http://img.news.yahoo.co.kr/picture/2008/h2/20081202/20081202043156196h2_043156_0.jpg
2008년 12월 2일 화요일
야후! 미디어 - 세상을 만나는 창
야후! 미디어 - 세상을 만나는 창
http://img.news.yahoo.co.kr/picture/2008/h2/20081202/20081202043156196h2_043156_0.jpg
http://img.news.yahoo.co.kr/picture/2008/h2/20081202/20081202043156196h2_043156_0.jpg
2008년 11월 30일 일요일
2008년 11월 29일 토요일
“한국 사법부는 강자 요구 대변하는 집단”
“한국 사법부는 강자 요구 대변하는 집단”
최장집 교수 ‘민주주의와 법의 지배’ 서문에서 삼성판결 등 비판
고명섭 기자
.article, .article a, .article a:visited, .article p{ font-size:14px; color:#222222; line-height:24px; }
» 최장집 고려대 명예교수
<민주주의와 법의 지배> 한국어판 서문에서 정치학자 최장집 고려대 명예교수는 한국 사법의 현실을 강도 높게 비판하고 있다.
최 교수는 한국 사법부가 자율성이 극히 결여된 집단이자 사회적 강자의 요구를 일방적으로 대변하는 집단이라며, 지난 10월 ‘삼성 사건’ 항소심 판결을 사례로 삼는다. 그 재판은 주요 혐의 사안들에 대한 특검의 수긍하기 어려운 기소 누락부터가 문제였다. 더 결정적인 것은 항소심 재판부가 삼성의 경영권 불법 승계에 대해 무죄 판결을 내려준 일이었다. 재판 내용을 들여다보면 심리 과정이 거꾸로 돼 있음을 알 수 있다고 최 교수는 말한다. “법리가 사건의 판결을 결론짓도록 하는 요인인 것이 아니라, 결론이 먼저 설정되고 법리는 그 결론을 뒷받침해주고 합리화하는 논리적 메커니즘으로 불러들여진다.” 무죄라는 결론을 먼저 내려놓고 거기에 따라 법리를 짜맞췄다는 이야기다. 관대한 양형을 선고한 이유와 관련해 판결문은 ‘국가 경제에 기여했다’, ‘신규 고용을 창출한 공로가 있다, ‘한국 체육 발전에 기여했다’, ‘성품, 가족관계 등을 고려할 때 특별히 문제될 것이 없다’ 따위를 열거했는데, 이것은 “피고인에 대한 평결의 은혜로움을 천명하는 것이지 법 그 자체의 언어와 논리는 아니다.” 이 재판은 법원이 사회적 강자 편이자 그 강자 앞에 굴복했음을 보여준 사건이었다.
최장집 교수 ‘민주주의와 법의 지배’ 서문에서 삼성판결 등 비판
고명섭 기자
.article, .article a, .article a:visited, .article p{ font-size:14px; color:#222222; line-height:24px; }
» 최장집 고려대 명예교수
<민주주의와 법의 지배> 한국어판 서문에서 정치학자 최장집 고려대 명예교수는 한국 사법의 현실을 강도 높게 비판하고 있다.
최 교수는 한국 사법부가 자율성이 극히 결여된 집단이자 사회적 강자의 요구를 일방적으로 대변하는 집단이라며, 지난 10월 ‘삼성 사건’ 항소심 판결을 사례로 삼는다. 그 재판은 주요 혐의 사안들에 대한 특검의 수긍하기 어려운 기소 누락부터가 문제였다. 더 결정적인 것은 항소심 재판부가 삼성의 경영권 불법 승계에 대해 무죄 판결을 내려준 일이었다. 재판 내용을 들여다보면 심리 과정이 거꾸로 돼 있음을 알 수 있다고 최 교수는 말한다. “법리가 사건의 판결을 결론짓도록 하는 요인인 것이 아니라, 결론이 먼저 설정되고 법리는 그 결론을 뒷받침해주고 합리화하는 논리적 메커니즘으로 불러들여진다.” 무죄라는 결론을 먼저 내려놓고 거기에 따라 법리를 짜맞췄다는 이야기다. 관대한 양형을 선고한 이유와 관련해 판결문은 ‘국가 경제에 기여했다’, ‘신규 고용을 창출한 공로가 있다, ‘한국 체육 발전에 기여했다’, ‘성품, 가족관계 등을 고려할 때 특별히 문제될 것이 없다’ 따위를 열거했는데, 이것은 “피고인에 대한 평결의 은혜로움을 천명하는 것이지 법 그 자체의 언어와 논리는 아니다.” 이 재판은 법원이 사회적 강자 편이자 그 강자 앞에 굴복했음을 보여준 사건이었다.
2008년 11월 25일 화요일
11월 26일 한겨레 그림판 : 한겨레그림판 : 만화 : 뉴스 : 한겨레
11월 26일 한겨레 그림판 : 한겨레그림판 : 만화 : 뉴스 : 한겨레: "11월 26일 한겨레 그림판"
http://img.hani.co.kr/imgdb/resize/2008/1126/7000137616_20081126.JPG
http://img.hani.co.kr/imgdb/resize/2008/1126/7000137616_20081126.JPG
2008년 10월 28일 화요일
2008년 9월 19일 금요일
2008년 9월 1일 월요일
[사설] 이상한 간첩사건, ‘빨갱이 몰기’ 예고인가 : 사설 : 사설.칼럼 : 뉴스 : 한겨레
[사설] 이상한 간첩사건, ‘빨갱이 몰기’ 예고인가 : 사설 : 사설.칼럼 : 뉴스 : 한겨레
지난주 발표된 여간첩 사건을 두고 ‘이상하다’는 말이 시민단체와 보수언론 등을 가리지 않고 나오고 있다. 이해할 수 없는 의문점이 한둘이 아니라는 것이다.
이번 사건에서 증거라곤 간첩이라는 원아무개씨 진술 말고는 딱히 제시된 게 없다. 그 진술조차 앞뒤가 맞지 않는다. 그가 북한에 넘겨줬다는 정보는 대부분 인터넷에서 쉽게 찾을 수 있는 것들로, 국가기밀은 거의 없다. 정예 간첩이라면서 공개강연에서 대북 찬양 발언을 하는 등 행동도 어설프다. 그런 원씨를 남과 북의 정보기관이 서로 간첩으로 활용하려 들었다니, 어디까지 사실인지 알 길이 없다. 절도 전과자인 원씨가 북한에서 중범죄를 저지르고도 쉽게 풀려났다는 등의 이력도 석연찮다. 북한 사정에 맞지 않는 진술도 몇 있다. 하나하나 따지면 미심쩍은 것투성이다. 3년간 내사했다는 사건이라면서 이렇게 어설프게, 그것도 이 시점에서 발표한 게 의아하다. 간첩 사건이라면 합당한 처벌을 해야 하겠지만, 사실과 다른 과대포장이라면 그 의도를 묻지 않을 수 없다.
...
지난주 발표된 여간첩 사건을 두고 ‘이상하다’는 말이 시민단체와 보수언론 등을 가리지 않고 나오고 있다. 이해할 수 없는 의문점이 한둘이 아니라는 것이다.
이번 사건에서 증거라곤 간첩이라는 원아무개씨 진술 말고는 딱히 제시된 게 없다. 그 진술조차 앞뒤가 맞지 않는다. 그가 북한에 넘겨줬다는 정보는 대부분 인터넷에서 쉽게 찾을 수 있는 것들로, 국가기밀은 거의 없다. 정예 간첩이라면서 공개강연에서 대북 찬양 발언을 하는 등 행동도 어설프다. 그런 원씨를 남과 북의 정보기관이 서로 간첩으로 활용하려 들었다니, 어디까지 사실인지 알 길이 없다. 절도 전과자인 원씨가 북한에서 중범죄를 저지르고도 쉽게 풀려났다는 등의 이력도 석연찮다. 북한 사정에 맞지 않는 진술도 몇 있다. 하나하나 따지면 미심쩍은 것투성이다. 3년간 내사했다는 사건이라면서 이렇게 어설프게, 그것도 이 시점에서 발표한 게 의아하다. 간첩 사건이라면 합당한 처벌을 해야 하겠지만, 사실과 다른 과대포장이라면 그 의도를 묻지 않을 수 없다.
...
Georgia-crisis-Timeline
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2565469/Georgia-crisis-Timeline.html
By Richard Alleyne Last Updated: 5:42PM BST 15 Aug 2008
Thursday August 7 - Georgia begins a military operation to retake South Ossetia, which has had de facto independence since 1992, after days of fighting with separatists.
Friday August 8 - The Russian government sends tanks to the region and claims it must protect Russians living in the province.
Saturday August 9 - Fighting continues as the Georgian interior ministry claims Russia has carried out air strikes on three military bases and oil shipping facilities. Britain echoes international calls for a ceasefire between the two sides.
Sunday August 10 - The UK Foreign Office urges all Britons to leave Georgia and advises against non-essential travel to the region. The Russians blockade Georgia's Black Sea coast and are accused of bombing airport.
Monday August 11 - Russian forces push beyond the borders of South Ossetia amid accusations they are attempting to "conquer" Georgia.
US President George Bush warns Moscow not to proceed with a "dramatic and brutal escalation".
Tuesday August 12 - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announces that his forces will end their operation in Georgia, claiming that Russia's aims have been achieved. However reports of Russian bombing of Gori continue.
Wednesday August 13 - President George W Bush warns that Russia "must keep its word and act to end this crisis", while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says Moscow "seriously overstretched" itself in Georgia.
Thursday August 14 – Poland and America conclude a deal which will see Poland house a US missile defence system. The first shipments of US humanitarian aid arrive in Georgia. A Russian commander in the region says his troops starting to withdraw.
Friday August 15 - US President George W Bush accused Russia of "bullying and intimidation". The Polish missile deal angers Russia which said the US move "cannot go unpunished". It claims it will be forced to re-direct nuclear missiles on Poland.
By Richard Alleyne Last Updated: 5:42PM BST 15 Aug 2008
Thursday August 7 - Georgia begins a military operation to retake South Ossetia, which has had de facto independence since 1992, after days of fighting with separatists.
Friday August 8 - The Russian government sends tanks to the region and claims it must protect Russians living in the province.
Saturday August 9 - Fighting continues as the Georgian interior ministry claims Russia has carried out air strikes on three military bases and oil shipping facilities. Britain echoes international calls for a ceasefire between the two sides.
Sunday August 10 - The UK Foreign Office urges all Britons to leave Georgia and advises against non-essential travel to the region. The Russians blockade Georgia's Black Sea coast and are accused of bombing airport.
Monday August 11 - Russian forces push beyond the borders of South Ossetia amid accusations they are attempting to "conquer" Georgia.
US President George Bush warns Moscow not to proceed with a "dramatic and brutal escalation".
Tuesday August 12 - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announces that his forces will end their operation in Georgia, claiming that Russia's aims have been achieved. However reports of Russian bombing of Gori continue.
Wednesday August 13 - President George W Bush warns that Russia "must keep its word and act to end this crisis", while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says Moscow "seriously overstretched" itself in Georgia.
Thursday August 14 – Poland and America conclude a deal which will see Poland house a US missile defence system. The first shipments of US humanitarian aid arrive in Georgia. A Russian commander in the region says his troops starting to withdraw.
Friday August 15 - US President George W Bush accused Russia of "bullying and intimidation". The Polish missile deal angers Russia which said the US move "cannot go unpunished". It claims it will be forced to re-direct nuclear missiles on Poland.
U.S.-Poland Missile Deal Irks Russia - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
U.S.-Poland Missile Deal Irks Russia - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
In the midst of the Russia-Georgia conflict, Poland has agreed to host part of a U.S. missile defense system. While both Poland and the U.S. deny that this deal is a reaction to Russia’s role in the Russia-Georgia conflict, Russian officials and international experts disagree. In an interview with NPR's All Things Considered, Michael McFaul states that, “It’s a direct response to Russian aggression.”
