Thursday, December 31, 2009
John Mackey and the limits of “conscious capitalism” | Grist
John Mackey: will the unfettered market bring him down? Photo: JOEM500, via FlickrUnder pressure from a variety of shareholders, Whole Foods founder John Mackey has surrendered his position on his company’s board of directors. He will continue serving as CEO, but will no longer be able to vote on board-level decisions.
Just before the announcement, The New Yorker ran a long and entertaining profile of Mackey by Nick Paumgarten. The two events—the publication of the New Yorker piece, quickly followed by Mackey’s board resignation—may not be coincidental. in recent years, buffeted by self-generated controversy, Mackey has sought to exert careful control over his media image. He makes a game effort with Paumagarten. “I no longer drink alcohol around journalists,” Mackey tells him. He adds: “I am not going to talk about my sex life,” even though Paumagarten had not asked.
Despite those undoubtedly wise precautions, Mackey emerges from Paumgarten’s gentle piece as a bit of a nut.
We see him engaging in new-age babble, declaring “I am self-actualizing myself” and subjecting himself to something called “the Course.” We find him behaving like a jerk, alienating underlings (“executive-retreat volleyball games had to be scrapped, owing to Mackey’s intensity and his ill-disguised scorn for less capable teammates”) and sending fellow executives into grumpy exile. Mostly, we find him justifying his Randian faith in hyper-capitalism, as zealous as a Christian’s belief in the Resurrection.
In green circles, the money shot is probably the bit about climate change—it turns out the founder of the iconic “certified organic supermarket” is a bit of a denier (don’t tell Paumgarten’s colleague Michael Specter). Paumgarten writes:
One of the books on the list was “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming-the Missing Science,” a skeptical take on climate change. Mackey told me that he agrees with the book’s assertion that, as he put it, “no scientific consensus exists” regarding the causes of climate change; he added, with a candor you could call bold or reckless, that it would be a pity to allow “hysteria about global warming” to cause us “to raise taxes and increase regulation, and in turn lower our standard of living and lead to an increase in poverty.” One would imagine that, on this score, many of his customers, to say nothing of most climate scientists, might disagree. He also said, “Historically, prosperity tends to correlate to warmer temperatures.”
In one deft paragraph, Paumgarten skewers Mackey’s unfortunate recent foray into healthcare punditry, as well as his long-time hostility to labor unions:It sometimes sounds as if he believed that, if every company had him at the helm, there would be no need for unions or health-care reform, and that therefore every company should have someone like him, and that therefore there should be no unions or health-care reform. In other words, because he runs a business a certain way, others will, can, and should, and so the safeguards that have evolved over the generations to protect against human venality—against, say, greedy, bullying bosses—are no longer necessary. The logic is as sound as the presumption is preposterous.
I think this captures the quintessence of Mackeyism: an earnest faith, backed up by his own personal virtue, that unfettered capitalism paves the way to social utopia.
No doubt, Mackey himself is a benevolent corporate chief. The market values Whole Foods at $4 billion, yet the total value of Mackey’s Whole Foods shares is just $31 million. Nearly all founders of corporate empires manage to grab a much larger share of the loot than that. His annual salary as CEO: $1. And he has imposed a kind of austerity on his fellow execs: “No one at the company can have a salary more than nineteen times what the average team member makes,” Paumgarten reports. “On average, an S. & P. 500 C.E.O. makes three hundred and nineteen times what a production worker does.” And for Whole Foods employees, “The health and retirement benefits are relatively generous.”
Yet those policies are driven not so much by the market as by Mackey’s own personal beliefs—and the market could soon crush them. Mackey is losing control of the company. He has already ceded the right to vote on the company’s strategy by dropping his board position. Meanwhile,other, less loftily idealistic capitalists are moving in. As CEO, he’s the functionary of a corporate board he no longer dominates—one bound by law to serve not Mackey’s ideals, but rather to maximize shareholder profit. Writes Paumgarten:
Last fall, as the recession deepened, Whole Foods’ sales, and its stock, suffered badly, and the company was forced to raise capital. Leonard Green & Partners, a private-equity firm, bought seventeen per cent of the business, and got two seats on the board. Yucaipa, a firm run by the grocery billionaire and Democratic Party donor Ron Burkle, bought a seven-per-cent stake and has been looking over Mackey’s shoulder.
Thus while Mackey the capitalist ideologue does his best to take care of his workers, the capitalist sharks are circling. “We’re trying to do good. And we’re trying to make money,” Mackey tells Paumgarten. “The more money we make, the more good we can do.”
