It reeks of storm!

Do you smell it?

I do not think I do: I really do. It rather stinks; it is going to be one of those storms described as perfect. Perfect because things are starting to fall into place that we expected to eventually fall but not all at once.

I could live with bad management, lousy and/or corrupt managers being punished like it finally seems to happen with RBS and HBOS’ so called former bosses. Whether in the end any of those heroes will ever really get punished - I doubt it. See the Libor scandal! What scandal you might ask? True: that law-breaking insolence is dealt with behind those thick curtains that protect today’s banksters’ offices from any light; just in case Deutsche Bank and others set up provisions, some hundred million Euro, measurements in return reducing their tax load and buying them off. But, that scam will end without further consequences except for them trying harder, next time.

That Offshore Leak might be a different story; for one there is not much about that in British media, yet * ; may be that is because there are many off-shore paradises, money wise in this case, that speak English, some very close, and many are somehow related to thee Queen, thee Commonwealth and thee City? Mind you, we are told it involved 170 countries and 120.000 letterbox-companies. Mind boggling that amount of data going back 30 years and as much as this needs to be dealt with ** – I am afraid this could be a financial and social tsunami. What if the Queen and the Camerons are part of this, or even Tony and George? What if Putin, Merkel, Hollande and Berlusconi plus Sarkozy needed to be arrested and put into the same jail cell? Well, guess somebody would notice and put Madame Merkel into the female block.

Watch the suicide and emigrant lists of those 170 countries … and do not believe a minute that any criminal or immoral aspect of all this will be put into any bankster's basket; evil to him who evil thinks and while all banks offer sophisticated off-shore services it is the stupid customer that gets caught, eventually.

Emigration will not really help anybody to avoid that global currency battle, now entering an unknown dimension with Japan going berserk. As a measurement of last resort they are printing vast, vast, vast sums of money – mind you, that’s hitting return after punching in 12 or 15 zeros behind a 1 or a two or actually any figure and that not only once but monthly from now on – fiat money the easiest way, ever - to buy back their own crap; recycling, snow-balling, ponzi-ing? Government bonds and then dump them in a bin, or the worst bank, if that’s the better name for it. That is the most daring monetary experiment of modern times as The Telegraph titled this flooding the market with YEN; the idea is to massively devalue the currency for exports (jobs!) to grow fast and furious, to force-inject inflation into what is a deflating economy and hope for nobody else following that pattern.

That’s hopeless, stupid! What BO and BSB do for the greenback in the US, why Merkel insists on a EURO agitated by the PIIGS’ and french stress to keep it soft, DC and GO want to do in the UK; strengthen UK exports by weakening the Pound or rather vice versa; woau! How much of that export strength is left? I believe proper schooling, training, apprenticeships worth the title, dual education plus on-going, extensive studies and education would do much better!  Want an example?

While discussing Passiv Haus Standard during this year’s ecobuild seminars and the installation of a MVHR, a mechanical ventilation system including heat recovery, UK experts explained coram publico that this would make things too complicated, too difficult a gadget for the average British tenant/owner to cope with.

Sorry? Hellooow!? Such a system includes a ventilator and a mechanical heat exchanger controlled by three or four buttons to press – basta.

Frightening; and insulting: why would the average middle-European be able to cope with that kind of high tech while the British … ? Or, this very likely is the early result of adding the word vitiosus to this circulus of cuts and savings into schools, training, education? Next step will be to forbid knife and fork endangering the hungry!

Apropos weak: how much does a weak Pound buy? We import more than 50% of our energy and, while you might like it cold, more than 50% of our food! Do you like strict diets? This year we might even have to import much more, or do you see UK potatoes growing with the coldest March on record?

Just for another record: in general terms importing means we have to pay in a foreign currency after swapping Pound into $, € or ¥ where, please note, the last stands for the YEN but also for the YUAN!

China is boosting its defence spending by almost 11% - this year! Obviously China has the funds, hardly any debts and something to prepare for or against? It is also growing its agriculture and pumping a lot of money into renewables. Funny, isn’t it? We are cutting any incentives, we are discussing silly bedroom taxes for the poorest and whether to install Casinos in Cyprus to save its economy, Merkel’s Euro and Schaeuble’s regime - while China prepares for its future. They might not value human life as high as we are rumoured to do, but then...

Well - the Euro! Really, I wanted to avoid that criminal rubbish; it is still alive; rather, it is not disconnected, yet, from life supporting but until lately utterly illegal instruments such as bad banks, bail-outs and bail-ins, and the on-going … here we are again: money printing.

A pity they cannot print jobs. Unemployment in the EU rates are soaring, even the official ones, the ones that lack continuity and belief:

Spain 26.3%, Portugal 17.5% Italy 11.6%, Greece 26.4%; that’s the overall one.

But our future even looks more difficult and much darker:

Spain 55.7%, Portugal 38.2%, Italy 37.8%, Greece 58.4%, France 26.2%; the official figures for those between 18 and 24 years old. Official! And what kind of jobs does the rest have? Low-paid ones, un-trained ones, picking tomatoes or serving beer to poor tourists? How many of them all have gone through any decent apprenticeship and can base their lives on the founds of a sustainable education?

