과연 김명수답다.
가히 김명수스럽다.
아니, 대한민국의 대법원장 김명수는
한 마디로 민족문제연구소의 따까리다.
6대 6으로 팽팽하게 맞선 가운데
김명수가 왼쪽에 표를 주는 바람에
확실하게 뒤집혀 파기환송되었다.
김명수 때문에 나라는
점점 아수라장이 되고 있다.
앞으로는 모든 방송사가
특정인에 대한 역사방송을 할 때
시청자한테 의뢰해서 제작, 방송하면
객관성과 공정성, 균형성을
지키지 않아도 책임지지 않게 됐다.
참 희한한 법논리다.
문제는 민족문제연구소가
일반 시청자가 아니라,
지명도, 아니 악명 높은
역사문제연구소라는 사실이다.
역사문제를 다루는 연구소가
방송용으로 제작한 것은
방송사 PD가 제작한 것보다
더 공정하고 더 객관적이어야 한다.
왜?
전문가니까.
방송사 PD보다 역사문제에는
더 일가견이 넓고 깊으니까.
그런데도
민족문제연구소는 일반 시청자고,
'일반 시청자가 만들었으니
객관성과 공정성이 결여돼도 괜찮다'고?
가히 김명수스러운 판결이다. (발췌)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
<지(知)와 정(情)>
홍표정
知와 情은 삶의 저울이다. 그 어느 한 편으로 기울면 패가망신하기 쉽다. 知에 기울면 주변에 사람이 줄고 情에 기울면 세상 유혹에 벗어나기 어렵다.
일본 근대 문학의 선구자였던 나츠메 소세키(夏目漱石)는 “知에 맡기면 角이 돋고 情에 노(櫓) 주면 떠내려간다.(知にまかせば角がだつ。情にさおさせば流される)”는 말을 남겼다. 대다수 일본인들이 기억하는 명구로서 그들의 知와 情에 대한 태도를 엿볼 수 있다.
일찍이 헤르만 헷세의 소설 ‘知와 사랑(나르치스와 골드문트)’도 ‘知와 情’의 균형성을 강조한다. ‘情’에 탐닉한 골드문트의 파멸적 삶이 나르치스의 ‘知’의 삶에 융합됨으로써 마침내 성공적으로 마감하고 있음을 보여준다. (조갑제닷컴 발췌)
----------------------------------------------------------
적화통일 되기 직전에 직전에 전투 한번은 해볼 수 있을까..?
지금 이대로라면 군인들 총한발 안쏘고 무장해제하고 김정은 밑으로 들어갈거 같다만,,
동사무소에서 예비군들 총나눠주면서 그래도 애국심있는 사람들은 결사항전하다가 죽을 수 있는 기회가 있을까?
그게 공산, 독재정권에서 사는것보단 훨씬 나으니까 일베
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
황교안
"단식 폄훼 개의치 않아…지켜야 할 가치 지킬 뿐"
------------------------------------------------
Matt Ridley
It's almost ten years since I published a book arguing exactly this, at a time when most people were convinced the world had begun a terrible decline.
대부분의 사람들이 거대한 쇠퇴가 시작되었다고 믿던 10여
년 전에, 나는 아래와 같은 주장을 <합리적 낙관주의자>에서
펼쳤다.
When is the last time you heard anyone tell you that
across the last several decades billions of human
beings have been lifted out of poverty because of
globalization (trade), technological interconnection
and the spreading of free market economics? It is
the truth.
세계화와 기술의 상호접촉, 자유시장 경제의 확산 등에
의해 지난 수십년간 수십억 명의 인구가 가난에서 탈
출했다고 말하는 걸 당신이 마지막으로 들은 건 언제
였던가? 그건 진실이었다.
--------------------------------------------------
Matt Ridley
Bill Gates in 1995, trying to convince David Letterman the
Internet is more useful than radio or magazines...
1995년 빌 게이츠가 레터맨에게 인터넷이 라디오나 잡지보다
더 유용하다는 것을 설득하려 하고 있다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK Boomer Norm
I loved @mattwridley's book, The Evolution of Everything.
“[W]e all go around assuming the world is much more of a planned place than it is. As a result, again and again we mistake cause for effect...”
우리는 실제보다 더 많이 세계가 계획에 따라 움직이고 있다고
믿고 있다. 그 결과 우리는 원인을 결과로 착각한다.