But the investors now taking control of Whole Foods are likely more interested in the money than in the good. When profits falter, the “power of conscious capitalism” (the subtitle of Mackey’s book) succumbs to the power of unfettered capitalism. If I were a Whole Foods “team member,” I’d be seriously considering starting a union to protect wages and benefits. And as a backup plan, I’d be agitating for universal healthcare.
via grist.org
"But the investors now taking control of Whole Foods are likely more interested in the money than in the good. When profits falter, the “power of conscious capitalism” (the subtitle of Mackey’s book) succumbs to the power of unfettered capitalism. If I were a Whole Foods “team member,” I’d be seriously considering starting a union to protect wages and benefits. And as a backup plan, I’d be agitating for universal healthcare."
Rick Warren's Saddleback Church Asks For Urgent $900,000
LAKE FOREST, Calif. — Evangelical pastor Rick Warren appealed to parishioners at his Orange County megachurch Wednesday to help fill a $900,000 deficit by the first of the year.
Warren made the appeal in a letter posted on the Saddleback Church Web site. It begins "Dear Saddleback Family, THIS IS AN URGENT LETTER."
"With 10 percent of our church family out of work due to the recession, our expenses in caring for our community in 2009 rose dramatically while our income stagnated," the letter reads.
Still, Warren said the church managed to stay within its budget, but "the bottom dropped out" when Christmas donations dropped. "On the last weekend of 2009, our total offerings were less than half of what we normally receive – leaving us $900,000 in the red for the year," the letter reads.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Activists Blocked From Planned March to Support Gaza
Filed at 2:10 p.m. ET
CAIRO (Reuters) - About 80 foreign supporters of Palestinians protested outside the French Embassy in Cairo on Monday after Egypt refused to let them to march to Gaza, witnesses said.
Some 1,400 activists from 43 countries had gathered in Cairo on Sunday to mark the first anniversary of the Israeli offensive on Hamas-ruled Gaza.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to hold talks in Cairo on Tuesday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
The activists, several hundred of whom were from France, had asked Egypt for permission to cross into Gaza but the Interior Ministry said the march was illegal and a threat to national security.
On Sunday, about 80 activists staged a protest outside the French Embassy, surrounded by a heavy police presence. Such demonstrations are rare in Egypt but no violence broke out and no arrests were made, witnesses said.
About 30 activists managed to make their way on Sunday by public transport to Arish in northern Sinai, where they were now under house arrest, said Yvonne Ridley, a member of the Gaza Freedom March.
Eight more reached Rafah, on the border, but were later returned to Arish, Egyptian security officials said.
The activists said in a statement they were protesting against the economic blockade of the Gaza Strip and the December 2008-January 2009 Israeli military operation against Gaza in which Amnesty International said 1,400 Palestinians were killed.
"The international coalition had intended to take part in a non-violent demonstration with 50,000 Palestinians to commemorate Israel's Cast Lead operation and protest the ongoing blockade," the statement said.
Egyptian security said the Rafah border would open on January 3 for three days to allow Palestinian students, patients and those having residency visas to pass into Egypt.
Egypt also said it will allow a food and supplies convoy led by independent British Member of Parliament George Galloway to pass into Gaza, but only if lands by sea at Arish and passes through Rafah.
The convoy has been docked in the Jordanian port of Aqaba since Thursday awaiting approval from Egypt to enter via Nuweiba on the Red Sea. Egypt allowed similar convoys to enter Gaza in March and July.
Egypt has hosted talks with different Palestinian political groups to end internal disputes, mainly between the Palestinian Authority which controls the West Bank and the Islamist group Hamas which controls the Gaza Strip.
Egypt and Germany have also been mediating a possible exchange of prisoners by Hamas and Israel. (Reporting by Yusri Mohamed; Editing by Angus MacSwan)
via nytimes.com
Kathy Kelly: Gaza Freedom March Members Gain a Small Taste of the Palestinian Experience
Gaza Freedom March participants, numbering 1,360 people from 42 countries, have assembled in Cairo, Egypt, where they plan to break the Israeli imposed siege on Gaza by delivering humanitarian relief supplies, on December 31st. After passing through the Rafah border crossing which divides Egypt and Gaza, they aim to join 50,000 Palestinians in a march across the Gaza Strip, ending at the Erez border crossing which leads into Israel.
But, the Egyptian government has dispersed peaceable assemblies that the marchers organized, in Cairo, and detained activists in multiple locations. Egyptian authorities previously issued permits for public actions, but have now revoked all permits and refused permission for any members of the Gaza Freedom March to even approach the border between Egypt and Gaza. Yesterday, they broke up a gathering of people who were commemorating the 1,409 Palestinians who were killed by the Israeli military's "Operation Cast Lead" assault that began last year, December 27th, and continued for 22 days.
"We're saddened that the Egyptian authorities have blocked our participants' freedom of movement and interfered with a peaceful commemoration of the dead," said Medea Benjamin of CODEPINK, one of the March's organizers.
Benjamin added that the Gaza Freedom March participants are continuing to urge the Egyptian government to allow them to proceed to Gaza. They visited the Arab League asking for support, various foreign embassies and the Presidential Palace to deliver an appeal to President Mubarak. They are calling their supporters around the world to contact Egyptian embassies and urge them to free the marchers and allow them to proceed to Gaza.
