註) 미국의 많은 신문들은 대선을 앞두고지지후보를 공개적으로밝히곤합니다.NYT는10월 17일자 사설에서 민주당 케리 후보를 지지하는 사설을 게재 했습니다. 뉴욕타임즈와 함께 미국의 또하나의 유력지 워싱턴 포스트지는 아직까지지지 후보를 밝히고 있지 않습니다만, 아마 조만간지지후보를 밝히게될 것입니다.WP지는 지난 2000년 대선에서는NYT와 마찬가지로 민주당 ‘고어’ 후보를 지지했었는데, 이번에는 어떨지 궁금합니다.워싱턴포스트지가지지후보를 밝히는대로 그원문도 함께 올려드리겠습니다. NYT지가 케리후보를 지지한다는 사설의 ‘원문’은 아래와 같습니다.
워싱턴 포스트지 또한 10월24일자 사설에서 존 케리를 지지하는 사설을 게재했습니다. wp지는 nyt 보다 1주일이나 늦게 지지후보를 밝힌 것입니다. 지난 2000년에도 nyt, wp 두 유력지 모두 민주당 앨 고어 후보를 지지했었는데, 이번에도 두 유력지가 모두 민주당 케리 후보를 지지하고 나섰습니다. 뒤늦게지만 이곳에 wp 사설도 이곳에 함께 올리겠습니다.
The Washington Post
October 24, 2004 Sunday
LENGTH: 1783 words
HEADLINE: Kerry for President
EXPERTS TELL US that most voters have had no difficulty making up their minds in this year’s presidential election. Half the nation is passionately for George W. Bush, the pollsters say, and half passionately for John F. Kerry — or, at least, passionately against Mr. Bush. We have not been able to share in this passion, nor in the certainty. As readers of this page know, we find much to criticize in Mr. Bush’s term but also more than a few things to admire. We find much to admire in Mr. Kerry’s life of service, knowledge of the world and positions on a range of issues — but also some things that give us pause. On balance, though, we believe Mr. Kerry, with his promise of resoluteness tempered by wisdom and open-mindedness, has staked a stronger claim on the nation’s trust to lead for the next four years.
The balancing process begins, as reelection campaigns must, with the incumbent. His record, particularly in foreign affairs, can’t be judged with a simple aye or nay. President Bush rallied the nation after Sept. 11, 2001, and reshaped his own world view. His commitment to a long-term struggle to promote freedom in the Arab world reflects an understanding of the deep threat posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism. His actions have not always matched his stirring rhetoric on the subject, and setbacks to democracy in other parts of the world (notably Russia) appear not to have troubled him much.
But Mr. Bush has accomplished more than his critics acknowledge, both in the practical business of forming alliances to track terrorists and in beginning to reshape a Middle East policy too long centered on accommodating friendly dictators. He has promised the large increases in foreign aid, to help poor nations cope with AIDS and for other purposes, that we believe are essential.
The campaign that Mr. Bush led to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan seems easy and obvious in retrospect, but at the time many people warned of imminent quagmire. Mr. Bush wasted valuable time with his initial determination to avoid nation-building after Kabul fell and his drawdown of U.S. forces. But even so, Afghanistan today is far from the failure that Mr. Kerry portrays. Afghans and U.S. security alike are better off thanks to the intervention.
In Iraq, we do not fault Mr. Bush for believing, as President Clinton before him believed, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We supported the war and believed that the Iraqi dictator posed a challenge that had to be faced; we continue to believe that the U.S. mission to promote a representative government in Iraq has a chance to leave the United States safer and the Iraqis far better off than they were under their murderous dictator.
We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence given him privately and for alienating allies unnecessarily. Above all, we fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction. The damage caused by that willful indifference is incalculable. There is no guarantee that Iraq would be more peaceful today if U.S. forces had prevented postwar looting, secured arms depots, welcomed international involvement and transferred authority to Iraqis more quickly. But the chances of success would have been higher. Yet the administration repeatedly rebuffed advice to commit sufficient troops. Its disregard for the Geneva Conventions led to a prison-torture scandal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that has diminished for years, if not decades, the United States’ image and influence abroad. In much of the world, in fact, U.S. prestige is at a historic low, partly because of the president’s high-handed approach to allies on issues ranging far beyond Iraq.
