This week my cover story attempts to show, using the work of two archeologists, that mankind developed religion due to a gene. That gene is supposedly the one that makes us social, that makes us want to dance all night together, defend the tribe and risk our lives for our social group. These archaeologists make a good case, that this kind of a gene would lead to success in battle, better social relations and a greater likelihood of survival.
So perhaps we have such a gene. But I don't see, from reading the article, why that should lead to bowing before statues and believing in an afterlife. Frankly, dancing all night seems good in itself, philosophy being an entirely different field. But you can decide for yourselves.
Last week I posted a bunch of information on the Council on Foreign Relations. What I should have posted was this link:
http://www.ecfr.eu/content/about
This is the EUROPEAN Council on Foreign Relations, not the American one. The study referred to in last week's cover story was published by the ECFR, founded in 2007 by George Soros and friends. The American and European CFR organizations are related by the business interests of Wall Street.
According to Wikipedia, Soros is the world's 29th richest man, with a fortune of around 11 billion USD. He is also a former director of the AMERICAN Council on Foreign Relations. Born in Hungary, Soros has a strong interest in European affairs, and wants both a strong EU and a strong alliance between US and EU. Hungary was once part of the Soviet (Russian) "Warsaw Pact", whereas now it is part of the Western military union, NATO (since 1999) and the EU (since 2004). American cooperation with Europe is essential to keep this relationship intact.
The point of the article was that Europe must embrace Obama's program for tighter American-European cooperation, under American direction. The immediate objective is more troops in Afghanistan. After the article was published, President Obama did decide to send over 30,000 new American troops to Afghanistan. The article had blamed his indecision for the hesitation Europeans were feeling about committing more NATO soldiers. The implication of the article is that now Europe must follow Obama's lead and send thousands more Europeans into the Afghan war, if it wants to avoid "global irrelevance".
The relationship between American billionaires, CFR, ECFR, the Obama administration and the New York Times has to be appreciated, in order to make sense of the articles we read. As I predicted, the NYT article of last week warned us of what Obama would do. We can wait and see if its expectation for European cooperation also comes true.
If the group which sponsors CFR and the NYT get their way, the new Lisbon Treaty will gather Europe more tightly together under central government in Brussels, weakening local government in the individual countries. NATO will gradually merge with the EU, reinforcing the US military and the US economy in a dominant role there. If a small elite can govern Europe under American direction, it is felt that this cultural bloc can compete successfully with Russia, China and the Islamic world for domination of the world's resources, notably in Africa.
For what it's worth, here is a link to a New York Times book review of Robert Kagan's The Return of History and the End of Dreams (2008), which argues approximately the same thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/books/review/Sanger-t.html
2009年11月17日 星期二
Council on Foreign Relations
One of the best reasons I can think of for a Taiwanese person to learn Newspaper English is to gain from the foreign press new information not available locally. The New York Times is a good source of high-level information from America. Its articles are read by intelligent American professionals, business executives and government officials, and the paper helps to form their opinions on world events.
You should be aware, however, that the New York Times, like most papers, is deliberately trying to shape public opinion in specific ways. In order to explain this somewhat, I’m using this week’s blog post to talk about the three-way relationship between the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York Times and the American government.
It would be too simplistic to say that CFR is the U. S. Government. But biographies I have seen show 90 top-level Obama administration officials who were or are members of the Council. The movie link included in this weeks vocab list suggests that Secretary of State Clinton is also a member, but I could not verify that.
That YouTube video should be “taken with a grain of salt”. This means that, although its information is substantially correct, its interpretation may be less reliable, and you should treat it as only one point of view. Although some members (including Jay Rockefeller) may truly desire a world government under the rule of a small, wealthy elite, that is not necessarily the purpose or aim of CFR.
I also included a link to the official history of CFR http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/anniversary_foreword.html, which is posted on its website. Since it’s quite long, I don’t suppose any Taiwanese students are willing to read the whole thing. But I will give you some quotes, and you can search the document using these as key words.