Gaza Freedom March coordinators and participants are weighing alternative plans while continuing to call for assistance from various Embassies. Three hundred French delegation members have camped overnight at the French Embassy in Cairo and are still maintaining their presence despite being encircled by three rows of Egyptian riot police. The U.S. delegation has been unable to approach the U.S. Embassy, which was cordoned off and surrounded by police immediately after U.S. delegation members arrived in Cairo.
Hedy Epstein, an 85-year-old Holocaust survivor, from St. Louis, MO, has begun a hunger strike, in Cairo, and intends to continue her fast until the Egyptians decide to open the border.
"Despite the massive interferences, the marchers have not been deterred and will continue to advocate for the people of Gaza," writes Josh Brollier, a member of the Free Gaza March and co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence. "Though these setbacks have been frustrating to the delegates who came to show solidarity with Palestinians, they are just a small taste of the Palestinian experience and can scarcely compare to the daily hardships imposed on the people of Gaza by the devastating Israeli siege and illegal occupation."
Call your Congress persons and the POTUS and Hillary Clinton and demand the border be opened.
Monday, December 28, 2009
For something lighter: JibJab.com Year in Review 2009
<div style='background-color:#e9e9e9; width: 425px;'><div style='text-align:center; width:435px; margin-top:6px;'>Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!</div></div>
Peace,
Mike Baldwin
Hunger strike commences for the #Gaza freedom March RT
Our #STL Friends are on a Hunger strike: in Egypt awaiting opportunity to go to Gaza. Pray for and fast with Hedy, J’Ann and Sandra.
In solidarity with them, I have joined their hunger strike and hope you will too. We must raise public awareness of this humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Below is the most recent press release from Code Pink. Please go to their website for updates as this action progresses--and pass the word!
French Delegates Take Over the Boulevard in Front of French Embassy in Cairo
What: A contingent of several hundred French activists takes over the boulevard in front of the French embassy, demanding buses to go to Rafah When: Sunday, December 28, late evening. A group of French activists from the solidarity group EuroPalestine take over Mourad Street, the boulevard in front of the French Embassy in Cairo, next to the Four Seasons Hotel. They occupied the street with tents for 4 hours, stopping traffic, demanding buses to take them to the Gaza strip, forcing the French Ambassador to come and negotiate on their behalf. The French solidarity group Europalestine, part of the Gaza Freedom March, a group of 1,400 activists from 42 countries, congregated in Cairo after the Egyptian government barred their entry to the Gaza strip. The international coalition had intended to take part in a non-violent demonstration with 50,000 Palestinians to commemorate Israel’s Cast Lead operation and protest the ongoing blockade. When Egypt refused to give them permission to board buses for the Rafah crossing, the French group, over 300 strong, sprung into action, occupying Avenue Charles de Gaulle—Mourad Street—in front of the French Embassy and demanding that their ambassador take action. Dozens of armored police transport vehicles line the far side of the boulevard. Hundreds of riot cops with Plexiglas shields are blocking the French activists in. Red water cannons sit on the other side of the street. The French activists are talking with the riot police, asking them about their professions and their children. There are on-going negotiations, but they insist that they will not leave until they have buses that will take them to Rafah. According to Olivia Zemor, the coordinator of the French group, “we are waiting for the buses, we are staying in front of the French embassy, even if it’s not comfortable, it’s much more comfortable than Gaza.” The Gaza Freedom March coordinators have put out a call to action for all to join them in front of the French Embassy.
Peace,
Mike Baldwin
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Leading Iran cleric condemns Ashura deaths - Yahoo! News
TEHRAN (Reuters) – An opposition leader criticized Iran's hardline rulers on Monday for killing innocent people during a religious festival, a reformist website reported.
Police said five people died in Tehran when pro-reform protesters fought security forces on Sunday, the most violent clashes since a contested June 12 presidential vote sparked political turmoil across Iran.
"What has happened to this religious system that it orders the killing of innocent people during the holy day of Ashura?," moderate cleric Mehdi Karoubi, who came fourth in the election, said in a statement, the Jaras website reported.
"Why is such a holy day not respected by the rulers?"
Opposition websites said police opened fire on protesters in central Tehran. Eight people were killed in the capital and other Iranian cities when tens of thousands of opposition backers took to the streets, they said.
The deaths were the first in street protests since the immediate aftermath of the disputed June election.
Among the dead was opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi's nephew, whose death was described as a "martyrdom" by a Mousavi ally. State TV said "unknown assailants" killed Ali Habibi Mousavi Khamene.
Police said investigations were under way into the suspicious deaths and more than 300 protesters had been arrested in Tehran.
Jaras said police shot and killed four protesters in central Tehran and that unrest had spread to other parts of Iran, including the holy city of Qom, Shiraz, Isfahan, Najafabad, Mashhad and Babol.