These failings have a common source in Mr. Bush’s cocksureness, his failure to seek advice from anyone outside a narrow circle and his unwillingness to expect the unexpected or adapt to new facts. These are dangerous traits in any president but especially in a wartime leader. They are matched by his failure to admit his errors or to hold senior officials accountable for theirs.
ON THE DOMESTIC side, Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in the House have governed as heavy-handed partisans. We applaud Mr. Bush’s campaign to promote accountability in elementary and secondary schools, and some of his other ideas may sound attractive as well: a degree of privatization to give people more control over their retirement funds, individual health accounts that might better match the mobile 21st-century world of work, market incentives to reduce pollution. But he has failed to do the hard work to turn such ideas from slogans into fair and balanced programs, and he has never said how he would pay for them, as in the case of Social Security private accounts.
Which brings us to his reckless fiscal policy. Mr. Bush inherited a budget in surplus but facing strains in the long run as retiring baby boomers intensify their claims on the nation’s resources for pensions and health care. A recession that was gathering as he took office, and the economic blow delivered by the Sept. 11 attacks, would have turned surplus into deficit under the best of circumstances.
But Mr. Bush aggravated those circum- stances and drove the deficit to record levels with tax cuts that were inefficient in providing economic stimulus and that were tilted toward the wealthy. Despite the drains on the Treasury from the war in Iraq, he insisted that all the cuts be made permanent; no one, no matter how rich, was asked to sacrifice. Mr. Bush’s rationales have shifted, but his prescription — tax cuts — has remained constant, no matter what the cost to future generations. The resulting fiscal deficit has dragged down the national savings rate, leaving the country dependent upon foreigners for capital in an unsustainable way. Mr. Bush says the answer lies in spending discipline, but he has shown none himself; see, for example, the disgusting farm subsidies he signed into law.
In 2000, Mr. Bush justifiably criticized his predecessor for failing to deal with the looming problems of Social Security and Medicare. In office, though, he has been equally delinquent, even as the day of reckoning drew closer. He championed a huge new entitlement for Medicare without insisting on the cost-cutting reforms that everyone knows are needed.
SO MR. BUSH HAS not earned a second term. But there is a second question: Has the challenger made his case? Here’s why we say yes.
Mr. Kerry, like Mr. Bush, offers no plan to cope with retirement and health costs, but he promises more fiscal realism. He sensibly proposes to reverse Mr. Bush’s tax cuts on the wealthiest and pledges to scale back his own spending proposals if funds don’t suffice. He would seek to restore budget discipline rules that helped get deficits under control in the 1990s.
On many other issues, Mr. Kerry has the better approach. He has a workable plan to provide health insurance to more Americans; the 45 million uninsured represent a shameful abdication that appears not to have concerned Mr. Bush one whit. Where Mr. Bush ignored the dangers of climate change and favored industry at the expense of clean air and water, Mr. Kerry is a longtime and thoughtful champion of environmental protection. Mr. Bush played politics with the Constitution, as Mr. Kerry would not, by endorsing an amendment to ban gay marriage. Mr. Kerry has pledged to follow the Geneva Conventions abroad and respect civil liberties at home. A Kerry judiciary — and the next president is likely to make a significant mark on the Supreme Court — would be more hospitable to civil rights, abortion rights and the right to privacy.
None of these issues would bring us to vote for Mr. Kerry if he were less likely than Mr. Bush to keep the nation safe. But we believe the challenger is well equipped to guide the country in a time of danger. Mr. Kerry brings a resume that unarguably has prepared him for high office. He understood early on the dangers of non-state actors such as al Qaeda. To pave the way for restored relations with Vietnam in the 1990s, he took on the thankless and politically risky task of convincing relatives that no American prisoners remained in Southeast Asia. While he wrongly opposed the first Persian Gulf War, he supported the use of American force in Bosnia and Kosovo.