“By the mid-1990s, more than two-thirds of Council members lived and worked beyond a 50-mile radius of New York; Washington and Boston retain the largest share, but a significant increase in membership has taken place on the West Coast, in the Midwest, and in such southern cities as Dallas and Atlanta.”
Elsewhere:
“National members now make up more than one-third of the total membership, with the other two-thirds divided between New York and Washington, DC.”
1/3 New York City, so therefore 1/3 Washington, DC. That leaves 1/3 divided between Boston and the rest of the country. Why Boston? Harvard and M.I.T., for one thing. Also, Boston was the hub of the early industrial revolution and retains a strong foreign trade economy. The corridor between Boston and Washington, D.C. probably accounts for at least 3/4 of CFR’s membership. So point number one: this is an organization comprised of foreign policy experts concentrated in the Northeast coast of America.
FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in his book on the Kennedy presidency, A Thousand Days, wrote that Kennedy was not part of what he called the "New York establishment":
"In particular, he was little acquainted with the New York financial and legal community-- that arsenal of talent which had so long furnished a steady supply of always orthodox and often able people to Democratic as well as Republican administrations. This community was the heart of the American Establishment. Its household deities were Henry Stimson and Elihu Root; its present leaders, Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy; its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations; its organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs."
Foreign Affairs magazine is published by Council on Foreign Relations.
A “front organization” is a group that does your public business for you, without exposing you personally to public attention.
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. was a prominent member of CFR, and was “Special Assistant to the President” under John Kennedy.
Thus, CFR is working for the same Northeast Coast elite that controls the editorial policy of the New York Times.
Again, from the official history of CFR, concerning the 1920s and ‘30s:
“Members who were directors of large corporations seized the opportunity to inject the concerns of business into the reflections of scholars. Some 26 firms signed up for a program of corporate financial support.
“…Supported by a $50,000 grant from the Carnegie Corporation, the Council launched a major initiative in December 1937 to spread its activities and role across the United States.”
Andrew Carnegie, the founder of the Carnegie Corporation, had made a fortune in the steel industry, and worked closely with Elihu Root, CFR’s first president, who was also president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
At the end of World War II,
“…the 55 Council officers and directors also held 74 corporate directorships.”
Elsewhere:
“The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to fund the project [War and Peace Studies] with nearly $350,000.”
And:
“Over the course of the 1950s large foundations stepped in to support and enlarge the Council as a leading force in America’s international awareness; from the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Corporation came $500,000 each, topped by $1.5 million from the new Ford Foundation in 1954.”
So CFR is funded by, and controlled by, the captains of industry in the Northeast US.
Allen Dulles started the OSS during World War II, which later became the CIA. Dulles directed the CIA for many years. He was also a director of CFR, and served as its secretary.
Henry Kissinger is a prominent member. Nearly every Secretary of State during the 20th century (as well as Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton, if you believe the YouTube video) have been CFR members. Robert Gates, now Secretary of Defense and formerly head of the CIA, is a member. David Rockefeller was chairman of CFR from 1970-1985. This organization contains the heaviest business and government leaders, at any given moment.
From the official history:
“‘Whatever General Eisenhower knows about economics,’ said one member later, ‘he has learned at the [CFR] study group meetings,’”
To say that CFR has a profound impact on the workings of the US government would be an understatement. Government leaders are given fellowships, and intellectuals willing to cooperate with the business-oriented goals of the organization are invited to join. After serving in CFR for some time, many attain high government posts. From the history:
“Richard Barnet, a scholar elected to Council membership in 1969 who remained a frequent critic, noted that membership in the Council on Foreign Relations could well be considered ‘a rite of passage for an aspiring national security manager.’”
Now for the relationship with the New York Times. The “official history” was written by Peter Grosse, who was managing editor of Foreign Affairs. He was also a diplomatic correspondent for the New York Times and served as deputy director of the Policy Planning Staff at the Department of State. Leslie Gelb, chairman emeritus of CFR, is a former editor of the NYT. The history itself mentions Leonard Silk (economics writer). Nicholas Kristof (who learned Mandarin in Taipei) writes for both Foreign Affairs and the New York Times. Many, many NYT writers and editors, past and present, have belonged to CFR. If you look carefully at stories about government, international affairs, economics, war and diplomacy, you will often find quotations by Council members.