The reports could not be independently verified because foreign media are banned from covering protests.
The White House condemned the "unjust suppression" of civilians by the Iranian government and said the United States was on the side of protesters.
UNREST ACROSS IRAN
The killings showed that the confrontation between the opposition and the clerical establishment had entered a volatile phase, in which the security forces appeared determined to stamp out the pro-reform movement.
The disputed re-election of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has plunged Iran into its biggest internal crisis since the 1979 Islamic revolution, exposing deepening divisions in its ruling elite and setting off a wave of protests that the opposition says left over 70 people dead.
Officials say the death toll was half that number.
The post-election turmoil has also made Iranian officials unable to resolve a dispute over Iran's nuclear program, which the West fears is a cover to build bombs. Iran denies this.
Authorities had strongly warned the opposition to avoid using the two-day Shi'ite Muslim Tasoua and Ashura festival over the weekend to revive protests against the clerical establishment.
This year's Ashura coincided with the seventh day of mourning for leading dissident cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who died a week ago at the age of 87 in Qom.
A spiritual patron of Mousavi's movement, he was a fierce critic of the hardline clerical establishment.
(Editing by Jon Boyle)
via news.yahoo.com
Facebook | Anniversary of the Gaza War
Anniversary of the Gaza War
The seige still continues!
Host: Type: Network:
Date: Time: Location: City/Town: Description
On Dec. 27th last year, Israel began their military offensive, Operation Cast Lead, on the people of Gaza. During their three week war on the occupied Gaza Strip, Israel killed more than 1,400 Palestinians, injured more than 5,000, and destroyed 4,000 buildings causing an estimated $2 billion in damage to civilian infrastructure.The war continues in Israel's illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip, denying 1.5 million civilians their right to food, clean water, electricity, and other necessities of life. Since the end of the three week military offensive in January, Israel has allowed only 41 truckloads of construction materials into the Gaza Strip. Thousands of truckloads of reconstruction materials are needed to rebuild the tens of thousands of homes, businesses, schools, mosques and other buildings destroyed and damaged during the war. As a result, thousands of Gaza residents are still living in tents, and the Strip’s economy remains in ruins.
Meanwhile, the United States is scheduled to provide Israel with $30 billion of weapons at taxpayer expense over the coming decade. At a time when millions of people in the US are being turned out of their homes due to foreclosures, why are we giving Israel billions of dollars to destroy Palestinian homes?
As we vigil, three St. Louisians are on their way to Gaza for the Gaza Freedom March, (ahttp://www.gazafreedommarch.) Most recent news has indicated that officials are going to refuse to allow the thousands of activists march.
Please join us as we stand in solidarity with the people of Gaza!
via facebook.com
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Elie Wiesel: Go with Us to Gaza! An Appeal to the Nobel Peace Laureate
Elie Wiesel: Go with Us to Gaza! An Appeal to the Nobel Peace Laureate
December 5th, 2009 Posted by Mark Chmiel<!--[endif]-->
In his 1986 address upon receiving the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize, Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel pointed out that, during the Holocaust, “the world did know and remained silent. And that is why I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant.”
Yet, on one of the great issues of our time, the Israel-Palestine conflict, Mr. Wiesel has not abided by the moral maxims he championed in the above address. For example, in the second volume of his memoirs, he admitted, “Indeed, I can say in good faith that I have not remained indifferent to any cause involving the defense of human rights. But, you may ask, what have I done to alleviate the plight of the Palestinians? And here I must confess: I have not done enough….In spite of considerable pressure, I have refused to take a public stand in the Israeli-Arab conflict. I have said it before: since I do not live in Israel, it would be irresponsible for me to do so.”
In recent years, we the undersigned have traveled to the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories—the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip—and have seen for ourselves the disturbing, heart-breaking, and outrageous effects of Israel’s domination and aggression against the Palestinian people, aided and abetted by the U.S. government and armaments corporations. December and January mark the one-year anniversary of Israel’s attack, which is described by the Goldstone Report of the United Nations as “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population.”
In the spirit of Mr. Wiesel’s call to interference, three people from the Metro area –Hedy Epstein, a Holocaust survivor; Sandra Mansour, a Palestinian activist; and J’Ann Allen, a grandmother and wife of a retired military officer—will leave for Gaza on December 26th to join over a thousand people from approximately 40 countries on the Gaza Freedom March [http://www.gazafreedommarch.org/]. Along with 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza, they will march to call attention to the ever-worsening humanitarian crisis there.