As with Mr. Bush, some of Mr. Kerry’s strengths strike us as potential weaknesses. The senator is far more likely than Mr. Bush to seek a range of opinions before making a decision — but is he decisive enough? He understands the importance of allies and of burnishing America’s image — but would he be too reluctant to give offense? His Senate record suggests an understanding of the importance of open markets, but during the campaign he has retreated to protectionist rhetoric that is troubling in its own right and as a possible indicator of inconstancy.
We have been dismayed most of all by Mr. Kerry’s zigzags on Iraq, such as his swervings on whether Saddam Hussein presented a threat. As Mr. Bush charges, Mr. Kerry’s description of the war as a "diversion" does not inspire confidence in his determination to see it through. But Mr. Kerry has repeatedly pledged not to cut and run from Iraq, and we believe a Kerry administration would be better able to tackle the formidable nation-building tasks that remain there. Mr. Kerry echoes the Bush goals of an elected Iraqi government and a well-trained Iraqi force to defend it but argues that he could implement the strategy more effectively.
Mr. Kerry understands that the biggest threat to U.S. security comes from terrorists wielding nuclear or biological weapons. He pledges to add two divisions to the U.S. Army; try harder to secure nuclear weapons and materials around the world, and improve U.S. preparations for a bioterrorism attack. There is no way to know whether he would be more successful than Mr. Bush in slowing North Korea’s and Iran’s march toward becoming nuclear-armed states, but he attaches the right priority to both problems. He is correct that those challenges, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, call for the kind of sustained diplomacy that has been missing for four years. We hope he would be firmer than Mr. Bush in standing up to the genocide unfolding in Sudan.
We do not view a vote for Mr. Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks on the other side are well known, and the strengths Mr. Kerry brings are considerable. He pledges both to fight in Iraq and to reach out to allies; to hunt down terrorists, and to engage without arrogance the Islamic world. These are the right goals, and we think Mr. Kerry is the better bet to achieve them.
————————————————————————————————————
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
October 17, 2004 Sunday
HEADLINE: John Kerry for President
Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we’ve seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.
We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry’s wide knowledge and clear thinking — something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry’s service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.
There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush’s disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.
Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. He sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another. He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research. He threw the government’s weight against efforts by the University of Michigan to give minority students an edge in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the offspring of alumni.
When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing’s war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed. No Child Left Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher standards on local school systems without providing enough money to meet them.
If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the environment. Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor chosen to run the Environmental Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. Yet she left after three years of futile struggle against the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. The result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection.
The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.
He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq.
The president’s refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances. Mr. Bush did not just starve the government of the money it needed for his own education initiative or the Medicare drug bill. He also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for America’s security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every day in the nation’s ports still goes uninspected.
Along with the invasion of Afghanistan, which had near unanimous international and domestic support, Mr. Bush and his attorney general put in place a strategy for a domestic antiterror war that had all the hallmarks of the administration’s normal method of doing business: a Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management.
American citizens were detained for long periods without access to lawyers or family members. Immigrants were rounded up and forced to languish in what the Justice Department’s own inspector general found were often ”unduly harsh” conditions. Men captured in the Afghan war were held incommunicado with no right to challenge their confinement. The Justice Department became a cheerleader for skirting decades-old international laws and treaties forbidding the brutal treatment of prisoners taken during wartime.
Mr. Ashcroft appeared on TV time and again to announce sensational arrests of people who turned out to be either innocent, harmless braggarts or extremely low-level sympathizers of Osama bin Laden who, while perhaps wishing to do something terrible, lacked the means. The Justice Department cannot claim one major successful terrorism prosecution, and has squandered much of the trust and patience the American people freely gave in 2001. Other nations, perceiving that the vast bulk of the prisoners held for so long at Guantanamo Bay came from the same line of ineffectual incompetents or unlucky innocents, and seeing the awful photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, were shocked that the nation that was supposed to be setting the world standard for human rights could behave that way.
Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush’s obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy. He sold the war to the American people, and to Congress, as an antiterrorist campaign even though Iraq had no known working relationship with Al Qaeda. His most frightening allegation was that Saddam Hussein was close to getting nuclear weapons. It was based on two pieces of evidence. One was a story about attempts to purchase critical materials from Niger, and it was the product of rumor and forgery.
The other evidence, the purchase of aluminum tubes that the administration said were meant for a nuclear centrifuge, was concocted by one low-level analyst and had been thoroughly debunked by administration investigators and international vetting. Top members of the administration knew this, but the selling went on anyway. None of the president’s chief advisers have ever been held accountable for their misrepresentations to the American people or for their mismanagement of the war that followed.
The international outrage over the American invasion is now joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort. Moderate Arab leaders who have attempted to introduce a modicum of democracy are tainted by their connection to an administration that is now radioactive in the Muslim world. Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.
We have specific fears about what would happen in a second Bush term, particularly regarding the Supreme Court. The record so far gives us plenty of cause for worry. Thanks to Mr. Bush, Jay Bybee, the author of an infamous Justice Department memo justifying the use of torture as an interrogation technique, is now a federal appeals court judge. Another Bush selection, J. Leon Holmes, a federal judge in Arkansas, has written that wives must be subordinate to their husbands and compared abortion rights activists to Nazis.
Mr. Bush remains enamored of tax cuts but he has never stopped Republican lawmakers from passing massive spending, even for projects he dislikes, like increased farm aid.
If he wins re-election, domestic and foreign financial markets will know the fiscal recklessness will continue. Along with record trade imbalances, that increases the chances of a financial crisis, like an uncontrolled decline of the dollar, and higher long-term interest rates.
The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the American right without any of the advantages. We get the radical goals but not the efficient management.
The Department of Education’s handling of the No Child Left Behind Act has been heavily politicized and inept. The Department of Homeland Security is famous for its useless alerts and its inability to distribute antiterrorism aid according to actual threats. Without providing enough troops to properly secure Iraq, the administration has managed to so strain the resources of our armed forces that the nation is unprepared to respond to a crisis anywhere else in the world.
Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness — sorely missing in Washington these days — to reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the concept of separation of church and state. We appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the people who currently do without.
Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency. He is a longtime advocate of deficit reduction. In the Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam, and led investigations of the way the international financial system has been gamed to permit the laundering of drug and terror money. He has always understood that America’s appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing community of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination.
We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.
Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can explain his positions in minute detail and wind up governing with a hostile Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A disaster can upend the best-laid plans. All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope, examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general character. It’s on those three grounds that we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president.
An endorsement of Senator Charles Schumer for re-election to the Senate appears today in the City, Long Island and Westchester weekly sections.
LOAD-DATE: October 17, 2004
원문 번역은 편의상 문화일보 10월18일자에 실린 축약 번역기사를 인용합니다.
지난 한해에 걸쳐 우리(뉴욕타임스)는 존 케리가 현상유지에 대한 하나의 대안 그 이상이란 사실을 알게 됐다. 그는 위대한 지도자가 될 자질을 갖고 있다. 우리는 케리의 폭넓은 지식과 명쾌한 사고에 깊은 인상을 받았다. 그는 상황이 바뀌면 자신의 결정을 기꺼이 재평가하는 자세를 갖고 있다. 또 케리는 평생 공공 서비스를 위해 헌신해왔으며, 무엇보다 강한 도덕적 심성을 지닌 인물이다.
이번 대선이 부시의 재난적 재임기간에 대한 평가란 점은 부정할 수 없는 사실이다. 지난 4년간 부시는 정부를 극우로 몰고 갔으며, 국가가 불황에 빠져 있을때 일자리 창출에 전력하기보다는 부자에 대한 세금 부여에 반대하는 우파 전쟁을 일으켰다.