Source: www.querschuesse.de

Shows unemployment of the 18-24 in countries…

Please see Greece, Griechenland!

30% when it entered EURO-Casino!

You could call it the Euro’s unemployment bomb - until it explodes; no wonder DC and GO think, why should they put any money and effort into a dying market of people needing training and education?

Guess what, at least car sales show some sympathy:

Spain minus 13.9%, France minus 16.4%, Austria minus 19.9%, Finland minus 58.6%, Germany minus 17.1, Netherlands minus 31.4, and in addition Japan minus 16.7, Brazil minus 4.7%. So, really, how long can we be happy and proud on headlines like UK car sale rise for 12^th consecutive month? And what is the base of this rise, how are they paid for, those cars, and how long do they or does this last?

Is it a coincidence that VW is creating new jobs, outside the EU?

It becomes apparent that Mr Neo and Mrs. Lib have not only allowed all those jobs to be exported to – mainly – China; any kind of job machine has been given up for nothing, for free. This is the third time I add this video… I think it should now read 2020, not 2030:

My respect, China. Age must help in becoming wiser.

While Gobi Dessert is growing steadily, 28% of Chinese landmass is dessert-like area, anyway, and China buying all kinds of land worldwide, we are all in for increasingly bad weathers; if you thought that cold lately would tell us Global Warming has had it then I would recommend to come to senses and title the problem Climate Change. And that’s what it is.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/

http://climatecrocks.com/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/

The rate of changes multiplied by the level of ignorance in solving any of our problems is unbelievable; we are presented with scientific results by crowds of scientists from all over the world, they describe the problems we face, we see and in many cases feel those; we do understand most of them but we are unwilling or incapable of addressing and solving them; or, even worse, we wilfully ignore them all for all kinds of stupid, bad and criminal reasons; that makes it easy for the storm to become that perfect storm.

I can smell it.

Carpe diem!

 

* … might be that they all need time; similar to the big fish on Cyprus when Putin took two days to decide whether he would support Cyprus or rather give his friends and soon-to-be-friends time to visit those London branches of the Cyprus banks to sort out their accounts just in time…

** ... we will see capital control mechanisms installed like we had them before 1985, no question.

 

unemploystream

(ment-main)

It is almost like one must sympathise with Mr Obama in his fight for his second term. But while his fight in the end might help to not see one of those reactionary Republicans named Romney or even worse Santorum, latest rumours even threat us with Palin's comeback, to move into White House it is still pure bullshit Obama is giving us; most likely not only in reference to the unemployment situation in the US. Fair enough, it is election time and mainstream just follows the flag:

theguardian: Obama boosted by US job growth

In a boost to president Barack Obama's pledge to keep cutting unemployment a priority, the US enjoyed the longest stretch of solid jobs growth in almost a year. Government data showed 227,000 non-farm jobs were added last month, ahead of the 210,000 rise forecast by economists.

... but in the same article ...

The unemployment rate, however, remained at 8.3% as expected as more people came back into the labour market after not previously seeking work.

Pure nonsense, nothing changed to the good. Karl Denninger, a US blogger, calls it the Bureau of Lies and Scams when referring to the US Bureau of Labour Statistics and says:

We have not added a single job, adjusted for population, since 2006 -- and even then going all the way back to 2000 the "gains" were tiny and fleeting.  Until and unless we stop sending jobs overseas there will be no durable economic improvement.

Indeed, the jobs [labour] and the greenbacks [money] are both meeting up somewhere overseas.

Could it be China!


Carpe diem!

Obama's seech in Oslo (text)

The Orange County Register news: Obama's speech accepting Nobel Peace Prize

Should you be asked to discuss the price or this year's winner it might make sense to know what he had to say:

President Barack Obama this morning accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. He is only the third sitting American president to receive the award. Here is the text of his speech.

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. 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 have 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 of 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 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 forty three other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks. Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. 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. 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. Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, 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 it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence. 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 thirty years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is 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, and 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, 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. 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; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and 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 that 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 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’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is 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 is sometimes 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 because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower. Yet 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 other peoples’ 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 and 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 irreconcilable truths – that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. 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.” 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 strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don’t. 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 is 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 waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. 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 have 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 is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is 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 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 that 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. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard. I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now 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 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 toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am 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 law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma – there must be consequences. 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 upon 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 all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are 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. I reject this choice. 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 to these movements that hope and history are 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 – and condemnation without discussion – can carry forward 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 is 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 they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within. And that is why helping farmers feed their own people – or nations educate their children and care for the sick – is not mere charity. It is 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, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action – it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance. 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 all basically want 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, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about 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 are moving backwards.

We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines. 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 even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the 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. 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 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 faith in human progress – 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 is 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 nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.” So let us reach for the world that ought to be – that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, 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, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his 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. 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 is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified. 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 of self-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. Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of 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, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more – and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

Carpe diem!