ALWAYS HOPE FOR A BETTER FUTURE!
Follow the News with an open mind.
Never stop asking to find out the truth!
Criticisms / Disagreements lead to a better future.
Participation of all is the key.
This page is also a way to improve your English.
Be critical of the current president
Although it’s been five decades, Claude Summers and Ted-Larry Pebworth still remember perfectly the night they met.
The two were in the Boulevard Lounge, a gay bar in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, in the summer of 1963—six years before riots at the Stonewall
Inn in New York City effectively launched the modern gay rights
movement. Ted was a 27-year-old Ph.D. candidate at Louisiana State
University. Claude was 18, home for the summer after finishing his
freshman year at UCLA.
“He accuses me of robbing the cradle,” said Ted, now 77, in his Southern drawl. “It was pretty much love at first sight.”
As Claude tells it, the most important decision he anticipated having
to make that summer was whether to major in English or pre-law. He
never could have imagined the man who bought him a beer that night and
talked to him about Tennessee Williams would eventually become his
spouse.
On Thursday, nearly 50 years to the day after they first met, Claude
and Ted are tying the knot. Not only will the wedding commemorate their
golden anniversary—a time when most couples would be renewing their
vows, not saying them for the first time—but it will also mark the Supreme Court rulings on two historic marriage equality cases.
For the couple whose relationship has spanned the entire gay rights
movement, the decision to marry bridges the political with the deeply
personal.
“We just decided that marriage was something both public and
private,” said Claude, now 68, whose Louisiana accent rivals that of his
soon-to-be spouse. “We don’t need the government for our private
relationship, but we wanted to stand with our community and have our
relationship honored the same way heterosexual relationships are.”
Claude and Ted are now back in Louisiana, retired after 30-year
careers as English professors at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.
But their wedding will be held in Provincetown, Massachusetts—the first
state to legalize marriage equality through a state Supreme Court ruling
nearly a decade ago. Though Louisiana does not recognize same-sex
marriages, even those which took place in states that do, the decision
to marry in Massachusetts seemed “very natural,” said the couple.
“I was struck by the Goodridge decision, in which the
Massachusetts Supreme Court said there can be no second-class citizens,
and therefore only marriage would suffice,” said Claude. “So we see it
as not only public affirmation for our love to one another, but as a way
of asserting our right to first-class citizenship.”
“There is value in having your relationship authorized, in a way,”
said Ted. “Especially for gays, who have been denied that right. So
that’s the thing I’m most happy about.”
Thursday’s wedding will gather about 40 friends from the couple’s happy life together.
Ted grew up in Homer, Louisiana, “one of the buckles on the
Bible belt,” as he describes it. His mother found it hard to accept her
son’s sexuality. She used to send Ted newspaper clippings of raids on
gay bars. But Ted’s father was surprisingly supportive, even insisting
that his son and Claude share a room the first time they came home
together for the weekend.
“I never regretted being gay,” said Ted. “I thought everybody should just let me alone, and I’d let them alone.”
Claude, who grew up in Gonzales, Louisiana, said his mother was welcoming, too.
It wasn’t until after 1970 that the couple faced real homophobia that
threatened the relationship. The pair was living in Chicago when Claude
received a teaching job offer in California. Ted accepted a position
there as well. But shortly after, Claude’s offer was rescinded when his
employer found out about his sexuality, and the couple was forced to
spend a year away from each other.
“I think that was the most difficult time,” said Ted. “Just being alone.”
Claude took a job at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, and a year
later, so did Ted. The two flourished there, even receiving a
distinguished professorship as a couple after both were nominated.
“It worked out well for us, because we wound up being very happy at
the University of Michigan-Dearborn,” said Claude. “We lived normally
with a great deal of support. Beyond some isolated incidents, we thought
we were very well accepted as a couple.”
In 2001, the pair retired to New Orleans, where they now live with
two rescue beagles, who they reluctantly placed in a kennel for their
wedding. Both are editors of glbtq.com, a website devoted to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer culture.
“We’ve been through it all,” said Ted. They’ve marched in gay pride
parades from New York City to San Francisco and are pleased with the
progress the gay rights movement has made.
“I’m not happy with how long it’s taken, but it’s certainly a lot
better now than it was then,” said Ted. “I wish it would move faster.”
Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of
Marriage Act, a 1996 law which did not recognize same-sex marriages on a
federal level. Writing the decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy said DOMA
violated gay Americans’ equal protection under the law and is thus
unconstitutional.
The Court ruling struck down the part of DOMA that prevented the
federal government from giving same-sex couples access to thousands of
federal benefits. Under this decision, Claude and Ted will now be
entitled to receive some of those benefits, because they legally married
in Massachusetts. But other benefits—such as tax breaks for married
couples, and Social Security survivors’ benefits—depend on where the
couple currently lives, which in Claude and Ted’s case is Louisiana.
Since the Supreme Court did not issue a broad ruling in the Proposition 8
case, Louisiana will continue to not recognize Claude and Ted’s
marriage, and they will lose out on some of those valuable federal
benefits.