9·11테러로 부시는 국민의 어떤 희생도 요구할 수 있는 유례없는 기회를 갖게 됐다. 그가 국민에게 요구한 것은 또다른 세금 감면과 이라크 전쟁이었다. 전쟁에 직면해있을 때 대통령이 세금감면을 밀어붙인 것은 급변하는 상황에서 그가 자신의 우선순위를 바꾸는데 얼마나 무능한가를 나타내는 충격적인 사례라고 하겠다. 부시행정부는 한마디로 보안에 대한 닉슨적 강박관념, 시민권에 대한 무관심, 그리고 무능한 행정력으로 평가될 수 있다.
부시는 미국 국민과 의회에 이라크 전쟁을 반테러캠페인의 일환으로 팔아먹었지만, 결과적으로 그가 내세운 명분은 모두 거짓의 산물이었음이 드러났다. 그럼에도 불구하고 행정부의 그 누구도 잘못된 전쟁에 대한 책임을 지지 않고 있다. 이라크 전쟁은 이란, 북한 등 불량국가의 지도자들로 하여금 미국의 선제공격을 막기위한 최선의 방안은 핵무기 소유란 생각을 갖게 만들었을 뿐이다.
우리는 부시가 재선됐을 경우 시민권이 약화되고 연방재정적자가 심화되며, 걷잡을 수 없는 달러화의 약세 등이 초래될 것을 특히 두려워하고 있다. 케리는 부시보다 훨씬 더 잘할 능력을 갖고 있다. 그는 시민권에 대한 강력한 수호자이며, 합리적인 보건정책을 갖고 있으며, 국제사회에서 미국의 역할이 자발적 국가공동체의 지도자임을 잘 알고 있다. 역사는 부시에게 영웅적 역할을 부여했으나, 그는 그릇된 길을 선택했다. 우리는 케리가 대통령으로서 국정을 더 잘 이끌어 나갈 인물이라고 확신한다.
모든 유권자는 각 후보자의 과거 전력, 정책적 우선순위, 그리고 성품을 근거로 지지 후보를 결정해야한다. 이 세가지를 근거로 우리는 존 케리를 대통령으로 열렬히 지지한다.
번역 〓오애리기자 aeri@munhwa.com
권혁선 (
아아거 (
오현기 (
noonoo
2004년 10월 18일 at 6:13 오후
좋은 내용 잘 보구 갑니다..
그런데 911의 충격을 아이러니하게도 부쉬 측이 울궈멍는단 말이져..
또, 우둔한 제가 궁금한 건, 反부쉬를 목표로 하는 아랍권 연대가 빈라덴 을 중심으로 분명히 연계 되있고 하다면, 왜 이런 시기에 부쉬만 안되면 뭐 우리도 테러 안한다 이런 거 표명하지 않는 거져? 클럽 하나만 폭발해노쿠도 지네가 했따고 잘도 씨불거리드만.
케리가 되두 당장 변할 건 없다는 거져..
noonoo
2004년 10월 18일 at 6:20 오후
그리고 이런 미국식의 시장 자본주의의 한계를 보는 거 같아 씁쓸함다..
돈 만 있으면 부쉬같은 얼뜨기가 저리 견뎌내자나여..
빈라덴도 결국은 서방의 석유독점 체제가 키워준 거지여..
빈라덴 약화시키는 건 무력과 전쟁이 아닌 ‘경제력 차단’과 더불어 ‘아랍권 맨 밑바닥 민생부터의 재건’ 이 되어야할검돠.
미국이 팍스를 계속하려면 각국의 계층 질서 시스템을 바꿔놓아야할껄여.
아울러 내정간섭 적극해야함돠
1004
2004년 10월 18일 at 9:36 오후
"상황이 바뀌면 자신의 결정을 기꺼이 재평가하는 자세를 갖고 있다."
"또 케리는 평생 공공 서비스를 위해 헌신해왔으며, 무엇보다 강한 도덕적 심성을 지닌 인물이다."
미국이라는 큰 나라가 리더를 선정하고 걸러내는 기준에 대해 우리도 한번 생각해 봐야 합니다. 부쉬나 케리도 결국은 ‘지고의 선’이 아닌 ‘현실적인 차선’의 선택 아닐까요.