---->복잡계는 계획이 없이, 다중의 자발적인 행동에 의해 자
생적 질서가 탄생한다. 시장이 그 한 예로서, 사람들이 시장에
가서 물건을 사고 파는 행위를 하게 되면, 거기에서 수요와 공
급의 법칙에 의해 생산이 조절되고, 경쟁에 의해 무능력한 사
업가나 장사꾼은 퇴출된다. 이런 모든 일이 누구의 계획 없이
도 일어난다.
--------------------------------------------------------
GWPF
The BBC is absurdly promoting the now-notorious Roger Hallam's claim that 6 billion people will die from climate change. @RHarrabin will you get HardTalk to take this down?
비비씨가 멸종 반란 운동의 공동 창설자인 로저 할람의 "기후
변화로 60억 인구가 죽을 것이다"라는 주장을 내보내고 있다.
하드톡 프로그램에서 그의 방송을 금지하라!
-----------------------------------------------------------
Evolution is far more common, and far more influential, than most people recognise. It is not confined to genetic systems, but explains the way that virtually all of human culture changes: from morality to technology, from money to religion.
진화는 단지 유전적 체계에만 적용되는 게 아니라, 도덕과 기
술, 화폐와 종교에 이르기까지 인간 문화의 거의 전분야에 적
용될 수 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew O'Connell
The idiocy of believing China would play by our rules was evident from the start & even a casual reading of Chinese national character & its history. Huawei is a warning sign to Western nativity & the limits of globalisation & the so-called free-market.
화웨이는 세계화의 탄생과 한계 그리고 자유시장에 대한 경고
이다.
----------------------------------------------------------
자유란 차별할 권리가 있다는 의미이다.
진정한 문제는 고용에서의 차별을 금지하는 법률이 정당한 법률인가 아닌가이다.
차별에 대한 자유주의의 입장은 이렇다: 차별은 어떤 근거, 어떤 이유로, 또 누구에게 하던, 그것이 공격이나 강요, 위협, 폭력이 아니므로, 정부는 그것을 금지하거나 벌주어서는 안 된다는 것이다.
고용에서의 차별을 금지하는 것은, 사상의 자유, 사유재산, 자유 기업, 자유 시장, 결사의 자유를 침해하는 것이다.
Freedom Means a Right to Discriminate
Laurence M. Vance
Should employers have the right to discriminate in hiring on the basis of obesity? The Washington State Supreme Court recently ruled that “it is illegal for employers in Washington to refuse to hire qualified potential employees because the employer perceives them to be obese.”
That follows guidelines released by the New York City Commission on Human Rights stating that discrimination against people based on their hairstyle will now be considered a form of racial discrimination; the refusal by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court’s ruling that the owner of a bed and breakfast in Hawaii violated the state’s public-accommodation law, which bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, when she refused to rent a room to a lesbian couple; and guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) making it tougher for homesellers and landlords to discriminate against applicants who have criminal records.
Here is what happened in the state of Washington:
The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), part of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the compilation of all laws now in force in Washington State, generally prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee because the employee has a disability. That echoes the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which “makes it illegal to discriminate against a qualified person with a disability.”
According to Taylor v. Burlington Northern Railroad Holdings , the case in question decided by the Washington State Supreme Court in 2007, Casey Taylor received a conditional offer of employment as an electronic technician for BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), contingent on the results of a physical exam and a medical history questionnaire. A medical exam found that Taylor’s height was 5 feet 6 inches and his weight was 256 pounds, resulting in a body mass index (BMI) of 41.3 — numbers different from those self-reported by Taylor. (According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [ CDC ], a BMI of 40 or higher is categorized as “extreme” or “severe” obesity.) BNSF treats a BMI over 40 as a “trigger” for further screening in the employment process. BNSF told Taylor it was unable to determine whether he was medically qualified for the job “due to significant health and safety risks associated with ‘extreme obesity’ and ‘uncertain status of knees and back.’” BNSF offered to reconsider if Taylor would pay for medical testing, including a sleep study, blood work, and an exercise-tolerance test, but being unemployed at the time with no medical insurance, Taylor could not afford the testing. BNSF told Taylor that it was company policy not to hire anyone who had a BMI over 35 and that if he could not afford the testing his only option was to lose 10 percent of his weight and keep it off for six months.