In the midst of the Russia-Georgia conflict, Poland has agreed to host part of a U.S. missile defense system. While both Poland and the U.S. deny that this deal is a reaction to Russia’s role in the Russia-Georgia conflict, Russian officials and international experts disagree. In an interview with NPR's All Things Considered, Michael McFaul states that, “It’s a direct response to Russian aggression.”
In the midst of the Russia-Georgia conflict, Poland has agreed to host part of a U.S. missile defense system.
U.S.-Poland Missile Deal Irks Russia
By Michael A. McFaul
NPR's All Things Considered, August 15, 2008
In the midst of the Russia-Georgia conflict, Poland has agreed to host part of a U.S. missile defense system. While both Poland and the U.S. deny that this deal is a reaction to Russia’s role in the Russia-Georgia conflict, Russian officials and international experts disagree. In an interview with NPR's All Things Considered, Michael McFaul states that, “It’s a direct response to Russian aggression.”
This agreement may lead to further deterioration of U.S.-Russia relations, as well as, cause challenges for the Poland-Russia relationship.
Click here to listen
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - Publications
By Michael A. McFaul
NPR's All Things Considered, August 15, 2008
In the midst of the Russia-Georgia conflict, Poland has agreed to host part of a U.S. missile defense system. While both Poland and the U.S. deny that this deal is a reaction to Russia’s role in the Russia-Georgia conflict, Russian officials and international experts disagree. In an interview with NPR's All Things Considered, Michael McFaul states that, “It’s a direct response to Russian aggression.”
This agreement may lead to further deterioration of U.S.-Russia relations, as well as, cause challenges for the Poland-Russia relationship.
Click here to listen
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - Publications
US Role in Georgia Crisis Cannot Be Ignored - by Stephen Zunes
US Role in Georgia Crisis Cannot Be Ignored - by Stephen Zunes
August 21, 2008
US Role in Georgia Crisis Cannot Be Ignored
by Stephen Zunes
The international condemnation of Russian aggression against Georgia – and the concomitant assaults by Abkhazians and South Ossetians against ethnic Georgians within their territories – is in large part appropriate. But the self-righteous posturing coming out of Washington should be tempered by a sober recognition of the ways in which the United States has contributed to the crisis.
It has been nearly impossible to even broach this subject of the U.S. role. Much of the mainstream media coverage and statements by American political leaders of both major parties has in many respects resembled the anti-Russian hysterics of the Cold War. It is striking how quickly forgotten is the fact that the U.S.-backed Georgian military started the war when it brutally assaulted the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali in an attempt to regain direct control of the autonomous region. This attack prompted the disproportionate and illegitimate Russian military response, which soon went beyond simply ousting invading Georgian forces from South Ossetia to invading and occupying large segments of Georgia itself.
The South Ossetians themselves did much to provoke Georgia as well by shelling villages populated by ethnic Georgians earlier this month. However, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ruled out signing a non-aggression pact and repeatedly refused to rejoin talks of the Joint Control Commission to prevent an escalation of the violence. Furthermore, according to Reuters, a draft UN Security Council statement calling for an immediate cease-fire was blocked when the United States objected to "a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides 'to renounce the use of force.'"
Borders and Boundaries
In the Caucasus and Central Asia, the Russian empire and its Soviet successors, like the Western European colonialists in Africa, often drew state boundaries arbitrarily and, in some cases, not so arbitrarily as part of a divide-and-rule strategy. The small and ethnically distinct regions of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Adjara were incorporated into the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic and – on the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 – remained as autonomous regions within the state of Georgia. Not one of the regions was ethnically pure. They all included sizable ethnic Georgian minorities, among others. Despite cultural and linguistic differences, there was not much in the way of ethnic tension during most of the Soviet period, and inter-marriage was not uncommon.
As the USSR fell apart in the late 1980s, however, nationalist sentiments increased dramatically throughout the Caucasus region in such ethnic enclaves as Chechnya in Russia, Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, as well as among those within Georgia. Compounding these nationalist and ethnic tensions was the rise of the ultra-nationalist Georgian President Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who assumed power when the country declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. With the possible exception of the Baltic states, Georgia had maintained the strongest sense of nationalism of any of the former Soviet republics, tracing its national identity as far back as the 4th century B.C. as one of most advanced states of its time. This resurgent nationalism led the newly re-emerged independent Georgia to attempt to assert its sovereignty over its autonomous regions by force.
A series of civil conflicts raged in Georgia in subsequent years, both between competing political factions within Georgia itself as well as in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, resulting in widespread ethnic cleansing. Backed by Russian forces, these two regions achieved de facto independence while, within Georgia proper, former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze emerged as president and brought some semblance of stability to the country, despite a weak economy and widespread corruption.
Russian troops, nominally in a peacekeeping role but clearly aligned with nationalist elements within the two ethnic enclaves, effectively prevented any subsequent exercise of Georgian government authority over most of these territories. Meanwhile, the United States became the biggest foreign backer of the Shevardnadze regime, pouring in over $1 billion in aid during the decade of his corrupt and semi-authoritarian rule.
The Rose Revolution
Though strongly supported by Washington, Shevardnadze was less well-respected at home. For example, the New York Timesreported how "Georgians have a different perspective" than the generous pro-government view from Washington, citing the observation in the Georgian daily newspaper The Messenger that, "Despite the fact that he is adored in the West as an 'architect of democracy' and credited with ending the Cold War, Georgians cannot bear their president." Though critical of the rampant corruption and rigged elections, the Bush administration stood by the Georgian regime, as they had the post-Communist dictatorships in Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and most of the other former Soviet republics.
Georgia enjoyed relatively more political freedom and civil society institutions than most other post-Soviet states. Nevertheless, high unemployment, a breakdown in the allocation of energy for heating and other needs, a deteriorating infrastructure, widespread corruption, and inept governance led to growing dissatisfaction with the government. By 2003, Shevardnadze had lost support from virtually every social class, ethnic group, and geographical region of the country. Heavy losses by his supporters in parliamentary elections early that November were widely anticipated. Still, Shevardnadze continued to receive the strong support of President George W. Bush due to his close personal relationship with high-ranking administration officials. Contributing to this relationship were his pro-Western policies, such as embarking upon ambitious free market reforms under the tutelage of the International Monetary Fund, agreeing to deploy 300 Georgian troops to Iraq following the U.S. invasion, and sending Georgian troops trained by U.S. Special Forces to the Pankisi Gorge on the border of Chechnya to fight Chechen rebels. Opposition leaders Zurab Zhvania and Mikheil Saakashvilli strongly criticized the United States for its continued support of the Georgian president.
In addition to the electoral opposition, a decentralized student-led grassroots movement known as Kmara emerged, calling for an end to corruption and more democratic and accountable government as well as free and fair elections. Though not directly supported by the Bush administration, a number of Western NGOs, including the Open Society Institute (backed by Hungarian-American financier George Soros) and the National Democratic Institute (supported, ironically, by U.S. congressional funding) provided funding for election-monitoring and helped facilitate workshops for both the young Kmara activists and mainstream opposition leaders. This led to some serious tension between these non-governmental organizations and the U.S. embassy in the Georgian capital.
For example, when U.S. ambassador to Georgia Richard Miles learned that some leaders from the successful student-led nonviolent civil insurrection in Serbia three years earlier were in Tbilisi to give trainings to Kmara activists there, he tried to discourage them by telling them that “Shevardnadze is the guarantee for the peace and stability of the region.” Noting that the United States was providing training and equipment of the Georgian army that anti-government demonstrators would soon be facing down in the streets, he referred to the Kmara as “troublemakers.” Similarly, Miles discouraged Kmara leaders from working with the Serb activists, whom he had known from his prior post as chief of mission in Belgrade, insisting that “Georgia is not the same as Serbia.” (Despite these efforts, the scheduled trainings in strategic nonviolent action went forward anyway.)
The parliamentary elections that November were marred by a series of irregularities. These included widespread ballot-stuffing, multiple voting by government supporters, late poll openings, missing ballots, and missing voter lists in opposition strongholds. These attempts to steal the election elicited little more than finger-wagging from the Bush administration.
The Georgians themselves did not take the situation so lightly, however. They launched general strikes and massive street protests against what they saw as illegitimate government authority. This effort was soon dubbed the "Rose Revolution." Gaining support from the United States only after the success of the nonviolent civil insurrection appeared inevitable, this popular uprising forced Shevardnadze to resign.
Presidential elections, certified as free and fair by international observers, were held two months later, in which opposition leader Mikheil Saakashvili emerged victorious. Four months later, the authoritarian ruler of the autonomous region of Adjara, a Shevardnadze ally, was ousted in a similar nonviolent civil insurrection.
Though not responsible for the change of government itself, the Bush administration soon moved to take advantage of the change the Georgian people brought about after the fact.
U.S. Embrace of Saakashvili
Despite its longstanding support for Shevardnadze, the Bush administration quickly embraced Georgia's new president. Taking advantage of Georgia's desperate economic situation, the United States successfully lobbied for a series of additional free market reforms and other neoliberal economic measures on the country, including a flat tax of 14 percent. Though official corruption declined, tax collection rates improved, and the rate of economic growth increased, high unemployment remained and social inequality grew.
With strong encouragement from Washington, Saakashvili's government reduced domestic spending but dramatically increased military spending, with the armed forces expanding to more than 45,000 personnel over the next four years, more than 12,000 of whom were trained by the United States. Congress approved hundreds of millions of dollars of military assistance to Georgia, a small country of less than 5 million people. In addition, the United States successfully encouraged Israel to send advisers and trainers to support the rapidly expanding Georgian armed forces.
Although facing growing security concerns at home, the Bush administration also successfully pushed Saakashvili to send an additional 1,700 troops to Iraq. Thus, Georgia increased its troop strength in Iraq by more than 500 percent even as other countries in the U.S.-led multinational force were pulling out.
Though Georgia is located in a region well within Russia's historic sphere of influence and is more than 3,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, Bush nevertheless launched an ambitious campaign to bring Georgia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Russians, who had already seen previous U.S. assurances to Gorbachev that NATO would not extend eastward ignored, found the prospects of NATO expansion to the strategically important and volatile Caucasus region particularly provocative. This inflamed Russian nationalists and Russian military leaders and no doubt strengthened their resolve to maintain their military presence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Washington's embrace of Saakashvili, like its earlier embrace of Shevardnadze, appears to have been based in large part on oil. The United States has helped establish Georgia as a major energy transit corridor, building an oil pipeline from the Caspian region known as the BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceylan) and a parallel natural gas pipeline, both designed to avoid the more logical geographical routes through Russia or Iran. The Russians, meanwhile, in an effort to maintain as much control over the westbound oil from the region, have responded by pressuring the governments of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan to sign exclusive export agreements and to construct natural gas pipelines through Russia. (See Michael Klare's "Russia and Georgia: All About Oil.")
Amid accusations of widespread corruption and not adequately addressing the country's growing poverty, Saakashvili himself faced widespread protests in November 2007, to which he responded with severe repression, shutting down independent media, detaining opposition leaders, and sending his security forces to assault largely nonviolent demonstrators with tear gas, truncheons, rubber bullets, water cannons, and sonic equipment. Human Rights Watch criticized the government for using "excessive" force against protesters, and the International Crisis Group warned of growing authoritarianism in the country. Despite this, Saakashvili continued to receive strong support from Washington and still appeared to have majority support within Georgia, winning a snap election in January by a solid majority, which – despite some irregularities – was generally thought to be free and fair.
Lead-up to the Current Crisis
A number of misguided U.S. policies appear to have played an important role in encouraging Georgia to launch its Aug. 6 assault on South Ossetia.
