Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. Effective immigration policy must include comprehensive border security and comprehensive immigration reform. We must secure our borders against real threats of terrorism, and we must protect U.S. workers, while preserving the basic freedoms and founding principles that are the bedrock of our nation. As Congress continues to craft comprehensive immigration reform legislation, we must address reform realistically, stem the tide of illegal immigrants entering the country and be fair to those who are here legally.

I believe it is vital to ensure our borders are secure. To this end, I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L.109-289) that appropriated $1.83 billion to construct 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of our country. I also supported an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (P.L.109-13) that provided $390 million to hire an additional 650 border patrol agents, 250 immigration investigators, and 168 immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers, as well as to fund an additional 2,000 detention beds for immigration enforcement purposes. Earlier this year, I supported the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L.111-5), which provided $40 million for competitive grants for equipment and local law enforcement assistance along the Southern border.

I believe any successful immigration reform efforts must protect U.S. workers. For this reason, in 2007, I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fair Minimum Wage Act that bars employers who violate immigration laws by hiring undocumented workers from receiving federal government contracts for up to 10 years. This legislation was included in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-28), which was signed into law on May 25, 2007. It is important to ensure that employers hire only those legally eligible to work and that employees are treated fairly.

In 2006, I supported a number of worker protection amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. I voted in favor of an amendment that would have established a true prevailing wage for all occupations to ensure that U.S. workers’ wages are not lowered as a result of the guest worker program, and I supported an amendment that would have required employers to make good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers first. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, which I supported, was passed by the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 62-36, but was not passed by the House of Representatives prior to the adjournment of the 109^th Congress.

It also is necessary for immigration reform legislation to remove the ‘magnet’ that has attracted millions of people to cross the border illegally. We should not provide amnesty; instead, we should permit currently undocumented workers to earn the right to obtain legal status over a long period of time, under restrictive conditions, including being required to pay fees and back taxes. These individuals would be required to apply through the same immigration process as everyone else and to take their place in line behind all those whose applications are pending.

I am hopeful this Congress will be able to work to pass comprehensive immigration reform. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to craft effective solutions to address our nation’s immigration problems. Without a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, our current problems with illegal immigration will likely continue.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin

(U.S. Senate, D-Michigan)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By Kris Verhage,  Cadillac News 

By Jeff Broddle, Cadillac News, December 10, 2009

CADILLAC – The clock is ticking down to Dec. 31, which marks not only the end of the year but also the expiration date of American Waste’s proposal to Wexford County for purchasing and assuming some liabilities of the Wexford County Landfill.
Department of Public Works Director John Divozzo said a group representing the county has been working this week, summarizing the county’s concerns with the proposal.
“Basically, we’re looking at them taking more liability and offering more money,” Divozzo said.
The arrangement would have American Waste taking on closure and post-closure costs for the landfill estimated to total around $11.7 million. American Waste would assume landfill operations and promise to freeze tipping fees at $39 a ton for five years. The county hopes to realize a net gain of $1.9 million but still has to pay off $2 million for the Cedar Creek water system and the final phase of landfill construction. American Waste would pay host fees of 65 cents per ton for out-of-county waste and 45 cents per ton for in-county, which the county could earmark for the water system bond.
Details of the sale between the county and American Waste are being undertaken by a group composed of Divozzo, Stump, landfill finances consultant Robert Joseph, and Grayling attorney James Cotant. Cotant was brought on board near the end of last month, Divozzo said.
“If there is a middle ground negotiable to both parties, we can move forward,” said Wexford County Board of Commissioners Chairman Michael Stump.
The group plans to meet with representatives of American Waste to discuss “the main provisions of their offer,” Divozzo said.
Stump said he would like to see a mechanism that would result in lower tipping fees for Wexford County residents as more trash is brought in from outside the county. He added he also would like to see county residents offered some protection against rate increases, especially since American Waste is asking for flow control assurance trash from Wexford County to be disposed of at the Wexford County Landfill.
“If they have flow control, they can just set the rate wherever they want it, and that’s not what we want for the county,” Stump said.
He also expressed concerns that the amount of compensation offered by American Waste falls too short of the value of the landfill’s assets, including the buildings and equipment on site and the value of the “airspace,” which is the landfill’s capacity to accept waste.
“We’re willing to part with the landfill if we’re compensated for the value. If that’s not the case, then we’re in the position to run the landfill ourselves,” Stump said.