The New York Times is a high-quality newspaper, noted for accurate reporting and good writing. It’s good to read the NYT, but it’s also good to know that the opinions you’re reading correspond to the views common among Northeast Coast, business-oriented intellectuals close to the actual workings of government. The usual routine is to discuss international problems in think tanks like CFR, publish policy papers, then place the desired viewpoints in Foreign Affairs, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, as well as magazines such as the Nation, the New Yorker, and Time.
In this way, points of view can be disseminated to the intellectuals who actually affect government, and these people can come to share the opinions of NYT and CFR. When government officials begin to discuss the policies in Congress or at political rallies, they already have the support of well-read intellectuals, who will smooth the passage of legislation and assist in their political agendas. So it’s very important to notice what is printed in the New York Times, because within six months to one year’s time, the opinions expressed there are likely to impact actions such as war-making, changes in the economic system and America’s relations with China or Iran.
The opinions and interpretations embedded in New York Times articles are only opinions, and you should feel free to disagree – to challenge these opinions. But you should also know that these opinions carry a great deal of weight with the Establishment (the Northeast Coast business interests who sponsor both CFR and the New York Times). For better or worse, what is suggested in the pages of the New York Times is likely to become US policy in the near future. And this is one of the great values of reading the paper.
You should be aware, however, that the New York Times, like most papers, is deliberately trying to shape public opinion in specific ways. In order to explain this somewhat, I’m using this week’s blog post to talk about the three-way relationship between the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York Times and the American government.
It would be too simplistic to say that CFR is the U. S. Government. But biographies I have seen show 90 top-level Obama administration officials who were or are members of the Council. The movie link included in this weeks vocab list suggests that Secretary of State Clinton is also a member, but I could not verify that.
That YouTube video should be “taken with a grain of salt”. This means that, although its information is substantially correct, its interpretation may be less reliable, and you should treat it as only one point of view. Although some members (including Jay Rockefeller) may truly desire a world government under the rule of a small, wealthy elite, that is not necessarily the purpose or aim of CFR.
I also included a link to the official history of CFR http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/anniversary_foreword.html, which is posted on its website. Since it’s quite long, I don’t suppose any Taiwanese students are willing to read the whole thing. But I will give you some quotes, and you can search the document using these as key words.
“By the mid-1990s, more than two-thirds of Council members lived and worked beyond a 50-mile radius of New York; Washington and Boston retain the largest share, but a significant increase in membership has taken place on the West Coast, in the Midwest, and in such southern cities as Dallas and Atlanta.”
Elsewhere:
“National members now make up more than one-third of the total membership, with the other two-thirds divided between New York and Washington, DC.”
1/3 New York City, so therefore 1/3 Washington, DC. That leaves 1/3 divided between Boston and the rest of the country. Why Boston? Harvard and M.I.T., for one thing. Also, Boston was the hub of the early industrial revolution and retains a strong foreign trade economy. The corridor between Boston and Washington, D.C. probably accounts for at least 3/4 of CFR’s membership. So point number one: this is an organization comprised of foreign policy experts concentrated in the Northeast coast of America.
FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in his book on the Kennedy presidency, A Thousand Days, wrote that Kennedy was not part of what he called the "New York establishment":
"In particular, he was little acquainted with the New York financial and legal community-- that arsenal of talent which had so long furnished a steady supply of always orthodox and often able people to Democratic as well as Republican administrations. This community was the heart of the American Establishment. Its household deities were Henry Stimson and Elihu Root; its present leaders, Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy; its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations; its organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs."
Foreign Affairs magazine is published by Council on Foreign Relations.
A “front organization” is a group that does your public business for you, without exposing you personally to public attention.
