, starting around now, Parliament burned down. Crowds gathered not to extinguish the flames but to cheer.
Just saying.
185년전 오늘 의회가 불탔다. 군중은 모여들었지만 불을 끄지 않고 즐거워했다.
---->한국의 국회 역시 온갖 악행의 근거지다. 국회가 불탄다 해도 국민들은 박수를 치며 즐거워할 것이다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Firsou
After the Revolution, long roads were built to reach the then remotr and isolated areas of France. Ended up further isolating MANY of those areas instead, driving the traffic towards Paris instead. The TGV has had a similar effect.
프랑스 혁명 후에 오지와 고립된 지역을 연결하기 위해 도로들이 건설되었지만, 오지들은 더 고립되고, 파리로 가는 교통만 증가했다. 테제베도 유사한 효과를 유발하고 있다.
Wrath Of Gnon
The benefits of removing urban highways (the example of Seoul). Imagine if they went a step further, removed all motor vehicle through traffic, then one step further still, took out all non-essential motor traffic, etc. we'd end up with a city of human scaled resilient villages.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Treating George W. Bush as an authority on peace and stability is similar to relying on a drunk driver (while drunk) as the expert on road safety.
조지 부시를 평화에 관한 권위자로 대우하는 건, 음주 운전자를 도로 안전의 전문가로 취급하는 것과 같다.
Josh Rogin
George W Bush takes a direct shot at Trump: “An isolationist United States is destabilizing around the world. We are becoming isolationist and that’s dangerous for the sake of peace.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am impressed. The economic weapon is a much, much more effective one than the military one. We are no longer in 1936. Trump got it.
경제 무기는 군사 무기보다 더 강력하다
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yaneer Bar-Yam
Antidepressants and other psych meds are personality change operations. Medicine/psychiatry/psychology are in a primitive state and do not understand context-individual complexity. Meds should be used only as a last resort.
의학, 정신의학, 심리학 등은 아직 초보단계에 있고, 문맥- 개
인의 복잡성을 이해하지 못하고 있다. 의학은 마지막 수단으로
사용되어야 한다.
--------------------------------------------------------
Claire Lehmann
When I first encountered radical social constructionism back in undergrad 15 years ago, I noticed that they meticulously avoided mentioning anything biological, e.g hormones, evolution, etc. But now they’re tackling biology head on
내가 사회 구성주의와 처음 조우했을 당시, 그들은 생물학적인 모든 것을 회피했다. 하지만 이제는 생물학과 씨름하고 있다.
Harvard University Press International
This month's @GQMagazine focuses on why masculinity is changing for the better. In it, @Karkazis, co-author of Testosterone, debunks the commonly held idea that testosterone and masculinity are connected.
카카지스Karkazis가 테스토스테론과 남성성이 관련 있다는 상식을 깨뜨린다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
불평등한 거래는 왜 공정한가
시장의 거래는 양자가 거래되는 상품의 각기 다른 가치평가를 통해 상호 이익을 얻는 것이다.
선출된 공직자나 관료가 쌍방의 자유로운 거래에 개입하면, 그들이 개인을 돕는 듯이 보이지만, 그들은 사실은 상품과 서비스의 자유로운 거래라는 현대 사회의 초석을 무너뜨리고 있는 것이다.
The Fairness of "Unequal" Exchange
Jim Fedako
Market exchange is not based on the requirement that both parties appraise the goods about to be exchanged at equal value. Instead, market exchange is based on both parties benefiting from a two-way, unequal valuation of the goods to be exchanged.
An example from my youth: During my high school years in the early 1980s, I had purchased a double-live album of the rock group Rush for $15. Teenagers can be a fickle lot and I was no different. My musical tastes changed during my junior year and I morphed from a Rush fan into someone who felt that Fly By Night was simply noise — vulgar noise at that. Not only did I no longer listen to the album, I wanted to get rid of it since I felt that the album reduced the quality of my record collection.