The first had to do with the U.S.-led militarization of Georgia, which likely emboldened Saakashvili to try to resolve the conflict over South Ossetia by military means. Just last month, the United States held a military exercise in Georgia with more than 1,000 American troops while the Bush administration, according to the New York Times, was "loudly proclaiming its support for Georgia's territorial integrity in the battle with Russia over Georgia's separatist enclaves." As the situation was deteriorating last month, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a high-profile visit to Saakashvili in Tbilisi, where she reiterated the strong strategic relationship between the two countries.
Radio Liberty speculates that Saakashvili "may have felt that his military, after several years of U.S.-sponsored training and rearmament, was now capable of routing the Ossetian separatists ('bandits,' in the official parlance) and neutralizing the Russian peacekeepers." Furthermore, Saakashvili apparently hoped that the anticipated Russian reaction would "immediately transform the conflict into a direct confrontation between a democratic David and an autocratic Goliath, making sure the sympathy of the Western world would be mobilized for Georgia."
According to Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations, the United States may have caused Saakashvili to "miscalculate" and "overreach" by making him feel that "at the end of the day that the West would come to his assistance if he got into trouble."
Another factor undoubtedly involved the U.S. push for Georgia to join NATO. The efforts by some prominent Kremlin lawmakers for formal recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia coincided with the escalated efforts for NATO's inclusion of Georgia this spring, as well as an awareness that any potential Russian military move against Georgia would need to come sooner rather than later.
And, as a number of us predicted last March, Western support for the unilateral declaration of independence by the autonomous Serbian region of Kosovo emboldened nationalist leaders in the autonomous Georgian regions, along with their Russian supporters, to press for the independence of these nations as well. Despite the pro-American sympathies of many in that country, Georgians were notably alarmed by the quick and precedent-setting U.S. recognition of Kosovo.
No Standing to Challenge Russian Aggression
Russia's massive and brutal military counter-offensive, while immediately provoked by Georgia's attack on South Ossetia, had clearly been planned well in advance. It also went well beyond defending the enclave to illegally sending forces deep into Georgia itself and inflicting widespread civilian casualties. It has had nothing to do with solidarity with an oppressed people struggling for self-determination and everything to do with geopolitics and the assertion of militaristic Russian nationalism.
While the international community has solid grounds to challenge Russian aggression, however, the United States has lost virtually all moral standing to take a principled stance.
For example, the brutally punitive and disproportionate response by the Russian armed forces pales in comparison to that of Israel's 2006 attacks on Lebanon, which were strongly defended not only by the Bush administration, but leading Democrats in Congress, including presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
Russia's use of large-scale militarily force to defend the autonomy of South Ossetia by massively attacking Georgia has been significantly less destructive than the U.S.-led NATO assault on Serbia to defend Kosovo's autonomy in 1999, an action that received broad bipartisan American support.
And the Russian ground invasion of Georgia, while a clear violation of international legal norms, is far less significant a breach of international law as the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, authorized by a large majority in Congress.
This doesn't mean that Russia's military offensive should not be rigorously opposed. However, the U.S. contribution to this unfolding tragedy and the absence of any moral authority to challenge it must not be ignored.
Reprinted courtesy of Foreign Policy in Focus.
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=13332
August 21, 2008
US Role in Georgia Crisis Cannot Be Ignored
by Stephen Zunes
The international condemnation of Russian aggression against Georgia – and the concomitant assaults by Abkhazians and South Ossetians against ethnic Georgians within their territories – is in large part appropriate. But the self-righteous posturing coming out of Washington should be tempered by a sober recognition of the ways in which the United States has contributed to the crisis.
It has been nearly impossible to even broach this subject of the U.S. role. Much of the mainstream media coverage and statements by American political leaders of both major parties has in many respects resembled the anti-Russian hysterics of the Cold War. It is striking how quickly forgotten is the fact that the U.S.-backed Georgian military started the war when it brutally assaulted the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali in an attempt to regain direct control of the autonomous region. This attack prompted the disproportionate and illegitimate Russian military response, which soon went beyond simply ousting invading Georgian forces from South Ossetia to invading and occupying large segments of Georgia itself.
The South Ossetians themselves did much to provoke Georgia as well by shelling villages populated by ethnic Georgians earlier this month. However, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ruled out signing a non-aggression pact and repeatedly refused to rejoin talks of the Joint Control Commission to prevent an escalation of the violence. Furthermore, according to Reuters, a draft UN Security Council statement calling for an immediate cease-fire was blocked when the United States objected to "a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides 'to renounce the use of force.'"
Borders and Boundaries
In the Caucasus and Central Asia, the Russian empire and its Soviet successors, like the Western European colonialists in Africa, often drew state boundaries arbitrarily and, in some cases, not so arbitrarily as part of a divide-and-rule strategy. The small and ethnically distinct regions of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Adjara were incorporated into the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic and – on the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 – remained as autonomous regions within the state of Georgia. Not one of the regions was ethnically pure. They all included sizable ethnic Georgian minorities, among others. Despite cultural and linguistic differences, there was not much in the way of ethnic tension during most of the Soviet period, and inter-marriage was not uncommon.
As the USSR fell apart in the late 1980s, however, nationalist sentiments increased dramatically throughout the Caucasus region in such ethnic enclaves as Chechnya in Russia, Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, as well as among those within Georgia. Compounding these nationalist and ethnic tensions was the rise of the ultra-nationalist Georgian President Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who assumed power when the country declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. With the possible exception of the Baltic states, Georgia had maintained the strongest sense of nationalism of any of the former Soviet republics, tracing its national identity as far back as the 4th century B.C. as one of most advanced states of its time. This resurgent nationalism led the newly re-emerged independent Georgia to attempt to assert its sovereignty over its autonomous regions by force.
A series of civil conflicts raged in Georgia in subsequent years, both between competing political factions within Georgia itself as well as in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, resulting in widespread ethnic cleansing. Backed by Russian forces, these two regions achieved de facto independence while, within Georgia proper, former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze emerged as president and brought some semblance of stability to the country, despite a weak economy and widespread corruption.
Russian troops, nominally in a peacekeeping role but clearly aligned with nationalist elements within the two ethnic enclaves, effectively prevented any subsequent exercise of Georgian government authority over most of these territories. Meanwhile, the United States became the biggest foreign backer of the Shevardnadze regime, pouring in over $1 billion in aid during the decade of his corrupt and semi-authoritarian rule.
The Rose Revolution
Though strongly supported by Washington, Shevardnadze was less well-respected at home. For example, the New York Timesreported how "Georgians have a different perspective" than the generous pro-government view from Washington, citing the observation in the Georgian daily newspaper The Messenger that, "Despite the fact that he is adored in the West as an 'architect of democracy' and credited with ending the Cold War, Georgians cannot bear their president." Though critical of the rampant corruption and rigged elections, the Bush administration stood by the Georgian regime, as they had the post-Communist dictatorships in Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and most of the other former Soviet republics.
Georgia enjoyed relatively more political freedom and civil society institutions than most other post-Soviet states. Nevertheless, high unemployment, a breakdown in the allocation of energy for heating and other needs, a deteriorating infrastructure, widespread corruption, and inept governance led to growing dissatisfaction with the government. By 2003, Shevardnadze had lost support from virtually every social class, ethnic group, and geographical region of the country. Heavy losses by his supporters in parliamentary elections early that November were widely anticipated. Still, Shevardnadze continued to receive the strong support of President George W. Bush due to his close personal relationship with high-ranking administration officials. Contributing to this relationship were his pro-Western policies, such as embarking upon ambitious free market reforms under the tutelage of the International Monetary Fund, agreeing to deploy 300 Georgian troops to Iraq following the U.S. invasion, and sending Georgian troops trained by U.S. Special Forces to the Pankisi Gorge on the border of Chechnya to fight Chechen rebels. Opposition leaders Zurab Zhvania and Mikheil Saakashvilli strongly criticized the United States for its continued support of the Georgian president.
In addition to the electoral opposition, a decentralized student-led grassroots movement known as Kmara emerged, calling for an end to corruption and more democratic and accountable government as well as free and fair elections. Though not directly supported by the Bush administration, a number of Western NGOs, including the Open Society Institute (backed by Hungarian-American financier George Soros) and the National Democratic Institute (supported, ironically, by U.S. congressional funding) provided funding for election-monitoring and helped facilitate workshops for both the young Kmara activists and mainstream opposition leaders. This led to some serious tension between these non-governmental organizations and the U.S. embassy in the Georgian capital.
For example, when U.S. ambassador to Georgia Richard Miles learned that some leaders from the successful student-led nonviolent civil insurrection in Serbia three years earlier were in Tbilisi to give trainings to Kmara activists there, he tried to discourage them by telling them that “Shevardnadze is the guarantee for the peace and stability of the region.” Noting that the United States was providing training and equipment of the Georgian army that anti-government demonstrators would soon be facing down in the streets, he referred to the Kmara as “troublemakers.” Similarly, Miles discouraged Kmara leaders from working with the Serb activists, whom he had known from his prior post as chief of mission in Belgrade, insisting that “Georgia is not the same as Serbia.” (Despite these efforts, the scheduled trainings in strategic nonviolent action went forward anyway.)
The parliamentary elections that November were marred by a series of irregularities. These included widespread ballot-stuffing, multiple voting by government supporters, late poll openings, missing ballots, and missing voter lists in opposition strongholds. These attempts to steal the election elicited little more than finger-wagging from the Bush administration.
The Georgians themselves did not take the situation so lightly, however. They launched general strikes and massive street protests against what they saw as illegitimate government authority. This effort was soon dubbed the "Rose Revolution." Gaining support from the United States only after the success of the nonviolent civil insurrection appeared inevitable, this popular uprising forced Shevardnadze to resign.
Presidential elections, certified as free and fair by international observers, were held two months later, in which opposition leader Mikheil Saakashvili emerged victorious. Four months later, the authoritarian ruler of the autonomous region of Adjara, a Shevardnadze ally, was ousted in a similar nonviolent civil insurrection.
Though not responsible for the change of government itself, the Bush administration soon moved to take advantage of the change the Georgian people brought about after the fact.
U.S. Embrace of Saakashvili
Despite its longstanding support for Shevardnadze, the Bush administration quickly embraced Georgia's new president. Taking advantage of Georgia's desperate economic situation, the United States successfully lobbied for a series of additional free market reforms and other neoliberal economic measures on the country, including a flat tax of 14 percent. Though official corruption declined, tax collection rates improved, and the rate of economic growth increased, high unemployment remained and social inequality grew.
With strong encouragement from Washington, Saakashvili's government reduced domestic spending but dramatically increased military spending, with the armed forces expanding to more than 45,000 personnel over the next four years, more than 12,000 of whom were trained by the United States. Congress approved hundreds of millions of dollars of military assistance to Georgia, a small country of less than 5 million people. In addition, the United States successfully encouraged Israel to send advisers and trainers to support the rapidly expanding Georgian armed forces.
Although facing growing security concerns at home, the Bush administration also successfully pushed Saakashvili to send an additional 1,700 troops to Iraq. Thus, Georgia increased its troop strength in Iraq by more than 500 percent even as other countries in the U.S.-led multinational force were pulling out.
Though Georgia is located in a region well within Russia's historic sphere of influence and is more than 3,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, Bush nevertheless launched an ambitious campaign to bring Georgia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Russians, who had already seen previous U.S. assurances to Gorbachev that NATO would not extend eastward ignored, found the prospects of NATO expansion to the strategically important and volatile Caucasus region particularly provocative. This inflamed Russian nationalists and Russian military leaders and no doubt strengthened their resolve to maintain their military presence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Washington's embrace of Saakashvili, like its earlier embrace of Shevardnadze, appears to have been based in large part on oil. The United States has helped establish Georgia as a major energy transit corridor, building an oil pipeline from the Caspian region known as the BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceylan) and a parallel natural gas pipeline, both designed to avoid the more logical geographical routes through Russia or Iran. The Russians, meanwhile, in an effort to maintain as much control over the westbound oil from the region, have responded by pressuring the governments of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan to sign exclusive export agreements and to construct natural gas pipelines through Russia. (See Michael Klare's "Russia and Georgia: All About Oil.")