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. was a prominent member of CFR, and was “Special Assistant to the President” under John Kennedy.
Thus, CFR is working for the same Northeast Coast elite that controls the editorial policy of the New York Times.
Again, from the official history of CFR, concerning the 1920s and ‘30s:
“Members who were directors of large corporations seized the opportunity to inject the concerns of business into the reflections of scholars. Some 26 firms signed up for a program of corporate financial support.
“…Supported by a $50,000 grant from the Carnegie Corporation, the Council launched a major initiative in December 1937 to spread its activities and role across the United States.”
Andrew Carnegie, the founder of the Carnegie Corporation, had made a fortune in the steel industry, and worked closely with Elihu Root, CFR’s first president, who was also president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
At the end of World War II,
“…the 55 Council officers and directors also held 74 corporate directorships.”
Elsewhere:
“The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to fund the project [War and Peace Studies] with nearly $350,000.”
And:
“Over the course of the 1950s large foundations stepped in to support and enlarge the Council as a leading force in America’s international awareness; from the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Corporation came $500,000 each, topped by $1.5 million from the new Ford Foundation in 1954.”
So CFR is funded by, and controlled by, the captains of industry in the Northeast US.
Allen Dulles started the OSS during World War II, which later became the CIA. Dulles directed the CIA for many years. He was also a director of CFR, and served as its secretary.
Henry Kissinger is a prominent member. Nearly every Secretary of State during the 20th century (as well as Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton, if you believe the YouTube video) have been CFR members. Robert Gates, now Secretary of Defense and formerly head of the CIA, is a member. David Rockefeller was chairman of CFR from 1970-1985. This organization contains the heaviest business and government leaders, at any given moment.
From the official history:
“‘Whatever General Eisenhower knows about economics,’ said one member later, ‘he has learned at the [CFR] study group meetings,’”
To say that CFR has a profound impact on the workings of the US government would be an understatement. Government leaders are given fellowships, and intellectuals willing to cooperate with the business-oriented goals of the organization are invited to join. After serving in CFR for some time, many attain high government posts. From the history:
“Richard Barnet, a scholar elected to Council membership in 1969 who remained a frequent critic, noted that membership in the Council on Foreign Relations could well be considered ‘a rite of passage for an aspiring national security manager.’”
Now for the relationship with the New York Times. The “official history” was written by Peter Grosse, who was managing editor of Foreign Affairs. He was also a diplomatic correspondent for the New York Times and served as deputy director of the Policy Planning Staff at the Department of State. Leslie Gelb, chairman emeritus of CFR, is a former editor of the NYT. The history itself mentions Leonard Silk (economics writer). Nicholas Kristof (who learned Mandarin in Taipei) writes for both Foreign Affairs and the New York Times. Many, many NYT writers and editors, past and present, have belonged to CFR. If you look carefully at stories about government, international affairs, economics, war and diplomacy, you will often find quotations by Council members.
The New York Times is a high-quality newspaper, noted for accurate reporting and good writing. It’s good to read the NYT, but it’s also good to know that the opinions you’re reading correspond to the views common among Northeast Coast, business-oriented intellectuals close to the actual workings of government. The usual routine is to discuss international problems in think tanks like CFR, publish policy papers, then place the desired viewpoints in Foreign Affairs, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, as well as magazines such as the Nation, the New Yorker, and Time.
In this way, points of view can be disseminated to the intellectuals who actually affect government, and these people can come to share the opinions of NYT and CFR. When government officials begin to discuss the policies in Congress or at political rallies, they already have the support of well-read intellectuals, who will smooth the passage of legislation and assist in their political agendas. So it’s very important to notice what is printed in the New York Times, because within six months to one year’s time, the opinions expressed there are likely to impact actions such as war-making, changes in the economic system and America’s relations with China or Iran.
The opinions and interpretations embedded in New York Times articles are only opinions, and you should feel free to disagree – to challenge these opinions. But you should also know that these opinions carry a great deal of weight with the Establishment (the Northeast Coast business interests who sponsor both CFR and the New York Times). For better or worse, what is suggested in the pages of the New York Times is likely to become US policy in the near future. And this is one of the great values of reading the paper.