Storm dumped 21″ of snow in Gaylord

The National Weather Service in Gaylord reports that many areas received over a foot of snow during the winter storm Dec. 8-11, with gusty winds over 40 mph and near-blizzard conditions at times.
The heaviest snowfalls were recorded between Boyne City, Gaylord, Wolverine and Kalkaska, where several reports of more than 20 inches of snowfall were tallied.
Traverse City recorded its 10th largest three-day snowfall since 1950, with 18.2 inches. Gaylord had its second-largest three-day snowfall since 1950, with 21.8 inches. High winds were reported at Presque Isle, which logged a 66 mph wind gust Dec. 9, and at Mackinaw City, with a 62 mph gust Dec. 9.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

s122602Snow10 jpg 640 x 480 | 74k

                                   2165908727 f60836db41 jpg joemartino

                                     flickr.com

[Editor's Note:  Here in Cedar Creek Township we got ~ 20 inches snowfall from that storm, too.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

December 7, 2009 

GM plans to invest $700M in

Michigan for Volt

AP – Jon Lauckner, General vice president

for global product planning announces plans for the automaker to …

By JEFF KAROUB, AP Business Writer 

Federal, state and local agencies said Tuesday that more than 800 fish were caught in nets during a search of a 5.5-mile stretch of the Cal-Sag Channel. But none were Asian carp.

The channel is part of a waterway network linking Lake Michigan with the Mississippi River basin.

Authorities announced in November that Asian carp DNA had been found in the channel north of an electronic barrier designed to prevent the carp from migrating into the Great Lakes.

Officials did find a single Asian carp during a fish-kill in another part of the canal last week, but it wasn’t past the barrier.

The Cal-Sag Channel and Little Calumet River reopened to shipping traffic after the netting operation finished Monday.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Traverse City RECORD-EAGLE

 December 10, 2009

By Lauren Amstutz
Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 6:09 p.m.

Coordinated blasts hit Baghdad;

kill at least 118

have orders to Afghan war

  AP  – Obama: Afghan draw-down

will start in 2011

AP – Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm.

Michael Mullen speaks to reporters during a briefing for foreign media on …

December 7, 2009

Offshore oil drilling gets

go-ahead in Alaska’s Arctic

WASHINGTON — The Interior Department on Monday gave the go-ahead for Shell Oil to begin drilling three exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea , a move that opens the door for offshore oil and gas production in the Arctic .

“This is progress,” said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski , the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee , calling the announcement “an encouraging sign that Alaska’s oil and natural gas resources can continue to play a major role in America’s energy security.”

The company’s proposal calls for using several vessels, including a drill ship and oil spill response vessels, the Interior Department said. The closest proposed drill site is more than 60 miles from shore.

Shell Alaska Vice President Pete Slaiby said that his company thinks its exploration plan addresses the concerns he’s heard in North Slope communities, “including concerns around program footprint and pace.”

“Shell believes the Chukchi Sea could be home to some of the most prolific, undiscovered hydrocarbon basins in North America ,” Slaiby said.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Tuesday called the approval by the Minerals Management Service “conditional.” The agency still must comply with a court-ordered redo of an environmental sensitivity analysis, plus Shell still must obtain Environmental Protection Agency air quality permits for the vessels used in exploration. Slaiby said that the company listened to critics of its previous drilling plans in the Arctic and spent more than $25 million to tighten the air pollution controls on its drill ship, the Frontier Discovery.

Shell, Conoco Phillips and other companies in 2008 paid more than $2 billion for leases in the Chukchi Sea off the northwest coast of Alaska . The companies and state officials think the offshore reserves could power the Alaska economy for decades.

The potential offshore development remains a concern to Natives and environmentalists, however. Natives along the northern coast worry the noise of offshore development could chase away bowhead whales and other subsistence foods.

“The proposed oil and gas activities affect the very foundations of who we are as individuals and as a people,” said Caroline Cannon , president of the Native village of Point Hope, Alaska . “We have a right to life, to physical integrity, to security, and the right to enjoy the benefits of our culture.”