Amid accusations of widespread corruption and not adequately addressing the country's growing poverty, Saakashvili himself faced widespread protests in November 2007, to which he responded with severe repression, shutting down independent media, detaining opposition leaders, and sending his security forces to assault largely nonviolent demonstrators with tear gas, truncheons, rubber bullets, water cannons, and sonic equipment. Human Rights Watch criticized the government for using "excessive" force against protesters, and the International Crisis Group warned of growing authoritarianism in the country. Despite this, Saakashvili continued to receive strong support from Washington and still appeared to have majority support within Georgia, winning a snap election in January by a solid majority, which – despite some irregularities – was generally thought to be free and fair.
Lead-up to the Current Crisis
A number of misguided U.S. policies appear to have played an important role in encouraging Georgia to launch its Aug. 6 assault on South Ossetia.
The first had to do with the U.S.-led militarization of Georgia, which likely emboldened Saakashvili to try to resolve the conflict over South Ossetia by military means. Just last month, the United States held a military exercise in Georgia with more than 1,000 American troops while the Bush administration, according to the New York Times, was "loudly proclaiming its support for Georgia's territorial integrity in the battle with Russia over Georgia's separatist enclaves." As the situation was deteriorating last month, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a high-profile visit to Saakashvili in Tbilisi, where she reiterated the strong strategic relationship between the two countries.
Radio Liberty speculates that Saakashvili "may have felt that his military, after several years of U.S.-sponsored training and rearmament, was now capable of routing the Ossetian separatists ('bandits,' in the official parlance) and neutralizing the Russian peacekeepers." Furthermore, Saakashvili apparently hoped that the anticipated Russian reaction would "immediately transform the conflict into a direct confrontation between a democratic David and an autocratic Goliath, making sure the sympathy of the Western world would be mobilized for Georgia."
According to Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations, the United States may have caused Saakashvili to "miscalculate" and "overreach" by making him feel that "at the end of the day that the West would come to his assistance if he got into trouble."
Another factor undoubtedly involved the U.S. push for Georgia to join NATO. The efforts by some prominent Kremlin lawmakers for formal recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia coincided with the escalated efforts for NATO's inclusion of Georgia this spring, as well as an awareness that any potential Russian military move against Georgia would need to come sooner rather than later.
And, as a number of us predicted last March, Western support for the unilateral declaration of independence by the autonomous Serbian region of Kosovo emboldened nationalist leaders in the autonomous Georgian regions, along with their Russian supporters, to press for the independence of these nations as well. Despite the pro-American sympathies of many in that country, Georgians were notably alarmed by the quick and precedent-setting U.S. recognition of Kosovo.
No Standing to Challenge Russian Aggression
Russia's massive and brutal military counter-offensive, while immediately provoked by Georgia's attack on South Ossetia, had clearly been planned well in advance. It also went well beyond defending the enclave to illegally sending forces deep into Georgia itself and inflicting widespread civilian casualties. It has had nothing to do with solidarity with an oppressed people struggling for self-determination and everything to do with geopolitics and the assertion of militaristic Russian nationalism.
While the international community has solid grounds to challenge Russian aggression, however, the United States has lost virtually all moral standing to take a principled stance.
For example, the brutally punitive and disproportionate response by the Russian armed forces pales in comparison to that of Israel's 2006 attacks on Lebanon, which were strongly defended not only by the Bush administration, but leading Democrats in Congress, including presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
Russia's use of large-scale militarily force to defend the autonomy of South Ossetia by massively attacking Georgia has been significantly less destructive than the U.S.-led NATO assault on Serbia to defend Kosovo's autonomy in 1999, an action that received broad bipartisan American support.
And the Russian ground invasion of Georgia, while a clear violation of international legal norms, is far less significant a breach of international law as the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, authorized by a large majority in Congress.
This doesn't mean that Russia's military offensive should not be rigorously opposed. However, the U.S. contribution to this unfolding tragedy and the absence of any moral authority to challenge it must not be ignored.
Reprinted courtesy of Foreign Policy in Focus.
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=13332
2008년 8월 24일 일요일
Imagine
Imagine
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
Over The Rainbow
Over The Rainbow
(Arlen-Harburg)
Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high
There's a land that I heard of
Once in a lullaby
Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true
Some day I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far behind me
Where troubles melt like lemondrops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me
Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly
Birds fly over the rainbow
Why then, oh why can't I?
Some day I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far behind me
Where troubles melt like lemondrops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me
Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly
Birds fly over the rainbow
Why then, oh why can't I?
If happy little bluebirds fly
Beyond the rainbow
Why, oh why can't I?
(Arlen-Harburg)
Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high
There's a land that I heard of
Once in a lullaby
Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true
Some day I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far behind me
Where troubles melt like lemondrops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me
Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly
Birds fly over the rainbow
Why then, oh why can't I?
Some day I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far behind me
Where troubles melt like lemondrops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me
Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly
Birds fly over the rainbow
Why then, oh why can't I?
If happy little bluebirds fly
Beyond the rainbow
Why, oh why can't I?
2008년 8월 5일 화요일
Angel
Angel
by Sarah McLachlan
Spend all your time waiting
for that second chance
for a break that would make it okay
there's always some reason
to feel not good enough
and it's hard at the end of the day
I need some distraction
oh a beautiful release
memory seeps from my veins
let me be empty
oh and weightless and maybe
I'll find some peace tonight
In the arms of the angel
fly away from here
from this dark cold hotel room
and the endlessness that you fear
you are pulled from the wreckage
of your silent reverie
you're in the arms of the angel
may you find some comfort here
So tired of the straight line
and everywhere you turn
there's vultures and thieves at your back
the storm keeps on twisting
you keep on building the lies
that you make up for all that you lack
it don't make no difference
escaping one last time
it's easier to believe
in this sweet madness oh
this glorious sadness that brings me to my knees
In the arms of the angel
fly away from here
from this dark cold hotel room
and the endlessness that you fear
you are pulled from the wreckage
of your silent reverie
you're in the arms of the angel
may you find some comfort here
you're in the arms of the angel
may you find some comfort here
by Sarah McLachlan
Spend all your time waiting
for that second chance
for a break that would make it okay
there's always some reason
to feel not good enough
and it's hard at the end of the day
I need some distraction
oh a beautiful release
memory seeps from my veins
let me be empty
oh and weightless and maybe
I'll find some peace tonight
In the arms of the angel
fly away from here
from this dark cold hotel room
and the endlessness that you fear
you are pulled from the wreckage
of your silent reverie
you're in the arms of the angel
may you find some comfort here
So tired of the straight line
and everywhere you turn
there's vultures and thieves at your back
the storm keeps on twisting
you keep on building the lies
that you make up for all that you lack
it don't make no difference
escaping one last time
it's easier to believe
in this sweet madness oh
this glorious sadness that brings me to my knees
In the arms of the angel
fly away from here
from this dark cold hotel room
and the endlessness that you fear
you are pulled from the wreckage
of your silent reverie
you're in the arms of the angel
may you find some comfort here
you're in the arms of the angel
may you find some comfort here
Hotel California
"Hotel California"
On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair
Warm smell of colitas, rising up through the air
Up ahead in the distance, I saw shimmering light
My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim
I had to stop for the night
There she stood in the doorway;
I heard the mission bell
And I was thinking to myself,
'This could be Heaven or this could be Hell'
Then she lit up a candle and she showed me the way
There were voices down the corridor,
I thought I heard them say...
Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place (Such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face
Plenty of room at the Hotel California
Any time of year (Any time of year)
You can find it here
Her mind is Tiffany-twisted, she got the Mercedes Benz
She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys she calls friends
How they dance in the courtyard, sweet summer sweat.
Some dance to remember, some dance to forget
So I called up the Captain,
'Please bring me my wine'
He said, 'We haven't had that spirit here since nineteen sixty nine'
And still those voices are calling from far away,
Wake you up in the middle of the night
Just to hear them say...
Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place (Such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face
They livin' it up at the Hotel California
What a nice surprise (what a nice surprise)
Bring your alibis
Mirrors on the ceiling,
The pink champagne on ice
And she said 'We are all just prisoners here, of our own device'
And in the master's chambers,
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast
Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
'Relax,' said the night man,
'We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave!'
On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair
Warm smell of colitas, rising up through the air
Up ahead in the distance, I saw shimmering light
My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim
I had to stop for the night
There she stood in the doorway;
I heard the mission bell
And I was thinking to myself,
'This could be Heaven or this could be Hell'
Then she lit up a candle and she showed me the way
There were voices down the corridor,
I thought I heard them say...
Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place (Such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face
Plenty of room at the Hotel California
Any time of year (Any time of year)
You can find it here
Her mind is Tiffany-twisted, she got the Mercedes Benz
She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys she calls friends
How they dance in the courtyard, sweet summer sweat.
Some dance to remember, some dance to forget
So I called up the Captain,
'Please bring me my wine'
He said, 'We haven't had that spirit here since nineteen sixty nine'
And still those voices are calling from far away,
Wake you up in the middle of the night
Just to hear them say...
Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place (Such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face
They livin' it up at the Hotel California
What a nice surprise (what a nice surprise)
Bring your alibis
Mirrors on the ceiling,
The pink champagne on ice
And she said 'We are all just prisoners here, of our own device'
And in the master's chambers,
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast
Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
'Relax,' said the night man,
'We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave!'
Snopes: Hotel California http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/hotel.htm "The simple answer is that there is no true meaning to this song. The Eagles were impressed by the way that Steely Dan could make what they described as 'junk sculpture' songs where they took weird disjointed lyrics, combined them with great music, and turned out hits. In fact, this song evolved in the reverse style of song making, with the great guitar parts of Don Felder laid down first, and then lyrics added later. Although 'HC' has many disctinct images and unusual twists of phrases, there is no meaning behind it other than to decribe a fictional place in the desert that Henly/Frey may have visited on a drug-induced head trip and not in their cars. It also skewers the decadence and opulence in which every southern Californian was living, or attempting to live at that moment in the late seventies." Experts: Eagles, The: Hotel California http://experts.about.com/q/449/1960380.htm "As for 'Hotel California,'... I provide the following commonly heard theories: (1) The Hotel California is a real hotel located in (pick one) Baja California on the coastal highway between Cabo San Lucas and La Paz or else near Santa Barbara. (2) The Hotel California is a mental hospital... (3) It's about satanism. Isn't everything? (4) Hotel California is a metaphor for cocaine addiction. See 'You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.' This comes from the published comments of Glenn Frey, one of the coauthors. (5) It's about the pitfalls of living in southern California in the 1970s... (6) My fave, posted to the Usenet by Thomas Dzubin of Vancouver, British Columbia: "There was this fireworks factory just three blocks from the Hotel California . . . and it blew up!" The Straight Dope: Hotel California http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_001 "From my present perspective, as a scholar of American literature, I can recognize that 'Hotel California' follows in the footsteps of such classic authors as Edgar Allan Poe, Herman Melville, and Nathaniel Hawthorne, not to mention Franz Kafka. Like many of those authors' works, 'Hotel California' tells a story that is only half the story. The song's first-person narrator is driving in the desert. He sees a building in the distance. It turns out to be a hotel. He decides to stop for the night. Once inside, he experiences a series of disquieting encounters, culminating in a hideous banquet. When he tries to leave the hotel, he is told that it would be futile to try: 'You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.' With this horrifying statement, the song's lyrical content comes to an end... Its lack of specificity takes some of the bite out of the horrific story. Listening to it, you get the sense that it is about something more than a man who made a poor choice of lodging."
Natasha Dance
Natasha Dance
From Quiet Revolution
by Chris de Burgh
Year Released: 1999
Playing Time: ?:??