2009年11月11日 星期三
One good excuse for this blog is to tell you that our regular class on Tuesday, November 17, will be cancelled, due to a faculty meeting. You are invited to attend, but nothing bad will happen to you if you do not. I, on the other hand, am required to be there.
Anyway, we will discuss articles from the NYT issue that came out in yesterday's Lian He Bau (11/10/09) ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24.
If you did not attend class on the 10th, and are not sure what article you should prepare, please e-mail me.
Here, I would like to post three links that already appeared in the vocab list I sent you for 11/10.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDAFQjLoxCM&feature=related
mountain-top removal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJVbdiMgfM
“clean coal” air freshener
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKC5YV2yrFk&feature=related
“clean coal” smudge
These short videos show the truth about coal, one of the dirtiest sources of energy that we use today. Calling it "clean" will not excuse the "ramping up" of coal production to replace oil depletion. What we need is to do is to
use less energy and less stuff.
You might be interested in this:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2008/09/04/2003422196
A survey by Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) showed that the Taichung and Mailiao coal-fired power plants ranked No. 1 and No. 5 worldwide in terms of carbon dioxide emissions by power plants respectively, casting a shadow on the government’s energy-saving and carbon-reduction policies.
And this:
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=27&sid=1743620
Federal study shows mercury in fish widespread
August 20, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) - No fish can escape mercury pollution. That's the take-home message from a federal study of mercury contamination released Wednesday that tested fish from nearly 300 streams across the country.
The toxic substance was found in every fish sampled, a finding that underscores how widespread mercury pollution has become.
Mercury consumed by eating fish can damage the nervous system and cause learning disabilities in developing fetuses and young children.
The main source of mercury to most of the streams tested, according to the researchers, is emissions from coal-fired power plants. The mercury released from smokestacks here and abroad rains down into waterways, where natural processes convert it into methylmercury _ a form that allows the toxin to wind its way up the food chain into fish.
On that happy note, I remind you again that
OUR NEXT CLASS IS NOVEMBER 24. Have an enjoyable night off next Tuesday.
Anyway, we will discuss articles from the NYT issue that came out in yesterday's Lian He Bau (11/10/09) ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24.
If you did not attend class on the 10th, and are not sure what article you should prepare, please e-mail me.
Here, I would like to post three links that already appeared in the vocab list I sent you for 11/10.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDAFQjLoxCM&feature=related
mountain-top removal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJVbdiMgfM
“clean coal” air freshener
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKC5YV2yrFk&feature=related
“clean coal” smudge
These short videos show the truth about coal, one of the dirtiest sources of energy that we use today. Calling it "clean" will not excuse the "ramping up" of coal production to replace oil depletion. What we need is to do is to
use less energy and less stuff.
You might be interested in this:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2008/09/04/2003422196
A survey by Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) showed that the Taichung and Mailiao coal-fired power plants ranked No. 1 and No. 5 worldwide in terms of carbon dioxide emissions by power plants respectively, casting a shadow on the government’s energy-saving and carbon-reduction policies.
And this:
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=27&sid=1743620
Federal study shows mercury in fish widespread
August 20, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) - No fish can escape mercury pollution. That's the take-home message from a federal study of mercury contamination released Wednesday that tested fish from nearly 300 streams across the country.
The toxic substance was found in every fish sampled, a finding that underscores how widespread mercury pollution has become.
Mercury consumed by eating fish can damage the nervous system and cause learning disabilities in developing fetuses and young children.
The main source of mercury to most of the streams tested, according to the researchers, is emissions from coal-fired power plants. The mercury released from smokestacks here and abroad rains down into waterways, where natural processes convert it into methylmercury _ a form that allows the toxin to wind its way up the food chain into fish.
On that happy note, I remind you again that
OUR NEXT CLASS IS NOVEMBER 24. Have an enjoyable night off next Tuesday.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)