Environmentalists have a number of concerns, chiefly that there is limited technology for cleaning up oil spills in icy water.

“Obviously, we’re disappointed,” said Marilyn Heiman , the U.S. Arctic program director for the Pew Environment Group . “A spill could happen from an exploratory well just as easily as it could from a production well. They have not yet demonstrated they have the ability and the expertise to clean up an oil spill, especially in the darkness, the extreme weather and the icy conditions.”

The Bush administration’s five-year plan for oil and gas exploration off the U.S. coast is under review by the Obama administration. Salazar held several public hearings, including a meeting in April in Anchorage where then-Gov. Sarah Palin and her successor, Parnell, spoke in favor of offshore development. The agency is still considering whether to let the plan continue through 2012 or write a new one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

December 10, 2009

Conservative praise for

Nobel speech

 ABC News  – Obama Responds to

‘Premature’ Nobel Nod

 

Reuters – Nobel Peace Prize laureate

Nobel Peace …

Major makeover of Wall Street

regs passes House

AP – House Financial Services

Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., center,

accompanied by Rep. Paul …

Read a full text of the president’s Nobel Lecture below the fold. See the president’s speech here and read the full report from Oslo, updated at the conclusion at 8:20 am EST.

(Also see, below the fold, the toast that Obama gave at the Nobel Prize dinner.)

**************************************************************************************************************************
By Christi Parsons

OSLO — President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize here today, acknowledging the irony of winning it as a wartime president and calling his own accomplishments “slight” in comparison to past winners.

But in his speech to the Nobel Committee, Obama spoke of the concept of a “just war” and the pursuit of a “just peace,” which he said sometimes depends on more than simply refraining from violence.

Lauding the commitment of past Nobel laureates to non-violence, Obama said that, as a head of state and commander-in-chief of a military at war sworn to protect and defend his nation, he cannot follow their examples alone.

“I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people,” Obama said. “For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason

With his remarks, delivered in the brief sunlight of the Norwegian winter’s mid-day, Obama answered critics who complain that he was receiving the award before he has really done anything to achieve peace.

The award also comes just days after the president announced a military build-up in Afghanistan, a surge of 30,000 U.S. troops which the White House hopes will disable the terrorist headquarters in the region and bring the eight-year war to an end.

In presenting the award to Obama, Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland argued that Obama has already changed the temperature in the international climate since he was sworn in last January, simply by insisting on negotiation and diplomacy first.

The committee didn’t want to wait to voice its support for Obama’s ideals, Jaglund said, suggesting the award will help the president achieve his goals.

“It is now, today, we have the opportunity to support President Obama’s ideas,” said Jagland. “This year’s prize is a call to action for all of us.”

Obama accepted the award on those terms, calling his own accomplishments “slight” in comparison to past winners and others he said deserve it more than he.

(The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, President Barack Obama, is pictured above with his diploma and medal during the award ceremony at the City Hall in Oslo today. Photo by John McConnico / AFP / Getty Images)

“Perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars,” Obama said.

The war in Iraq is winding down, he said, and the one that he is ramping up in Afghanistan is one which the U.S. did not seek.

“Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land,” Obama said. “Some will kill. Some will be killed.

“And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict, filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other,” he said in a lecture delivered at Oslo City Hall.

Speaking to an audience of Nobel Committee members and European leaders, Obama invoked the words of the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the 1964 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, that “violence never brings permanent peace.” He praised international institutions devoted to preserving peace without conflict.

Still, the president said, “the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.”

While promising America’s ongoing commitment to global security, the president also called on world leaders to stand together against those who flout international conventions.

The U.S. will follow certain rules of conduct, he said, noting his order banning torture and plans to close the infamous U.S. military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Regimes that break the rules have to be held accountable, he said, pointing to Iranian and North Korean refusal to follow conventions governing the use of nuclear power.

“Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable,” Obama said. “Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.”

Speaking before a large glass window, with the Oslo fjord visible behind him, the president praised the dignity of Burmese activist Aung Sang Suu Kyi, the bravery of Zimbabweans who insisted on the right to vote despite threat of violence and demonstrators who have marched against recent oppression in Iran.

“It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation,” he said. “And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.”

But Obama also described a “just peace” as one that not only includes civil and political rights, but also encompasses economic security and opportunity.