Natasha brings me kisses in the moonlight,
She kneels above me, silk upon my skin,
I reach for her, and I can feel her heartbeat,
Beneath her breast so heavy in my hand;
The rain is running rivers on my window,
And shimmers on the streetlights down below,
She's happy when I hold her in the shadows,
And whispers of a life I've never known;
And will you dance, Natasha dance for me,
Because I want to feel the passion in your soul,
And when you dance, will you tell me in a story,
The joy and pain of living in your world;
La la la, la la la, la la la la.......
And with the light I wake up in the morning,
And she has gone, it must have been a dream,
And then I see the roses on my pillow,
And now I know that she will come again;
And she will dance, Natasha dance for me,
Again I want to feel the passion in your soul,
And when you move, will you show me in a story,
The joy and pain of living in your world;
Natasha dance for me.........
From Quiet Revolution
by Chris de Burgh
Year Released: 1999
Playing Time: ?:??
Natasha brings me kisses in the moonlight,
She kneels above me, silk upon my skin,
I reach for her, and I can feel her heartbeat,
Beneath her breast so heavy in my hand;
The rain is running rivers on my window,
And shimmers on the streetlights down below,
She's happy when I hold her in the shadows,
And whispers of a life I've never known;
And will you dance, Natasha dance for me,
Because I want to feel the passion in your soul,
And when you dance, will you tell me in a story,
The joy and pain of living in your world;
La la la, la la la, la la la la.......
And with the light I wake up in the morning,
And she has gone, it must have been a dream,
And then I see the roses on my pillow,
And now I know that she will come again;
And she will dance, Natasha dance for me,
Again I want to feel the passion in your soul,
And when you move, will you show me in a story,
The joy and pain of living in your world;
Natasha dance for me.........
Here Is Your Paradise
Here Is Your Paradise
from This Way Up
by Chris de Burgh
Year Released: 1994
I never knew love could be a silence in the heart,
A moment when the time is still,
And all I've been looking for is right here in my arms,
Just waiting for the chance to begin;
I never knew love could be the sunlight in your eyes,
On a day that you may not have seen,
And all I've been searching for, well words could never say,
When a touch is more than anything;
Maybe you will never know how much I love you,
But of this, be sure;
Here is your paradise, here is your book of life,
Where you and I will be forevermore;
Here is your paradise, here is your book of life,
Where you and I will be forevermore;
And in the dark night, you'll follow the bright light
And go where the love must go,
And you will wake in the morning to a brand new day,
Take all your worries away;
Maybe you will never know how much I love you,
But of this, be sure,
Here is your paradise, here is your book of life,
Where you and I will be forevermore;
Here is your paradise, here is your book of life,
Where you and I will be forevermore;
from This Way Up
by Chris de Burgh
Year Released: 1994
I never knew love could be a silence in the heart,
A moment when the time is still,
And all I've been looking for is right here in my arms,
Just waiting for the chance to begin;
I never knew love could be the sunlight in your eyes,
On a day that you may not have seen,
And all I've been searching for, well words could never say,
When a touch is more than anything;
Maybe you will never know how much I love you,
But of this, be sure;
Here is your paradise, here is your book of life,
Where you and I will be forevermore;
Here is your paradise, here is your book of life,
Where you and I will be forevermore;
And in the dark night, you'll follow the bright light
And go where the love must go,
And you will wake in the morning to a brand new day,
Take all your worries away;
Maybe you will never know how much I love you,
But of this, be sure,
Here is your paradise, here is your book of life,
Where you and I will be forevermore;
Here is your paradise, here is your book of life,
Where you and I will be forevermore;
Adia
by Sarah McLachlan
Adia I do believe I failed you
Adia I know I'vd let you down
don't you know I tried so hard
to love you in my way
it's easy let it go...
Adia I'm empty since you left me
trying to find a way to carry on
I search myself and everyone
to see where we went wrong
there's no one left to finger
there's no one here to blame
there's no one left to talk to, honey
and there ain't no one to buy our innocence
'cause we are born innocent
believe me Adia, we are still innocent
it's easy, we all FALTER
but does it matter?
Adia I thought that we could make it
I know I can't change the way you feel
I leave you with your misery
a friend who won't betray
pull you from your tower
take away your pain
show you all the beauty you possess
if you'd only let yourself believe that
we are born innocent
believe me Adia, we are still innocent
it's easy, we all FALTER,
but does it matter?
(depending on version)
Ba ba ba ba bada ba da ba da ba...
'cause we are born innocent
believe me Adia
we are still innocent
it's easy, we all FALTER,
but does it matter?
believe me Adia
we are still innocent
'cause we are born innocent
oh Adia
we are still
it's easy, we all FALTER,
but does it matter?
Adia I do believe I failed you
Adia I know I'vd let you down
don't you know I tried so hard
to love you in my way
it's easy let it go...
Adia I'm empty since you left me
trying to find a way to carry on
I search myself and everyone
to see where we went wrong
there's no one left to finger
there's no one here to blame
there's no one left to talk to, honey
and there ain't no one to buy our innocence
'cause we are born innocent
believe me Adia, we are still innocent
it's easy, we all FALTER
but does it matter?
Adia I thought that we could make it
I know I can't change the way you feel
I leave you with your misery
a friend who won't betray
pull you from your tower
take away your pain
show you all the beauty you possess
if you'd only let yourself believe that
we are born innocent
believe me Adia, we are still innocent
it's easy, we all FALTER,
but does it matter?
(depending on version)
Ba ba ba ba bada ba da ba da ba...
'cause we are born innocent
believe me Adia
we are still innocent
it's easy, we all FALTER,
but does it matter?
believe me Adia
we are still innocent
'cause we are born innocent
oh Adia
we are still
it's easy, we all FALTER,
but does it matter?
2008년 7월 22일 화요일
The Communication Requirements of Social Choice Rules and Supporting Budget Sets
by Ilya Segal
Journal of Economic Theory 2007
The paper examines the communication requirements of social choice rules when
the (sincere) agents privately know their preferences. It shows that for a large class
of choice rules, any minimally informative way to verify that a given alternative is
in the choice rule is by verifying a ìbudget equilibriumî, i.e., that the alternative is
optimal to each agent within a ìbudget setî given to him. Therefore, any communi-
cation mechanism realizing the choice rule must Önd a supporting budget equilibrium.
We characterize the class of choice rules that have this property. Furthermore, for
any rule from the class, we characterize the minimally informative messages (bud-
get equilibria) verifying it. This characterization is used to identify the amount of
communication needed to realize a choice rules, measured with the number of trans-
mitted bits or real variables. Applications include e¢ ciency in convex economies,
exact or approximate surplus maximization in combinatorial auctions, the core in
indivisible-good economies, and stable many-to-one matchings.
Journal of Economic Theory 2007
The paper examines the communication requirements of social choice rules when
the (sincere) agents privately know their preferences. It shows that for a large class
of choice rules, any minimally informative way to verify that a given alternative is
in the choice rule is by verifying a ìbudget equilibriumî, i.e., that the alternative is
optimal to each agent within a ìbudget setî given to him. Therefore, any communi-
cation mechanism realizing the choice rule must Önd a supporting budget equilibrium.
We characterize the class of choice rules that have this property. Furthermore, for
any rule from the class, we characterize the minimally informative messages (bud-
get equilibria) verifying it. This characterization is used to identify the amount of
communication needed to realize a choice rules, measured with the number of trans-
mitted bits or real variables. Applications include e¢ ciency in convex economies,
exact or approximate surplus maximization in combinatorial auctions, the core in
indivisible-good economies, and stable many-to-one matchings.
2008년 7월 5일 토요일
Maskin's Theorem with limited veto power
Games and Economic Behavior, Volume 55, Issue 2, May 2006, Pages 331-339
Jean-Pierre Benoît, Efe A. Ok
Abstract
We weaken the no-veto power condition of Maskin [Maskin, E.,1999. Nash equilibrium and welfare optimality. Rev. Econ. Stud. 66, 23–38] to limited veto power, and prove that any monotonic social choice rule is Nash implementable if it satisfies this weaker condition. The result is obtained by using the canonical Maskin mechanism without modification. An immediate corollary is that the weak core is Nash implementable in any coalitional game environment. An example is given to show that the strong core need not be implementable, even when it is monotonic.
Keywords: Implementation; No-veto power; Core
JEL classification codes: C72; D71
Jean-Pierre Benoît, Efe A. Ok
Abstract
We weaken the no-veto power condition of Maskin [Maskin, E.,1999. Nash equilibrium and welfare optimality. Rev. Econ. Stud. 66, 23–38] to limited veto power, and prove that any monotonic social choice rule is Nash implementable if it satisfies this weaker condition. The result is obtained by using the canonical Maskin mechanism without modification. An immediate corollary is that the weak core is Nash implementable in any coalitional game environment. An example is given to show that the strong core need not be implementable, even when it is monotonic.
Keywords: Implementation; No-veto power; Core
JEL classification codes: C72; D71
A condition guaranteeing that the Nash allocation is Walrasian
A condition guaranteeing that the Nash allocation is Walrasian
David Schmeidler
Abstract
Consider the set of net trades attainable by an economic agent when he varies his strategy and all other agents stick to their strategies. If all attainable sets for all agents are star shaped with respect to the origin, then every Pareto efficient Nash allocation is Walrasian. This result bears upon the question whether it is possible to implement redistributive goals without impairing efficiency.
David Schmeidler
Abstract
Consider the set of net trades attainable by an economic agent when he varies his strategy and all other agents stick to their strategies. If all attainable sets for all agents are star shaped with respect to the origin, then every Pareto efficient Nash allocation is Walrasian. This result bears upon the question whether it is possible to implement redistributive goals without impairing efficiency.
Find Hurwicz's article Naoki mentioned
"On Allocations Attainable through Nash Equilibria", 1979, JET
Journal of Economic Theory, Volume 21, Issue 1, August 1979, Pages 140-165
"On the Dimensional Requirements of Informationally Decentralized Pareto-Satisfactory Processes", 1977, JET
Journal of Economic Theory, Volume 21, Issue 1, August 1979, Pages 140-165
"On the Dimensional Requirements of Informationally Decentralized Pareto-Satisfactory Processes", 1977, JET
2008년 6월 27일 금요일
Amartya Sen, "Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurement", Econometrica, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Mar., 1976), pp. 219-231
The primary aim of this paper is to propose a new measure of poverty, which should avoid some of the shortcomings of the measures currently in use. An axiomatic approach is used to derive the measure. The conception of welfare in the axiom set is ordinal. The information requirement for the new measure is quite limited, permitting practical use.
WALTER BOSSERT, CONCHITA D'AMBROSIO, VITO PERAGINE (2007) Deprivation and Social Exclusion
Social exclusion manifests itself in the persistent relative lack of an individual's access to functionings compared with other members of society, and we model it as being in a state of deprivation over time. We view deprivation as having two basic determinants: the lack of identification with other members of society, and the aggregate alienation experienced by an agent with respect to those having fewer functioning failures. Using an axiomatic approach, we characterize new individual and aggregate measures of deprivation and social exclusion. The aggregate measures are then applied to EU data for the period 1994–2001.
Walter Bossert and Conchita D'Ambrosio (2007) "Dynamic Measures of Individual Deprivation", Social Choice and Welfare Vol.28: 77-88
We introduce a one-parameter class of individual deprivation measures. Motivated by a suggestion of Runciman, we modify Yitzhaki’s index by multiplying it by a function that is interpreted as measuring the part of deprivation generated by an agent’s observation that others in his reference group move on to a higher level of income than himself. The parameter reflects the relative weight given to these dynamic considerations, and the standard Yitzhaki index is obtained as a special case. In addition, we characterize more general classes of measures that pay attention to this important dynamic aspect of deprivation.