Hedy, Sandra, and J’Ann call on Mr. Wiesel to join them and bear witness to the suffering, humiliation, and torment caused by Israel’s indiscriminate violence:
Let us go, Mr. Wiesel, and listen to the lamentations of Palestinian parents who have lost their children, and the children who are now orphans;
Let us go, and stand amid the desolate ruins everywhere the eye can see—of destroyed homes, hospitals, clinics, factories, mosques, and schools;
Let us go, and interview a few of the tens of thousands of still homeless men, women, and children;
Let us go, and listen to the doctors’ heart-rending accounts of the misery and maiming inflicted on civilians by the munitions of the Israel Defense Forces;
Let us go, and walk with the farmers among their destroyed fields, greenhouses, and groves;
Let us go, Mr. Wiesel, and make eye contact with the Gazans who daily battle hunger and daily fight despair due to Israel’s inhumane siege.
Let us refuse neutrality. Let us not be silent.
May more of us be willing to turn the following words of Mr. Wiesel into concrete deeds of solidarity and witness: “When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant.”
Seeing is believing,
J’Ann Allen, Center for Theology and Social Analysis; adjunct instructor, Forest Park Community College
Anna Baltzer, Jewish American human rights advocate; author of Witness in Palestine
Barakat Barakat, SLU undergraduate
Sharifa Barakat, SLU alum, 2009
Mark Chmiel, Center for Theology and Social Analysis; adjunct professor, Saint Louis University
Hedy Epstein, Holocaust survivor; author of Remembering Is Not Enough; SLU alum
Daanish Faruqi, Graduate student, Washington University
Dianne Lee, Center for Theology and Social Analysis; professor, Forest Park Community College
Sandra Mansour, Georgetown University, Graduate School alum
Kelly McBride, Graduate student, American University at Cairo; SLU alum, 2006
Matthew Miller, Graduate student, Washington University
Angie O’Gorman, Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, Immigration Law Department; adjunct professor, Saint Louis University
Nima Sheth, SLU medical student; SLU alum, 2008
Magan Wiles, MFA student, University of Tennessee; SLU alum, 2004
via bookofmev.com
More on the St. Louis, MO Gaza Freedom Marchers.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w4wkR1IUUE8&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param></object>
Why I raised the last question. Head of Catholic Charities resigns - STLtoday.com
Head of Catholic Charities resignsST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
The president of Catholic Charities resigned last week — the second of the organization's leaders to quit within the last year and the latest in an exodus of officials to leave the nonprofit since the fall of 2008.The St. Louis Archdiocese did not announce publicly that Monsignor Mark Ullrich had resigned Dec. 15, but archdiocesan spokeswoman Elizabeth Westhoff confirmed the move Wednesday, and provided a statement from St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson.
Carlson said Ullrich "submitted his resignation to me with the request to return to parish work full time."
Ullrich did not return a call to his residence at the Cathedral Basilica seeking comment. The 57-year-old priest had replaced Catholic Charities' previous president, Thomas Mulhearn, in March. At the time Ullrich was the nonprofit's spiritual director. Ullrich also served as Catholic Charities' associate director in the 1980s.
via stltoday.com
Time for grassroots Catholic Charitable Org? Where Most Needed: St. Louis Bishop Reins in Catholic Charities
St. Louis Bishop Reins in Catholic Charities
A takeover of the charity's development office by the archdiocese leads to resignation of the board chair and at least three other board members.
The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports that acting St. Louis bishop Robert Herman has taken over the fund raising for the local Catholic Charities organization ("Bishop Robert Hermann locks horns with Catholic Charities officials," Tim Townsend, November 4, 2008). As a result, development director Dan Shasserre, board chair Kelley O'Malley and three other board members have resigned.
The paper reported that the memo outlining the change referred to an impasse between the charity board and the two previous bishops, Justin Rigali (now archbishop of Philadelphia) and Raymond Burke (now prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome). The memo suggested that board members who were not comfortable with the reorganization should resign.
James Gunn, one of the former board members was blunt about his reaction to the change, saying that the archdiocese officials "want to be able to solicit people for their own purposes," adding, "The social ministry of the church is not nearly as important to them as their far-right conservative Catholic agenda."
It is not surprising that the article discussing the reorganization in the local Catholic newspaper, the St. Louis Review, didn't mention the board resignations ("Efforts with Catholic Charities aimed at improving stewardship," Joseph Kenny, November 8, 2008.) .
We have previously reported that Archbishop Burke sought to implement a highly centralized accounting system for Catholic parishes ("St. Louis Archdiocese to Centralize Parish Accounting," January 13, 2007). The reorganization of Catholic Charities fund raising appears to be consistent with an overall policy of greater centralization and concern that everyone presenting themselves as Catholics present a single view.
But what puzzles me is whether this is something that is happening only in St. Louis, or whether it is just that the St. Louis Post Dispatch has been more willing to give prominence to stories relating to the local archdiocese.
St. Louis has been a frequent location of Catholic controversy over the past few years:
- The ongoing excommunication of member of the lay board of St. Stanislaus Kostka church who have refused a demand from the archdiocese to turn over control of the church property ("Two more St. Stan's members excommunicated," Tim Townsend, October 11, 2008).