Along comes a fellow student who was fast becoming an ardent Rush fan. We agreed to an exchange: I would trade my album for his $5. Fair enough. Right after the exchange, as I held the $5 and he held the album, the new Rush fan said something along the lines of, "I just ripped you off. I would have paid $10 for that album." I replied, "No, I just ripped you off since I was about to toss the album into the garbage anyway."
You see, we both had different valuations for the $5 and the album, which is why we traded. But carefully note the dialogue that occurred between us. To the outside observer, one of us may appear to have been "ripped off" due to a lack of knowledge of the other's true valuation and, hence, tricked in the exchange by an unfair negotiation. Depending on the observer's point of reference, he may have locked onto either my claim of profit or my fellow trader's claim of profit.
Or, and this is where things go wrong, one of us may have actually decided to act on the other's statement. I could have been offended by the knowledge of the Rush fan's true valuation of the album, or maybe I was influenced, pushed, or prodded by the observer who believed I got shafted in the exchanged. So, instead of accepting the exchange as agreed, I may have sought a third-party ruling on the fairness of the trade. What sounded good ex ante — before the trade — sounded like unfair negotiations ex post — after the trade. I should have received the $10 since it was a $15 album — I was truly "ripped off." Wasn't I?
I probably could have found the sympathetic ear of a government official who felt the tug of omniscience; someone believing in his own capacity to understand true value, someone believing that the state needs to protect those acting in non-coerced exchanges. My fellow trader would have been forced to hand over an additional $5 so that an arbitrated fair exchange occurred. But, why is that any more fair than the exchange we initially agree upon? Well, in fact, it isn't.
The actions of the sympathetic do not increase fairness, nor do they increase value. Their actions actually decrease wealth as such intrusions in the market leave participants without a guarantee of the final result of a non-coerced exchange. The rule of contract and common law is replaced by the rule of civil law and bureaucracy. As a result, people become less likely to exchange as the rules of the game change with the political winds.
The point: When an elected official or government bureaucrat interferes with a valid, non-coerced exchange, they may appear to be helping one individual when they are actually harming a foundation of modern society; free exchange of goods and services. They tend not to believe that their action can result in harm because power is almost always cloaked by the veil of omniscience.
During this political campaign season, letter writers to local newspapers have been congratulating a local congressman for his willingness to intervene on each writer's own behalf. What these letter writers forget is that the power to intervene is simply the power to use the hammer of government in order to force individuals and firms to act other than they would have normally chosen; to act outside of already signed contractual agreements. The hammer of government does not create fairness, as the hammer is anathema to the principals of Liberty that founded our country.
I'm not talking about contract or criminal laws being broken, I'm referring to a congressman using government to lean on individuals and companies that have broken no law. Simply because someone was unsatisfied with the result of a contract that they signed under no duress, they chose to get the local power broker to have the contract amended — if the "offending" individuals and firms know what's best for them, they agree to the amendments. The position to exert such pressure must be quite an aphrodisiac for power seekers.
The ability to influence, to put the pressure on someone, cuts both ways. This time it benefits you, the next time it hurts you. When a congressman implicitly uses the power of government to change contracts and events, he has moved from the realm of the citizen-statesman to that of the political don who controls Third World politics. He's the Soviet apparatchik trading his ability to threaten for a bottle of vodka, or a front-page story and supportive letter to the editor. Why depend on contracts and the court system when your congressman can get the job done.
Neither I nor the new Rush fan should have sought the intrusive power of government after our exchange. We agreed to the price and we both profited. Sure one of us could have negotiated a better price but our lack of a Trumpian sense for the art of the deal does not warrant government interference. We both profited from our unequal valuations of cash and music. Had we sought compensation due to a perceived excess profit obtained by our fellow trader, the end result would have been that he and I would not have continued engaging in mutual exchanges of goods or services. And, that would have been a loss to both of us, and society in general.
=--------------------------------------------
견배비방통의 치료 경험
肩背臂膀疼痛之治療一隅
http://www.gtc.org.tw/download-journal/29/no29-p33-38.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.gtc.org.tw/download-journal/29/no29-p33-38.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기