Satya R. Chakravarty, Conchita D'Ambrosio (2006) THE MEASUREMENT OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION
This paper develops an axiomatic approach to the measurement of social exclusion. At the individual level, social exclusion is viewed in terms of deprivation of the person concerned with respect to different functionings in the society. At the aggregate level we treat social exclusion as a function of individual exclusions. The class of subgroup decomposable social exclusion measures using a set of independent axioms is identified. We then look at the problem of ranking exclusion profiles by the exclusion dominance principle under certain restrictions. Finally, applications of decomposable and non-decomposable measures suggested in the paper using European Union and Italian data are also considered.
2008년 6월 22일 일요일
Memos after 2008 SSCW Meeting
The two-stage rules for multi-issue allocation situations
Silvia María Lorenzo Freire Universidade da Coruña, slorenzo@udc.es
Gustavo Bergantiños Universidade de Vigo, gbergant@uvigo.es
Leticia Lorenzo Universidade de Vigo, leticiap@uvigo.es
In a bankruptcy problem, there is an estate to be divided among a number of claimants, whose total claim exceeds the estate available. The multi-issue allocation situations are used to model bankruptcy-like problems in which the estate is divided not on the basis of a single claim for each agent, but several claims resulting from so-called issues. We consider extensions of well-known bankruptcy rules such as the proportional rule, the constrained equal awards rule, and the constrained equal losses rule. These extensions are obtained by means of a procedure in two stages where first the estate is divided among the issues and then the quantity obtained for each issue is divided among the agents. We study these rules from an axiomatic point of view. In this way, we introduce suitable properties in this context and characterize some of the two-stage rules with them. Although these extensions have been studied previously (see Lorenzo-Freire et al. (2005), for example), we pursue a more ambitious program, surveying it from most of the perspectives that have found to be fruitful in previous literature on standard bankruptcy problems.
Limited rights and social choice rules
Maurice Salles Universite de Caen, maurice.salles@unicaen.fr
In 1970 Sen introduced within social choice theory the notion of minimal liberty and proved an impossibility result concerning social decision functions. In the present paper, Sen''s condition of (minimal) liberty is weakened within the framework of social choice rules. It is then shown that the same kind of impossibility obtains for social choice functions.
Implementation via code of rights
Semih Koray Bilkent University, ksemih@bilkent.edu.tr
Kemal Yildiz Bilkent University, kemaly@bilkent.edu.tr
Implementation of a social choice rule can be thought of as a design of power(re)distribution in the society such that the society''s "equilibrium outcomes" coincide with the alternatives chosen by the social choice rule at any preference profile of the society. In this paper, we introduce a new societal framework for implementation which takes the power distribution in the society, represented by a code of rights, as its point of departure. We examine and identify how implementation via code of rights (referred to as gamma implementation) is related to classical Nash implementation via a mechanism. We characterize gamma implementability when the state space on which the rights structure is to be specified consists of the alternatives from which a social choice is to be made. We show that a social choice rule is gamma implementable if it satisfies pivotal oligarchic monotonicity - a notion introduced in this study. Moreover, pivotal oligarchic monotonicity conjoined with Pareto optimality turns out to be sufficient for a non-empty valued social choice rule to be gamma implementable. Finally we revisit "liberal''s paradox" of A.K. Sen, which turns out to fit very well into the gamma implementation framework.
Silvia María Lorenzo Freire Universidade da Coruña, slorenzo@udc.es
Gustavo Bergantiños Universidade de Vigo, gbergant@uvigo.es
Leticia Lorenzo Universidade de Vigo, leticiap@uvigo.es
In a bankruptcy problem, there is an estate to be divided among a number of claimants, whose total claim exceeds the estate available. The multi-issue allocation situations are used to model bankruptcy-like problems in which the estate is divided not on the basis of a single claim for each agent, but several claims resulting from so-called issues. We consider extensions of well-known bankruptcy rules such as the proportional rule, the constrained equal awards rule, and the constrained equal losses rule. These extensions are obtained by means of a procedure in two stages where first the estate is divided among the issues and then the quantity obtained for each issue is divided among the agents. We study these rules from an axiomatic point of view. In this way, we introduce suitable properties in this context and characterize some of the two-stage rules with them. Although these extensions have been studied previously (see Lorenzo-Freire et al. (2005), for example), we pursue a more ambitious program, surveying it from most of the perspectives that have found to be fruitful in previous literature on standard bankruptcy problems.
- This paper related with my paper with Eiichi and Toyo. They may need our paper since they are not aware of it.
Maurice Salles Universite de Caen, maurice.salles@unicaen.fr
In 1970 Sen introduced within social choice theory the notion of minimal liberty and proved an impossibility result concerning social decision functions. In the present paper, Sen''s condition of (minimal) liberty is weakened within the framework of social choice rules. It is then shown that the same kind of impossibility obtains for social choice functions.
- With his weakening of Sen's minimal liberalism, extended Pareto rule satisfies all axioms imposed in Sen's theorem. But is there other rules? Isn't the Pareto rule the only rule satisfying them? I asked this question and the author seems does not know the answer.
Implementation via code of rights
Semih Koray Bilkent University, ksemih@bilkent.edu.tr
Kemal Yildiz Bilkent University, kemaly@bilkent.edu.tr
Implementation of a social choice rule can be thought of as a design of power(re)distribution in the society such that the society''s "equilibrium outcomes" coincide with the alternatives chosen by the social choice rule at any preference profile of the society. In this paper, we introduce a new societal framework for implementation which takes the power distribution in the society, represented by a code of rights, as its point of departure. We examine and identify how implementation via code of rights (referred to as gamma implementation) is related to classical Nash implementation via a mechanism. We characterize gamma implementability when the state space on which the rights structure is to be specified consists of the alternatives from which a social choice is to be made. We show that a social choice rule is gamma implementable if it satisfies pivotal oligarchic monotonicity - a notion introduced in this study. Moreover, pivotal oligarchic monotonicity conjoined with Pareto optimality turns out to be sufficient for a non-empty valued social choice rule to be gamma implementable. Finally we revisit "liberal''s paradox" of A.K. Sen, which turns out to fit very well into the gamma implementation framework.
- Seems related with my paper on individual powers and social consent.
Arthur C. Clarke, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is a science fiction novel by Arthur C. Clarke. It was developed concurrently with Stanley Kubrick's film version and published after the release of the film. The story is based in part on various short stories by Clarke, most notably "The Sentinel" (written in 1948 for a BBC competition but first published in 1951 under the title "Sentinel of Eternity"). For an elaboration of Clark and Kubrick's collaborative work on this project, see The Lost Worlds of 2001, Arthur C. Clarke, Signet., 1972.
The first part of the novel (in which aliens nudge the primitive human ancestors) is similar to the plot of an earlier Clarke story, "Encounter at Dawn".
Aliens keeping a watch on development of intelligent beings everywhere and helping where they can is an idea this novel shares with "Rescue Party", Clarke's first published story.
The opening of another Clarke story, "Transience", is set in the same period of human history as the first part of this novel; but the two stories are unrelated.
Plot summary
In the background to the story in the book, an ancient and unseen alien race uses a mechanism with the appearance of a large crystal Monolith to investigate worlds all across the galaxy and, if possible, to encourage the development of intelligent life. The book shows one such monolith appearing in ancient Africa, three million years B.C., where it inspires a starving group of the hominid ancestors of human beings to conceive of tools. The ape-men use their tools to kill animals and eat meat, ending their starvation. They then use the tools to kill a leopard that had been preying on them; the next day, the main ape character, Moon-Watcher, uses a club to kill the leader of a rival tribe. Moon-Watcher reflects that he is now master of the universe, but is unsure of what to do—but he'll think of something. The book suggests that the monolith was instrumental in awakening intelligence, and enabling the transition of the ape-men to a higher order, with the ability to fashion crude tools and thereby be able to hunt and forage for food in much more efficient fashion.
The book then leaps eons to the year 2001, detailing Dr. Heywood Floyd's travel to Clavius Base on the Moon. Upon his arrival, Floyd attends a meeting. A lead scientist explains that they have found a magnetic disturbance in Tycho, one of the Moon's craters, designated Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-One (TMA-1). An excavation of the area has revealed a large black slab; it is precisely fashioned to a ratio of exactly 1:4:9, or 1²:2²:3² (that is to say the thickness of the slab is exactly 1/4th the width and 1/9th the height). Such a construction rules out any naturally-occurring phenomena, and at three million years of age, it was not crafted by human hands. It is the first evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. Floyd and a team of scientists drive across the moon to actually view TMA-1. They arrive just as sunlight hits upon it for the first time in three million years. It then sends a piercing radio transmission to the far reaches of the solar system.
The book then leaps forward 18 months to the Discovery One mission to Saturn. David Bowman and Frank Poole are the only conscious human beings aboard Discovery One spaceship. Three of their colleagues are in a state of suspended animation, to be awakened when they near Saturn. The HAL 9000, an artificially intelligent computer, maintains the ship and is a vital part of life aboard.
While Poole is receiving a birthday message from his family back home, HAL tells him that the AE-35 unit of the ship is going to malfunction. Poole takes one of the extra-vehicular pods and swaps the AE-35 unit, which is critical for sustaining communication with Earth. Bowman conducts tests on the AE-35 unit that has been replaced and determines that there was never anything wrong with it. Later, HAL claims that the replacement AE-35 unit will fail. Apprehensive, Poole and Bowman radio back to Earth; they are told that something is wrong with HAL and are given orders to disconnect him. These instructions are interrupted as the signal is broken. HAL informs them that the AE-35 unit has malfunctioned.
Poole takes a pod outside the ship to bring in the failed AE-35 unit. As he is removing the unit, the pod, which he had left further from the ship, begins moving toward him. He is powerless to move out of the way in time and is killed by the impact; his spacesuit is ripped open. Bowman is shocked by Poole's death and is deeply distressed. He is unsure whether HAL, a computer, really could have killed Poole. He decides that he will need to wake up the other three astronauts. He has a long argument with HAL, with HAL refusing to obey his orders, insisting that Bowman is incapacitated. Bowman threatens to disconnect him if his orders are not obeyed, and HAL relents, giving him manual control to wake the sleeping scientists.
As Bowman begins to awaken his colleagues, he feels a cold chill; HAL has opened the inner and outer airlock doors to space, venting the ship’s atmosphere. The pressure on board is rapidly dropping as the ship is equalizing with the vacuum of space. Bowman makes his way into a sealed emergency shelter which has an isolated oxygen supply and spare spacesuit. He then puts on the spacesuit and re-enters the ship, knowing that HAL has killed the three hibernating astronauts. Bowman then laboriously disconnects the computer, puts the ship back in order and manually re-establishes contact with Earth. He then learns that the true purpose of the mission is to explore Japetus (the third-largest moon of Saturn), in the hope of contacting the society that buried the monolith on the Moon.
Bowman learns that HAL had begun to feel guilty and conflicted about keeping the purpose of the mission from him and Poole, which ran contrary to his stated mission of gathering information and reporting it fully. This conflict had started to manifest itself in little errors. Given time, HAL might have been able to resolve this crisis peacefully, but when he was threatened with disconnection, he defended himself, believing his very existence to be at stake.
Bowman spends months on the ship, alone, slowly approaching Japetus. A return to Earth is out of the question, as HAL's sudden decompression of Discovery severely damaged the ship's air filtration system, leaving Bowman with far less breathable air than either returning to Earth or waiting for a rescue ship would require. Hibernation is impossible without HAL to monitor it. During his long approach, he gradually notices a small black spot on the surface of Japetus. When he gets closer, he realizes that this is an immense black monolith, identical to TMA-1, only much larger, which the scientists back on Earth name "TMA-2", which is a misnomer because it gives off no magnetic force whatsoever.
He decides to go out in one of the extra-vehicular pods and investigate the monolith. Inert for aeons, the monolith reveals its true purpose as a stargate when it opens and pulls in Bowman's pod. Before he vanishes, Mission control hears him proclaim: "The thing's hollow — it goes on forever — and — oh my God! — It's full of stars!"
Bowman is transported via the monolith to a star system far outside our galaxy. During this journey, he goes through a large interstellar switching station, and sees other species' spaceships going on other routes, calling it in likeness to the 'Grand Central Station' of the universe. (This is rather different from the film, which portrayed the entire journey as surreal.)