- Criticism by former Archbishop Burke of an appearance by Sheryl Crowe at a 2007 fund raising event for the Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center. Ms. Crowe is an outspoken advocate of choice and campaigned for a Missouri constitutional amendment to promote stem-cell research. (YouTube video of Archbishop Burke's statement).
- Criticism by former Archbishop Burke of statements by St. Louis University basketball coach Rick Majerus in favor of choice and of stem cell research (Archbishop Burke addresses Catholic identity, St. Louis Review, February 8, 2008).
So much so that Archbishop Burke made a point of countering claims that he was kicked upstairs with his Vatican appointment in an interview with the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire (the same interview in which he described the Democratic party as the "party of death" for its positions on—you guessed it—choice and stem cell research.)
Still wondering if there is any interest in starting a new, separate from centralized archdiocesan control, Catholic charitable organization. Anyone?
Sisters savor benefit of 'mindful eating' - STLtoday.com
Sisters savor benefit of 'mindful eating'
From left, sisters Elisa Ryan, Lois Castillon, and Mary Lapping hold apples during opening prayerful meditation at the Franciscan Sisters of Our Lady of Perpetual Help headquarters in Kirkwood.ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
KIRKWOOD -- Most meditation is silent. A solitary act of turning inward. But sometimes, it's communal — and comes with a little crunch.At the Franciscan Sisters of Our Lady of Perpetual Help headquarters, about 90 people kicked off the Christmas season — a time of cookie trays, fruitcake and eggnog — with a prayer of sorts.
The group of lay people and sisters gathered in a room, each holding an apple slice. They were asked to focus on the slice as they listened to an essay read aloud on "mindful eating," written by a venerated Buddhist monk. Then, they were told to take a bite. They were encouraged to savor the moment. Slowly.
And the crunching of crisp apples broke through the quiet.
Great thoughts for the Holiday binge eating frenzy. Slow down, savor, reflect.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Books not Bombs: Pennies for Peace, My Charity of Choice for this Christmas
Welcome to Pennies for Peace, an international service-learning program with tens of thousands of participants around the globe. Pennies for Peace gives you the tools to open your world and empower communities through education in Pakistan and Afghanistan!
The Pennies for Peace service-learning program includes: a K-12 curriculum, linked to standards with an assessment tool; an implementation guide; fact sheets; printable maps, postcards, stickers & poster components; remarkable videos that open the world of Pennies for Peace; and much more!
By participating in Pennies for Peace you make a positive impact on a global scale, one penny at a time. While a penny is virtually worthless, in impoverished countries a penny buys a pencil and opens the door to literacy. Join Pennies for Peace and give lasting hope to children half a world away!
Pennies for Peace receives Mom’s Choice Award
Pennies for Peace is the 2009 recipient of the Mom’s Choice Award!
The Mom’s Choice Awards® is known for establishing the benchmark of excellence in family-friendly media, products and services. This annual competition recognizes authors, inventors, companies, parents and others for their efforts in creating quality family-friendly media products and services.
For more information, visit www.momschoiceawards.com
Three Cups of Tea
The #1 New York Times Bestseller Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace, One School At A Time, by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin, recounts the journey that led Greg Mortenson, Central Asia Institute co-founder, from a failed attempt to climb Pakistan’s K2 to successfully establish dozens of schools, and promote girls’ education in rural Afghanistan and Pakistan. Visit www.threecupsoftea.com for more information.Stones into Schools
Stones into Schools: Promoting Peace with Books, Not Bombs, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, by Greg Mortenson will be released on December 1, 2009. In this dramatic first-person narrative, Greg Mortenson picks up where Three Cups of Tea left off in 2003, recounting his relentless, ongoing efforts to establish schools for girls in Afghanistan; his extensive work in Azad Kashmir and Pakistan after a massive earthquake hit the region in 2005; and the unique ways he has built relationships with Islamic clerics, militia commanders, and tribal leaders even as he was dodging shootouts with feuding Afghan warlords and surviving an eight-day armed abduction by the Taliban. He shares for the first time his broader vision to promote peace through education and literacy, as well as touching on military matters, Islam, and women—all woven together with the many rich personal stories of the people who have been involved in this remarkable two-decade humanitarian effort. Visit www.stonesintoschools.com for more information.
Read Three Cups of Tea and support Books not Bombs
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Things will be better after the revolution! RT
If too big to fail and mandated purchase of health insurance and failed cap and trade and no action in Copenhagen and a never ending war on Terror and lobbyists speaking louder than citizens and lack of equal rights for same sex couples … doesn’t drive us to revolt, what will?
Things will be better after the revolution. But when is the revolution?
The Great Melting Pot is beginning to be the Great Boiling Over Pot. Frustration over failed policies and failed attempts at fixing failed policies has gone beyond simmer to near boiling and no one is watching the pot. I welcome a revolution. The tyranny of taxation without representation has now been replaced by the tyranny of the Corporate State.