“For true peace is not just freedom from fear,” he said, “but freedom from want.”

 ****************************************************************************************************************************

HERE IS THE TOAST THAT THE PRESIDENT GAVE AT DINNER:

 ”Thank you very much. Your Majesties, Your Excellencies, Your Royal Highnesses — to all my friends, my family. This is obviously an extraordinary evening, and I must say — I was telling the committee members that, having entirely exhausted myself with the speech this afternoon — (laughter and applause) — I have — I spoke for a very long time. (Laughter.) I have only a very few words to say.

First of all, I would like to thank the committee once again for the extraordinary confidence that they placed in me and this great honor that I have received tonight. As I indicated before, no one was more surprised than me. (Laughter.) And I have to say that when the chairman spoke introducing me, I told him afterwards that I thought it was an excellent speech and that I was almost convinced that I deserved it. (Laughter and applause.)

I also wanted to pick up on a theme in both our speeches, and that is the extraordinary power that this prize has in lifting up those who otherwise would be forgotten; in magnifying the cause of justice when it’s confronting great resistance. In 1964, when Dr. King received this prize, the course of the civil rights movement was still uncertain. How that would play itself out was not yet entirely known. And for a Baptist preacher from the South to be lifted up on the international stage, to highlight the fact that this was not simply a parochial struggle but was rather a struggle for the ages, a struggle for the hearts and minds not just of the American people but of the world, and how we thought about each other and how we thought about minorities in countries everywhere — what extraordinary power that had. And as a consequence, I think it’s fair to say that it helped to put the wind behind the sails of a movement that is largely responsible for both Michelle and my presence here tonight.

You know, it’s obviously one of life’s great ironies that Alfred Nobel, the man responsible for inventing dynamite — (laughter) — helped to establish this extraordinary moral force in the world. He bequeathed his largest share of fortune to the Nobel prizes and the roster of Nobel laureates has grown to include not only the finest minds in science and literature and economics, but I think what captivates people most is the giants of peace that it has acknowledged.

When Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament on November 27, 1895, it’s not entirely clear that he could have foreseen the impact that his prizes would have. But he did know this truth: that our destinies are what we make of them, and that each of us in our own lives can do our part in order to make a more just and lasting peace and forge the kind of world that we want to bequeath to our children and our grandchildren.

That has been the mission of the committee. It has carried out over these 108 years this charge with extraordinary diligence, creativity, and as I indicated today at lunch, great moral imagination. And so, for that, I am grateful not only to the current committee, but past committee members who I know are here. The world thanks you for the work that you do. And as a consequence, what I’d like to do is to propose a toast — once I get some wine. (Laughter.)

I’d like to propose — actually, if you will bear with me, in Washington, in the Senate or the House, this is called a point of personal privilege. I don’t want to make her cry, but I do want to say my sister is here tonight, and it was in one of the earlier toasts discussed a passage in my book that talks about my mother and the values that she instilled in me. And I do think that it’s worth noting that, to the extent I am deserving of this esteemed prize, either now or in the future, it will be largely because of her and the largeness of her heart. (Applause.)                        So, to Alfred Nobel — Skål. Cheers. Thank you. Thank you very much.”

***************************************************************************************************************************
HERE IS THE TEXT OF THE PRESIDENT’S NOBEL LECTURE:

” Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I’m responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of “just war” was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states — all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.” A gradual evolution of human institutions.

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle ofself-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America — in fact, no nation — can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.

And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That’s why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they’ve shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That’s why NATO continues to be indispensable. That’s why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That’s why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers — but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor — we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I’m working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma — there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy — but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements — these movements of hope and history — they have us on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — condemnation without discussion — can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There’s no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can’t aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that’s why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It’s also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement — all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action — it’s military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that’s the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there’s something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we’re all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities — their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we’re moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it’s incompatible with the very purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their fundamental faith in human progress — that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what’s best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”

Let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he’s outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school — because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child’s dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that’s the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you very much. “

**************************************************************************************************************************

[Editor's Note:  For reactions to President Obama's speech please see article in Post:  "National News".]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AFP – US President Barack Obama

at the White House in Washington. Obama will Tuesday sketch new

ideas for creating …