He is brought to what appears to be a nice hotel suite, carefully constructed from monitored television transmissions, to make him feel at ease. Bowman goes to sleep. As he sleeps, his mind and memories are drained from his body. David Bowman is made into a new immortal entity that can live and travel in space; a Star Child. The Star Child then returns to our Solar System and to Earth. After slightly testing his newfound powers by setting off what can be assumed, several megatons of nuclear energy, Bowman reflects that he is now master of his universe, but is uncertain of what to do—but hopefully he'll think of something.
The first part of the novel (in which aliens nudge the primitive human ancestors) is similar to the plot of an earlier Clarke story, "Encounter at Dawn".
Aliens keeping a watch on development of intelligent beings everywhere and helping where they can is an idea this novel shares with "Rescue Party", Clarke's first published story.
The opening of another Clarke story, "Transience", is set in the same period of human history as the first part of this novel; but the two stories are unrelated.
Plot summary
In the background to the story in the book, an ancient and unseen alien race uses a mechanism with the appearance of a large crystal Monolith to investigate worlds all across the galaxy and, if possible, to encourage the development of intelligent life. The book shows one such monolith appearing in ancient Africa, three million years B.C., where it inspires a starving group of the hominid ancestors of human beings to conceive of tools. The ape-men use their tools to kill animals and eat meat, ending their starvation. They then use the tools to kill a leopard that had been preying on them; the next day, the main ape character, Moon-Watcher, uses a club to kill the leader of a rival tribe. Moon-Watcher reflects that he is now master of the universe, but is unsure of what to do—but he'll think of something. The book suggests that the monolith was instrumental in awakening intelligence, and enabling the transition of the ape-men to a higher order, with the ability to fashion crude tools and thereby be able to hunt and forage for food in much more efficient fashion.
The book then leaps eons to the year 2001, detailing Dr. Heywood Floyd's travel to Clavius Base on the Moon. Upon his arrival, Floyd attends a meeting. A lead scientist explains that they have found a magnetic disturbance in Tycho, one of the Moon's craters, designated Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-One (TMA-1). An excavation of the area has revealed a large black slab; it is precisely fashioned to a ratio of exactly 1:4:9, or 1²:2²:3² (that is to say the thickness of the slab is exactly 1/4th the width and 1/9th the height). Such a construction rules out any naturally-occurring phenomena, and at three million years of age, it was not crafted by human hands. It is the first evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. Floyd and a team of scientists drive across the moon to actually view TMA-1. They arrive just as sunlight hits upon it for the first time in three million years. It then sends a piercing radio transmission to the far reaches of the solar system.
The book then leaps forward 18 months to the Discovery One mission to Saturn. David Bowman and Frank Poole are the only conscious human beings aboard Discovery One spaceship. Three of their colleagues are in a state of suspended animation, to be awakened when they near Saturn. The HAL 9000, an artificially intelligent computer, maintains the ship and is a vital part of life aboard.
While Poole is receiving a birthday message from his family back home, HAL tells him that the AE-35 unit of the ship is going to malfunction. Poole takes one of the extra-vehicular pods and swaps the AE-35 unit, which is critical for sustaining communication with Earth. Bowman conducts tests on the AE-35 unit that has been replaced and determines that there was never anything wrong with it. Later, HAL claims that the replacement AE-35 unit will fail. Apprehensive, Poole and Bowman radio back to Earth; they are told that something is wrong with HAL and are given orders to disconnect him. These instructions are interrupted as the signal is broken. HAL informs them that the AE-35 unit has malfunctioned.
Poole takes a pod outside the ship to bring in the failed AE-35 unit. As he is removing the unit, the pod, which he had left further from the ship, begins moving toward him. He is powerless to move out of the way in time and is killed by the impact; his spacesuit is ripped open. Bowman is shocked by Poole's death and is deeply distressed. He is unsure whether HAL, a computer, really could have killed Poole. He decides that he will need to wake up the other three astronauts. He has a long argument with HAL, with HAL refusing to obey his orders, insisting that Bowman is incapacitated. Bowman threatens to disconnect him if his orders are not obeyed, and HAL relents, giving him manual control to wake the sleeping scientists.
As Bowman begins to awaken his colleagues, he feels a cold chill; HAL has opened the inner and outer airlock doors to space, venting the ship’s atmosphere. The pressure on board is rapidly dropping as the ship is equalizing with the vacuum of space. Bowman makes his way into a sealed emergency shelter which has an isolated oxygen supply and spare spacesuit. He then puts on the spacesuit and re-enters the ship, knowing that HAL has killed the three hibernating astronauts. Bowman then laboriously disconnects the computer, puts the ship back in order and manually re-establishes contact with Earth. He then learns that the true purpose of the mission is to explore Japetus (the third-largest moon of Saturn), in the hope of contacting the society that buried the monolith on the Moon.
Bowman learns that HAL had begun to feel guilty and conflicted about keeping the purpose of the mission from him and Poole, which ran contrary to his stated mission of gathering information and reporting it fully. This conflict had started to manifest itself in little errors. Given time, HAL might have been able to resolve this crisis peacefully, but when he was threatened with disconnection, he defended himself, believing his very existence to be at stake.
Bowman spends months on the ship, alone, slowly approaching Japetus. A return to Earth is out of the question, as HAL's sudden decompression of Discovery severely damaged the ship's air filtration system, leaving Bowman with far less breathable air than either returning to Earth or waiting for a rescue ship would require. Hibernation is impossible without HAL to monitor it. During his long approach, he gradually notices a small black spot on the surface of Japetus. When he gets closer, he realizes that this is an immense black monolith, identical to TMA-1, only much larger, which the scientists back on Earth name "TMA-2", which is a misnomer because it gives off no magnetic force whatsoever.
He decides to go out in one of the extra-vehicular pods and investigate the monolith. Inert for aeons, the monolith reveals its true purpose as a stargate when it opens and pulls in Bowman's pod. Before he vanishes, Mission control hears him proclaim: "The thing's hollow — it goes on forever — and — oh my God! — It's full of stars!"
Bowman is transported via the monolith to a star system far outside our galaxy. During this journey, he goes through a large interstellar switching station, and sees other species' spaceships going on other routes, calling it in likeness to the 'Grand Central Station' of the universe. (This is rather different from the film, which portrayed the entire journey as surreal.)
He is brought to what appears to be a nice hotel suite, carefully constructed from monitored television transmissions, to make him feel at ease. Bowman goes to sleep. As he sleeps, his mind and memories are drained from his body. David Bowman is made into a new immortal entity that can live and travel in space; a Star Child. The Star Child then returns to our Solar System and to Earth. After slightly testing his newfound powers by setting off what can be assumed, several megatons of nuclear energy, Bowman reflects that he is now master of his universe, but is uncertain of what to do—but hopefully he'll think of something.
2008년 4월 23일 수요일
Inequity Aversion May Increase Inequity
Inequity Aversion May Increase Inequity*
The Economic Journal 117 (519) , C192–C204 doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02041.x
Maria Montero1
1University of Nottingham
* I am grateful to Guillaume Fréchette, Simon Gächter, John Kagel, Akira Okada, Alex Possajennikov, Gerald Pech, Jan Potters, Daniel Seidmann, three anonymous referees, and seminar/workshop audiences at the second CREED-CeDEx workshop, the University of the Basque Country, the 11th Coalition Theory Network Workshop and RES 2006 for helpful comments.
Abstract
Inequity aversion models have been used to explain equitable payoff divisions in bargaining games. I show that inequity aversion can actually increase the asymmetry of payoff division if unanimity is not required. This is because responders may be willing to accept a lower share rather than risk being left out. Inequity aversion may also affect comparative statics: the advantage of being the proposer can decrease as players become more impatient.
The Economic Journal 117 (519) , C192–C204 doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02041.x
Maria Montero1
1University of Nottingham
* I am grateful to Guillaume Fréchette, Simon Gächter, John Kagel, Akira Okada, Alex Possajennikov, Gerald Pech, Jan Potters, Daniel Seidmann, three anonymous referees, and seminar/workshop audiences at the second CREED-CeDEx workshop, the University of the Basque Country, the 11th Coalition Theory Network Workshop and RES 2006 for helpful comments.
Abstract
Inequity aversion models have been used to explain equitable payoff divisions in bargaining games. I show that inequity aversion can actually increase the asymmetry of payoff division if unanimity is not required. This is because responders may be willing to accept a lower share rather than risk being left out. Inequity aversion may also affect comparative statics: the advantage of being the proposer can decrease as players become more impatient.
Preferences over location-scale family
Preferences over location-scale family
http://www.springerlink.com/content/8u35m066117132q8/fulltext.pdf
Journal Economic Theory
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0938-2259 (Print) 1432-0479 (Online)
Category Research Article
DOI 10.1007/s00199-007-0254-3
Subject Collection Business and Economics
SpringerLink Date Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Wing-Keung Wong 1, 2 and Chenghu Ma 3
(1) Risk Management Institute and Department of Economics, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 117568, Singapore
(2) Department of Economics, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China
(3) Wang Yanan Institute for Studies in Economics, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
Abstract This paper extends the work on location-scale (LS) family with general n random seed sources. First, we clarify and generalize existing results in this multivariate setting. Some useful geometrical and topological properties of the location-scale expected utility functions are obtained. Second, we introduce and study some general non-expected utility functions defined over the LS family. Special care is taken in characterizing the shapes of the indifference curves induced by the location-scale expected utility functions and non-expected utility functions. Finally, efforts are also made to study several well-defined partial orders and dominance relations defined over the LS family. These include the first- and second-order stochastic dominances, the mean-variance rule, and a newly defined location-scale dominance.
Keywords Location-scale family - Inverse problem - Non-expected utility function - Stochastic dominance - Location-scale dominance - Mean-variance rule
JEL Classification Numbers G11 - C60 - G10
http://www.springerlink.com/content/8u35m066117132q8/fulltext.pdf
Journal Economic Theory
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0938-2259 (Print) 1432-0479 (Online)
Category Research Article
DOI 10.1007/s00199-007-0254-3
Subject Collection Business and Economics
SpringerLink Date Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Wing-Keung Wong 1, 2 and Chenghu Ma 3
(1) Risk Management Institute and Department of Economics, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 117568, Singapore
(2) Department of Economics, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China
(3) Wang Yanan Institute for Studies in Economics, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
Abstract This paper extends the work on location-scale (LS) family with general n random seed sources. First, we clarify and generalize existing results in this multivariate setting. Some useful geometrical and topological properties of the location-scale expected utility functions are obtained. Second, we introduce and study some general non-expected utility functions defined over the LS family. Special care is taken in characterizing the shapes of the indifference curves induced by the location-scale expected utility functions and non-expected utility functions. Finally, efforts are also made to study several well-defined partial orders and dominance relations defined over the LS family. These include the first- and second-order stochastic dominances, the mean-variance rule, and a newly defined location-scale dominance.
Keywords Location-scale family - Inverse problem - Non-expected utility function - Stochastic dominance - Location-scale dominance - Mean-variance rule
JEL Classification Numbers G11 - C60 - G10
Axiomatic foundations for fairness-motivated preferences
Axiomatic foundations for fairness-motivated preferences
Journal Social Choice and Welfare
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0176-1714 (Print) 1432-217X (Online)
Category Original Paper
DOI 10.1007/s00355-008-0296-x
Subject Collection Business and Economics
SpringerLink Date Saturday, February 09, 2008
Martin Eiliv Sandbu 1
(1) Department of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 3730 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
Received: 11 May 2006 Accepted: 22 January 2008 Published online: 9 February 2008
Abstract Much work in social choice theory takes individual preferences as uninvestigated inputs into aggregation functions designed to reflect considerations of fairness. Advances in experimental and behavioural economics show that fairness can also be an important motivation in the preferences of individuals themselves. A proper characterisation of how fairness concerns enter such preferences can enrich the informational basis of many social choice exercises. This paper proposes axiomatic foundations for individual fairness-motivated preferences that cover most of the models developed to rationalise observed behaviour in experiments. These models fall into two classes: Outcome-based models, which see preferences as defined only over distributive outcomes, and context-dependent models, which allow rankings over distributive outcomes to change systematically with non-outcome factors. I accommodate outcome-based and context-sensitive fairness concerns by modelling fairness-motivated preferences as a reference-dependent preference structure. I first present a set of axioms and two theorems that generate commonly used outcome-based models as special cases. I then generalise the axiomatic basis to allow for reference-dependence, and derive a simple functional form in which the weight on each person’s payoff depends on a reference vector of how much each person deserves.