We needn’t have feared that our President was a Nazi or Communist or Socialist. We needn’t have feared that Banks would fail or that Derivatives would be illegal, nor that Insurance companies would be driven from existence, since we are all supporters of Corporatism.
Corporatism and their lobbyists have played other special interest groups with fear and money. They have convinced many Americans that Corporations need to rule the land. They use money as puppet strings both for our elected officials and for leaders of special interest groups like Tea Partiers. Wake up America and throw off the shackles and strings and vote for what is best for us as a nation, not what is best for our corporations.
I have said over and over again recently that I am tired of hearing these words: “it’s the best we can get” and/or “we should take what we can get”, as if we need to have our demands met with a doling out of favors from our elected public servants. How long will we grovel for what we want instead of voting for those who support what we want. When we ask we are not asking of our elected officials, we are asking of ourselves. We don’t need their approval, we need their compliance to our demands.
Peace,
Mike Baldwin
Sandra Tamari: Why I'm Going to Gaza - Come with us to Gaza! Please RT
Sandra Tamari: Why I'm Going to Gaza
At a sending ceremony held Monday evening in St. Louis, Sandra Tamari offered the following reflections on her reasons for going to Gaza. Sandra used the pseudonym, Sandra Mansour, in the appeal to Elie Wiesel out of fear of being barred from future travel to Israel. She's changed her mind and wants to use her real name in connection with the Gaza Freedom March.
Why I’m going to Gaza
Because Palestine keeps me up at night
Because my kids are a "demographic threat"
Because I am not taken seriously because I am a Palestinian
Because anyone who does take me seriously is called an anti-semite
Or a self-hating Jew
Because I can’t imagine the anguish of the people there--
and because I can
Because I’ve lived comfortably for too long
Because an ice storm that cuts off electricity for a week leaves me
crazy and being a refugee for 61 years is too longBecause living comes from feeling deep hurt and love and not from
Christmas presentsBecause suffering makes us real
Because my community loves me
Because my family loves me
Because I love….
I am going because I belong to a strong and committed humanistic
tradition: Palestinian: Ghassan Kanafani, Mahmoud Darwish, Edward
Said, Suheir Hammad; and Quaker: Lucretia Mott, Walt Whitman, Rufus
Jones.Because others would do it for me
I am going to Gaza because Hedy is going...and she helps me tell
Palestinians that Jews are not devils or angels, they are human beingsI am going to Gaza because J'Ann is going and she helps me tell
Palestinians that Americans are not devils or angels, they are human
beings;and I know they will hold hands with those with broken souls and mourn with them
And finally because you, dear people, will be here waiting when we
return to listen to us, to cry with us and to help us know what to do
with our grace and our burden.
3 Saint Louisans are leaving on December 26 to join the Gaza Freedom March. This is the latest email information:
Dear Friend of CTSA,
Here are two important updates regarding the Gaza Freedom March.
1. Hedy Epstein and others from Egypt and Gaza will be on DEMOCRACY NOW! Thursday speaking about the upcoming Gaza Freedom March. You can listen to the program live between 7 and 8AM CST at http://www.democracynow.or.
2. Egypt has denied permission to the 1350 people from more than 40 countries to march from Cairo to the Gaza border. Details and a request for your action follow.
-------------------------
Please read and please, please take the actions outlined in this update from the Gaza Freedom March organizers. Please do this NOW and help us get to Gaza. Every call, every e-mail counts and will make this historic March possible. Please DO NOT let us down. Instead, CALL
- SEND e-mails, as often as you can. Send copies of your letters and emails to your Congresspeople and Senators.
Peace,
Hedy
Gaza Freedom March
UPDATE
December 21, 2009
We are determined to break the siege
We all will continue to do whatever we can to make it happen
*
*
Using the pretext of escalating tensions on the Gaza-Egypt border, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry informed us yesterday that the Rafah border will be closed over the coming weeks, into January. We responded that there is always tension at the border because of the siege, that we do not feel threatened, and that if there are any risks, they are risks we are willing to take. We also said that it was too late for over 1,300 delegates coming from over 42 countries to change their plans now. We both agreed to continue our exchanges.
Although we consider this as a setback, it is something we've encountered-and overcome--before. No delegation, large or small, that entered Gaza over the past 12 months has ever received a final OK before arriving at the Rafah border. Most delegations were discouraged from even heading out of Cairo to Rafah. Some had their buses stopped on the way. Some have been told outright that they could not go into Gaza. But after public and political pressure, the Egyptian government changed its position and let them pass.
Our efforts and plans will not be altered at this point. We have set out to break the siege of Gaza and march on December 31* against the Israeli blockade*. We are continuing in the same direction.
Egyptian embassies and missions all over the world must hear from us and our supporters (by phone, fax and email)** over the coming crucial days, with a clear message: Let the international delegation enter Gaza and let the Gaza Freedom March proceed.