Taylor then sued in King County Superior Court, alleging that BNSF violated the WLAD by refusing to hire him because of a perceived disability — obesity. BNSF removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment, relying on federal cases interpreting federal law to argue that obesity is not a disability under the WLAD unless it is caused by a separate, underlying physiological disorder. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the case, ruling that “under the WLAD, a plaintiff alleging disability discrimination on the basis of obesity must show that his or her obesity is caused by a physiological condition or disorder or that the defendant perceived the plaintiff’s obesity as having such a cause.” Taylor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that whether obesity may constitute an impairment, and thus a disability, under the WLAD is an unresolved issue of state law and certified the question to the Washington State Supreme Court.
The Washington State Supreme Court, in a 7-2 vote, concluded,
We answer the certified question as follows — obesity always qualifies as an impairment under the plain language of ROW 49.60.040(7)(c)(i) because it is a “physiological disorder, or condition” that affects many of the listed body systems. Plaintiffs making a disparate treatment claim under the WLAD need not show that they actually had an impairment, e.g., that they actually were suffering from obesity. They need show only that their actual or potential employers perceived them to have a statutory impairment. RCW 49.60.040(7)(a)(iii). Because obesity qualifies as an impairment under the plain language of our statute, it is illegal for employers in Washington to refuse to hire qualified potential employees because the employer perceives them to be obese. See RCW 49.60.180.
The two dissenting justices agreed with the majority on most points, but concluded that “the majority’s answer to the certified questions, that obesity is always an impairment for purposes of the WLAD, ignores the need for an individualized inquiry.” Nowhere in their dissent is there any indication that the WLAD was bad law or that BNSF had the right to medically screen job applicants as they saw fit.
Whether obesity should be included as a disability, and therefore protected from discrimination, is similar to the debate over whether discrimination on the basis of sex includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Federal agencies and courts are currently split on the issue. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) argues one way, and the Justice Department argues otherwise. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the Second Circuit have ruled one way, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled to the contrary. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear three cases and settle the matter.
The real question here is not what constitutes obesity, what constitutes a disability, or whether obesity is a disability. The real question here is whether laws that prohibit discrimination in employment are just laws.
Liberals generally favor any and all anti-discrimination laws. Conservatives are woefully inconsistent. Although they oppose some anti-discrimination laws, they generally support laws against discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, color, age, or sex (narrowly defined). Liberal are consistent, but that doesn’t mean that they’re right.
What, then, do libertarians say about the subject of discrimination? The libertarian position on discrimination is simply this:
Since discrimination — against anyone, on any basis, and for any reason — is not aggression, force, coercion, threat, or violence, the government should never prohibit it, seek to prevent it, or punish anyone for doing it.
Now, of course, that doesn’t mean that any or all acts of discrimination are necessary, justified, or fair. It just means that, as far as the law is concerned, whether an act of discrimination is based on stereotypes or prejudices is irrelevant, whether an act of discrimination is due to racism or sexism is immaterial, whether an act of discrimination is thought to be unfair or nonsensical is of no consequence, and whether an act of discrimination is unreasonable or irrational is neither here nor there.
Employers should have the right to discriminate against applicants on the basis of obesity for the simple reason that they should have the right to discriminate against applicants on the basis of disability. That is because they should have the right to discriminate against applicants on the basis of any medical condition, seen or unseen. But that’s not all: employers should have the right to discriminate against applicants on the basis of height, weight, age, scars, facial hair, race, color, complexion, tattoos, hair color, hairstyle, piercings, dress, or anything else related to appearance. That is because employers should have the right to discriminate against applicants for any reason and on any basis.
To prohibit discrimination in employment is to infringe upon freedom of association, freedom of thought, private property, free enterprise, and the free market. All anti-discrimination laws should be repealed, regarding employment or anything else.
Originally published by the Future of Freedom Foundation.
Author:
Laurence M. Vance is an Associated Scholar of the Mises Institute, columnist and policy adviser for the Future of Freedom Foundation, and a columnist, blogger, and book reviewer at LewRockwell.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------
How "Meaningless Words" Create the Narrative | Jeff Deist
<프로파간다>라는 책을 쓴 오스트리아 출신의
Edward Bernays를 다룬다. 1928년 쓴 이 책에는 벌써 선전을 통한 현대 사회의 조작을 깊이 있게 다루고 있다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기