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0176-1714 (Print) 1432-217X (Online)
Category Original Paper
DOI 10.1007/s00355-008-0296-x
Subject Collection Business and Economics
SpringerLink Date Saturday, February 09, 2008
Martin Eiliv Sandbu 1
(1) Department of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 3730 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
Received: 11 May 2006 Accepted: 22 January 2008 Published online: 9 February 2008
Abstract Much work in social choice theory takes individual preferences as uninvestigated inputs into aggregation functions designed to reflect considerations of fairness. Advances in experimental and behavioural economics show that fairness can also be an important motivation in the preferences of individuals themselves. A proper characterisation of how fairness concerns enter such preferences can enrich the informational basis of many social choice exercises. This paper proposes axiomatic foundations for individual fairness-motivated preferences that cover most of the models developed to rationalise observed behaviour in experiments. These models fall into two classes: Outcome-based models, which see preferences as defined only over distributive outcomes, and context-dependent models, which allow rankings over distributive outcomes to change systematically with non-outcome factors. I accommodate outcome-based and context-sensitive fairness concerns by modelling fairness-motivated preferences as a reference-dependent preference structure. I first present a set of axioms and two theorems that generate commonly used outcome-based models as special cases. I then generalise the axiomatic basis to allow for reference-dependence, and derive a simple functional form in which the weight on each person’s payoff depends on a reference vector of how much each person deserves.
Axiomatic reference-dependence in behavior toward others and toward risk
Axiomatic reference-dependence in behavior toward others and toward risk
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q5523605771w6163/fulltext.pdf
Journal Economic Theory
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0938-2259 (Print) 1432-0479 (Online)
Issue Volume 28, Number 3 / August, 2006
Category Research Article
DOI 10.1007/s00199-005-0643-4
Pages 681-692
William S. Neilson1
(1) Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4228, USA
Summary. This paper considers the applicability of the standard separability axiom for both risk and other-regarding preferences, and advances arguments why separability might fail. An alternative axiom, which is immune to these arguments, leads to a preference representation that is additively separable in a reference variable and the differences between the other variables and the reference variable. For other-regarding preferences the reference variable is the decision-maker’s own payoff, and the resulting representation coincides with the Fehr-Schmidt model. For risk preferences the reference variable is initial wealth, and the resulting representation is a generalization of prospect theory.
Keywords and Phrases: Other-regarding preferences - Risk - Separability - Axiomatic foundation - Prospect theory.
Received: 28 April 2004, Revised: 27 April 2005,
JEL Classification Numbers: D81, D64.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q5523605771w6163/fulltext.pdf
Journal Economic Theory
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0938-2259 (Print) 1432-0479 (Online)
Issue Volume 28, Number 3 / August, 2006
Category Research Article
DOI 10.1007/s00199-005-0643-4
Pages 681-692
William S. Neilson1
(1) Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4228, USA
Summary. This paper considers the applicability of the standard separability axiom for both risk and other-regarding preferences, and advances arguments why separability might fail. An alternative axiom, which is immune to these arguments, leads to a preference representation that is additively separable in a reference variable and the differences between the other variables and the reference variable. For other-regarding preferences the reference variable is the decision-maker’s own payoff, and the resulting representation coincides with the Fehr-Schmidt model. For risk preferences the reference variable is initial wealth, and the resulting representation is a generalization of prospect theory.
Keywords and Phrases: Other-regarding preferences - Risk - Separability - Axiomatic foundation - Prospect theory.
Received: 28 April 2004, Revised: 27 April 2005,
JEL Classification Numbers: D81, D64.
2008년 4월 1일 화요일
Multilateral Bargaining
Review of Economic Studies (1996) 63, 61-80
Multilateral Bargaining
VIJAY KRISHNA
The Pennsylvania State University
and
ROBERTO SERRANO
Brown University
First version received May 1993;$nu1 version accepted July 1995 (Eds.)
We study a multilateral bargaining procedure that extends Rubinstein's alternating offer
game to the case of n players. The procedure captures the notion of consistency in the sense
familiar in cooperative game theory and we use it to establish links to the axiomatic theory of
bargaining.
Multilateral Bargaining
VIJAY KRISHNA
The Pennsylvania State University
and
ROBERTO SERRANO
Brown University
First version received May 1993;$nu1 version accepted July 1995 (Eds.)
We study a multilateral bargaining procedure that extends Rubinstein's alternating offer
game to the case of n players. The procedure captures the notion of consistency in the sense
familiar in cooperative game theory and we use it to establish links to the axiomatic theory of
bargaining.
Reduced games, consistency, and the core
Reduced games, consistency, and the core
| Journal | International Journal of Game Theory |
| Publisher | Physica Verlag, An Imprint of Springer-Verlag GmbH |
| ISSN | 0020-7276 (Print) 1432-1270 (Online) |
| Issue | Volume 20, Number 4 / December, 1992 |
| DOI | 10.1007/BF01271129 |
| Pages | 325-334 |
K. Tadenuma1
| (1) | Department of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, 2-1 Naka, Kunitachi, 186 Tokyo, Japan |
Received: 15 October 1990 Revised: 15 October 1991
Abstract This paper establishes an axiomatization of the core by means of an internal consistency property with respect to a new reduced game introduced by Moulin (1985). Given a payoff vector chosen by a solution for some game, and given a subgroup of agents, we define thereduced game as that in which each coalition in the subgroup could attain payoffs to its members only if they are compatible with the initial payoffs toall the members outside of the subgroup. The solution isconsistent if it selects the same payoff distribution for the reduced game as initially. We show that consistency together with individual rationality characterizes the core of both transferable and non-transferable utility games.
The author would be grateful to William Thomson, Hervé Moulin and a referee for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. Financial support of the Seimeikai is also gratefully acknowledged.
On the reduced game property and its converse
On the reduced game property and its converse
| Journal | International Journal of Game Theory |
| Publisher | Physica Verlag, An Imprint of Springer-Verlag GmbH |
| ISSN | 0020-7276 (Print) 1432-1270 (Online) |
| Issue | Volume 15, Number 3 / September, 1986 |
| DOI | 10.1007/BF01769258 |
| Pages | 187-200 |
B. Peleg1
| (1) | Institute of Mathematics, The Hebrew University, 91904 Jerusalem, Israel |
Received: 15 November 1984 Revised: 15 August 1985
Abstract We investigate the relationship between two solutions, the core and the prekernel, and reduced games of coalitional games. An axiomatic characterization of these two solutions is obtained by means of the reduced game property and its converse.
This research was partially supported by The Institute for Advanced Studies, The Hebrew University, 91904 Jerusalem, Israel, during 1979–1980.
Reduced game and converse consistency
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2006.08.002
Reduced game and converse consistency
Chih Changa and Cheng-Cheng Hub, 
aDepartment of Mathematics, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
bCenter for General Education, Southern Taiwan University of Technology, No. 1, Nantai Street, Yung-Kang City, 71005 Tainan County, Taiwan
Received 17 August 2004. Available online 12 September 2006.
Abstract
The initiating points of the current paper are the axiomatic characterizations, in terms of consistency, of the equal allocation of nonseparable cost value (by Moulin), the Shapley value (by Hart and Mas-Colell), and the prenucleolus (by Orshan). The basic axioms are the same, but three different reduced games can be used to distinguish these three solutions. The main purpose of the paper is to illustrate that besides the definitions of reduced games are different, the axiom converse consistency also plays an important role to distinguish these three solutions.
Keywords: Shapley value; Prenucleolus; EANSC value; Reduced game; Consistency; Bilateral consistency; Converse consistency
JEL classification codes: C71
The Converse Consistency Principle in Bargaining
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/game.2001.0907
The Converse Consistency Principle in Bargaining*1
Youngsub Chun
School of Economics, Seoul National University, Seoul, 151-742, Koreaf1
Received 8 August 2000. Available online 18 June 2002.
Abstract
We investigate the implications of converse consistency in the context of bargaining. A solution is conversely consistent if, whenever, for some problem, a feasible alternative has the property that for all proper subgroups of the agents it involves, the solution chooses the restriction of the alternative to the subgroup for the associated reduced problem this subgroup faces, then the alternative should be the solution outcome for the problem. We present two alternative characterizations of the egalitarian solution based on converse consistency as well as either weak consistency or population monotonicity, in addition to other standard axioms of weak Pareto optimality, symmetry, and continuity. However, if we strengthen weak Pareto optimality to Pareto optimality, various impossibility results are obtained. On the other hand, the Nash solution is characterized on the basis of a weaker version of converse consistency, which applies its hypotheses only to the problem whose solution outcome is smooth.
Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C71, C78, D70.
Author Keywords: bargaining problem; converse consistency; egalitarian solution; Nash solution
Axiomatizations of neoclassical concepts for economies
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4068(97)00025-6
Axiomatizations of neoclassical concepts for economies
Roberto Serrano* and Oscar Volij
Department of Economics, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA
Received 10 October 1996; accepted 2 May 1997. Available online 28 January 1999.
Abstract
We characterize the Pareto correspondence, the core and the Walras solution using the axioms of consistency, converse consistency and one-person rationality. Consistency and its converse are defined with respect to suitably constructed reduced economies for each case. Our results hold for the well-known class of coalitional production economies, which covers exchange economies as a particular case. The key reason to use this class is the observation that the reduction of an exchange economy yields a production economy.
Author Keywords: Consistency; Reduced economy; Core; Walrasian equilibrium
A non-cooperative interpretation of the f-just rules of bankruptcy problems
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2007.10.005
Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A non-cooperative interpretation of the f-just rules of bankruptcy problems
Chih Chang, and Cheng-Cheng Hu,
a Department of Mathematics, National Tsing Hua University, 30013, Hsinchu, Taiwan
b Center for General Education, Southern Taiwan University of Technology, 71005, Tainan, Taiwan
Received 9 May 2005. Available online 6 November 2007.
Abstract
First, we propose an axiomatic characterization of the f-just rules. Second, based on the result, a game is designed and a non-cooperative interpretation of the f-just rules is provided.
Keywords: Bankruptcy problem; f-just rule; Bilateral consistency; Converse consistency
JEL classification codes: C72; D63
Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A non-cooperative interpretation of the f-just rules of bankruptcy problems
Chih Chang, and Cheng-Cheng Hu,
a Department of Mathematics, National Tsing Hua University, 30013, Hsinchu, Taiwan
b Center for General Education, Southern Taiwan University of Technology, 71005, Tainan, Taiwan
Received 9 May 2005. Available online 6 November 2007.
Abstract
First, we propose an axiomatic characterization of the f-just rules. Second, based on the result, a game is designed and a non-cooperative interpretation of the f-just rules is provided.
Keywords: Bankruptcy problem; f-just rule; Bilateral consistency; Converse consistency
JEL classification codes: C72; D63
2008년 3월 22일 토요일
청계산
|
높 이 :
청계산제1코스 
청계산제2코스 
청계산제3코스 
국사봉제1코스 
국사봉제2코스 
백운산
|
광교산제1코스 
광교산제2코스 
광교산제3코스 
광교산제4코스 
광교산제5코스 
광교산제6코스 
광교산제7코스 
형제봉제2코스
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)