Contact your local consulate here:
Portal/en-GB/mfa_websits/Contact the Palestine Division in Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Cairo Ahmed Azzam, tel +202-25749682 Email: ahmed.azzam@mfa.gov.eg
In the U.S., contact the Egyptian Embassy, 202-895-5400 and ask for Omar Youssef or email omaryoussef@hotmail.com
*You signed on to join the the Gaza Freedom March, that was the first step. Now call the Egyptian embassy and ask your elected official to call on your behalf. Contact your local media/press to tell them you are going to Gaza. Then pack your bags and come to Cairo ready to march with our brothers and sisters in Gaza. *
We look forward to seeing you all in the coming week.
The GFM Steering Committee
/
/
/* /* Sample text
I am writing/calling to express my full support for the December 31,
2009 Gaza Freedom March. I urge the Egyptian government to allow the 1,300 international delegates to enter the Gaza Strip through Egypt.
The aim of the march is to call on Israel to lift the siege. The delegates will also take in badly needed medical aid, as well as school supplies and winter jackets for the children of Gaza.
Please, let this historic March proceed.
Thank you.
--
If you want to be removed from ALL CTSA mailing lists:
http://www.ctsastl.org/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=f6439433ba127703f15b04e6874f7c87
To update your preferences or to unsubscribe from specific lists:
http://www.ctsastl.org/lists/?p=preferences&uid=f6439433ba127703f15b04e6874f7c87
To forward this message to a friend:
http://www.ctsastl.org/lists/?p=forward&uid=f6439433ba127703f15b04e6874f7c87&mid=112
Metro tax heads back to ballot in St. Louis County - STLtoday.com
Metro tax heads back to ballot in St. Louis CountyST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
CLAYTON — Metro officials say they will cut half of the agency's transit service in Missouri if St. Louis County voters reject a half-cent sales tax on April 6.The St. Louis County Council on Monday formally put that tax proposal on the ballot, allowing voters to decide whether to provide about $75 million a year to allow Metro to restore service cuts and expand the system. The vote was 4-3.
St. Louis County voters narrowly defeated a half-cent transit tax in November 2008.
Robert Baer, president and chief executive officer of the transit agency, said half the money from the tax would go to restore service and operate the agency and half for transit expansion.
via stltoday.com
Also check out this website for comments: http://www.nextstopstl.org/
My Year without a car: Aesthetics of Public Transportation
I hosted a friend from Baltimore over the past weekend. In keeping with my plan to not use a car for transit, we used Metro to get around and show her the city.
My spouse and I met her at the airport. Ninety-six pounds of luggage later, we boarded the Metrolink bound for the Civic Center Bus Depot to catch the #74 to my home. Though it was a struggle, it wasn’t bad. We got some stares, but mostly we received helpful suggestions. This friend had not ridden public transit in the United States, so could only compare our Saint Louis BiState/Metro to European systems. Soon she knew to ask for a transfer upon boarding. I use a 30-day pass.
Three of us then, took off for the evening to eat and explore the city. Earlier, I purchased two all-day Metro passes. One for T and one for our guest. These cost $7.50 each. In Kansas City, by comparison, they cost $3.00 each. We headed south on the #30 Soulard to the Civic Center Bus Stop (CCBS). Where we were met with a chorus of helpful suggestions as to the best way to get to Soulard via Metro. Even though we had planned our trip, we took the suggestion offered by a more experienced rider. Our guest was surprised at the friendliness of Saint Louisans, especially transit riders. Many, of course, also knew T and greeted her personally. After eating, we walked around the neighborhood like tourists. We then boarded a #30 Soulard and returned home to North city. The next day only two of us ventured out via Metro. We had a good time seeing the Arch, Central Business District, and parts of the Central West End. It was very cold and we did a lot of walking from bus stops to our eventual destinations, but all in all, it was a fine way to see the city.
Sunday, we returned to the airport. It was then, I noticed more than ever how unattractive much of the Metrolink corridor to the airport appeared. My friend didn’t comment, but it made me wonder why we were taking this route; for two reasons. First, it is not along any business corridor after Delmar Station. Second, it is ugly. From my perspective, most public transit should aim to get people near businesses and employment centers. Running a line up Natural Bridge or Page or even alongside I-170 makes more sense to me. I guess it is time for me to try to understand how routes are planned, especially those that are made permanent--with tracks.
Reporting live from the #32.
Peace,
Mike Baldwin
Monday, December 21, 2009
Been thinking about these remarks since a friend mentioned them last night: Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan | The White House
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate ReleaseDecember 01, 2009Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Eisenhower Hall Theatre, United States Military Academy at West Point, West Point, New York
8:01 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.
Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less.
This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.
But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.
Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.
We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is 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 access opportunity. (Applause.)
As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.)
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
America -- we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. (Applause.)
Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
END 8:35 P.M. EST
via whitehouse.gov
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