누누님 의견에도 동의하지만, 결국 ‘시스템’이 나라를 끌어가는 것이니..
박일선
2004년 10월 19일 at 5:26 오후
신문이 지지사설을 실을수 있는 풍토가 무척 부러울 따름입니다.
미국은 항상 한발앞서가는 그런 모습을 보여줍니다. 우리도 그런날이 오겠죠.
JeeJeon
2004년 10월 19일 at 8:00 오후
극우사상 극좌사상,
지도자의 자질에서 21세기에 가장 경계해야할 생각들이라고 봅니다.
두개의 사상을 지배하는 것이 독선과 독재라는 두개의 얼굴이라고 봅니다.
이것은 부시뿐 아니라
소위 사회성이라는 이념에서도 그렇다는 것이지요. 극좌만 우려했습니다.
그러나 극우야말로 가장 파시즘적이라고 봅니다.
전에는 극우적 사고에 대해 생각해보지 않았던 일이었어요, 독선과 독재!
JeeJeon
2004년 10월 19일 at 8:15 오후
그렇다고 극좌의 얼굴이 파시즘이 없다는것 물론 아니지요.
극좌와 극우가 갇고있는 본질적 얼굴이 같다고 봅니다. 저는 사회성이 결여되어 있거나 무관심한 국민 이었습니다. 그리고 극좌에 대해 혐오감을 갇고 있구요
불과 얼마전부터 극우의 무서운 모습을 극좌 못지않게 혐오합니다
1004
2004년 10월 19일 at 9:34 오후
우리가 평소 빠지기 쉬운 철학적 사고방식의 함정중의 하나가 지전님께서 지적하신 것이 아닌가 합니다. 말안하고 가만 있는 합리적이고 젊으면서도 두꺼운 층은, 단지 말하지 않는다는 그 이유만으로 항상 ‘극’들에게 밟히고,이용당하지요. 세금만해도 보십시오. 소득중에서 가장 많은 세금을 내면서도, 어디에도 말할 기회는 없고, 이야기만 하면 무시당하는 것이 한국중산층의 현주소입니다.근대사50년도 마찬가지 아닐까요
joanna
2004년 10월 19일 at 10:52 오후
지금 미국에서도 중소기업들이 많이 무너지고 있습니다. 일부에서는 그러한 경제적인 책임을 부시한테 묻고 있기에 그에 대한 반동으로 케리한테 어느정도 유리한 면을 갖게되는 것도 같습니다. 그러나 제 생각에는 부시가 더욱 진취적이고 미국적이라고 생각합니다. 미국이 자국의 안전 뿐만이 아니라 지구촌의 공존무제로 이라크도 봐야 하면 경제가 곧 군사력입니다. 평화를 깨뜨리는 것은 더 큰 혼란을 가져 오겠지만
joanna
2004년 10월 19일 at 10:52 오후
분명한것은 이미 세계저널들은 3차대전이 시작되었다고 합니다. 어디서 시작되었는지는 모르나 모든사람이 전쟁이란것을 묵도하게 되는 날은 지구의 끝날입니다. 1004님도 요한계시록을 읽어서 아시겠지만 서서 그데로 재가 되는 무기는 핵무기 뿐입니다.북한에서 핵사찰단이 쫒겨났을때 인지 9.11 사태인지 우리가 정확한 데이터를 찾을수 없지만 이미 시작은 된것이라고 생각 합니다. 3차대전의 기간은 예측할수 없으나.
스캡틱
2004년 10월 20일 at 4:10 오전
좌파 리버럴의 경향은 상황을 통제하려는 욕구가 보수파와 비교해 워낙 강렬합니다. 자기 식대로 세상을 돌아가게 만들겠다는 욕망이 지극히 강하죠. 또한 이 욕구가 충족 되지 않을때 기득권층에 대한 엄청난 분노를 간직하면서 과장된 피해의식을 전파합니다. 결국 이들 맘대로 할기회가 왔을때 그 지지자들은 이들의 거침없고잔인한 독선에 놀라게 됩니다. 히틀러/레닌/스탈린/모택동등이죠.