Nevertheless, the couple still believes their wedding will carry significant meaning and hope for the future.
“I don’t want to weep,” said Claude, trying to articulate how he will
feel when finally marrying his partner of 50 years. “We know we’ve
loved each other and have been able to do so without ever being married,
but also having the community blessing that is involved in marriage
adds something. It may be intangible but it’s real.”
At the famous Oxford Union, Mehdi Hasan challenges former top
financial regulator Lord Adair Turner on the role of the banks, the
politics behind austerity and whether capitalism has failed.
It seems that mistakes made in Wall Street and the City of London are
paid for by people around the world, but can we govern greed within the
realm of capitalism or is it all just money down the drain? Is
austerity really needed? Can we trust the banks?
I think we, as authorities, central banks, regulators, those who are
involved today, are the inheritors of a 50-year-long, large intellectual
and policy mistake.
Lord Turner
Lord Turner said: “I’m not an egalitarian, I’m not a socialist, but I
am worried about the sheer extent of the inequality that’s now growing.
I think finance is part of that story.”
Lord Turner was at the helm of the UK’s Financial Services Authority
(FSA) in the wake of the financial meltdown and is now trying to find
ground-breaking solutions to global problems at the Institute of New
Economic Thinking. Hasan challenges a man at the heart of rethinking the
global economic system about his past experience, his present thoughts,
and our future.
“I am concerned that we have not been radical enough in our reform,” concluded Lord Turner.
But he also sounded a note of hope based on some of the new ideas and
policies coming out from previously orthodox bastions of economic
thinking.
Joining our discussion are: Jon Moulton, a venture capitalist and the
founder of the private equity firm Better Capital. He has nurtured a
reputation for forthrightness even to point of challenging his private
equity peers for abusing tax regimes. He is also one of the few men in
the City of London who warned about the impending crash before it
happened; Professor Costas Lapavitsas, who teaches economics at the
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of
London and is the author of several notable books on the crash and its
consequences including Crisis in the Eurozone and Financialisation in Crisis; and
Ann Pettifor, the director of PRIME (Policy Research in
Macroeconomics), and a fellow of the New Economics Foundation. She was
one of the first to warn about the debt crisis in her book The Coming First World Debt Crisis, and is also well-known for her leadership of the successful worldwide campaign to cancel developing world debt - Jubilee 2000.
Hi everybody. A few days ago, I unveiled a new national plan to confront the growing threat of a changing climate.
Decades of carefully reviewed science tells us our planet
is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on the world we
leave to our children. Already, we know that the 12 warmest years in
recorded history have all come in the last 15, and that last year was
the warmest in American history. And while we know no single weather
event is caused solely by climate change, we also know that in a world
that’s getting warmer than it used to be, all weather events are
affected by it – more extreme droughts, floods, wildfires, and
hurricanes.
Those who already feel the effects of a changing climate
don’t have time to deny it – they’re busy dealing with it. The
firefighters who brave longer wildfire seasons. The farmers who see
crops wilted one year, and washed away the next. Western families
worried about water that’s drying up.
The cost of these events can be measured in lost lives and
livelihoods, lost homes and businesses, and hundreds of billions of
dollars in emergency services and disaster relief. And Americans across
the country are already paying the price of inaction in higher food
costs, insurance premiums, and the tab for rebuilding.
The question is not whether we need to act. The question is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late.
The national Climate Action Plan I unveiled will cut
carbon pollution, protect our country from the impacts of climate
change, and lead the world in a coordinated assault on a changing
climate.
To reduce carbon pollution, I’ve directed the
Environmental Protection Agency to work with states and businesses to
set new standards that put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon
pollution from our power plants. We’ll use more clean energy and waste
less energy throughout our economy.
To prepare Americans for the impacts of climate change we
can’t stop, we’ll work with communities to build smarter, more resilient
infrastructure to protect our homes and businesses, and withstand more
powerful storms.
And America will lead global efforts to combat the threat
of a changing climate by encouraging developing nations to transition to
cleaner sources of energy, and by engaging our international partners
in this fight – for while we compete for business, we also share a
planet. And we must all shoulder the responsibility for its future
together.
This is the fight America can and will lead in the 21st
century. But it will require all of us, as citizens, to do our part.
We’ll need scientists to design new fuels, and farmers to grow them.
We’ll need engineers to devise new technologies, and businesses to make
and sell them. We’ll need workers to man assembly lines that hum with
high-tech, zero-carbon components, and builders to hammer into place the
foundations for a new clean energy age. We’ll need to give special
care to people and communities unsettled by this transition. And those
of us in positions of responsibility will need to be less concerned with
the judgment of special interests and well-connected donors, and more
concerned with the judgment of our children.
If you agree with me, I’ll need you to act. Educate your
classmates and colleagues, your family and friends. Speak up in your
communities. Remind everyone who represents you, at every level of
government, that there is no contradiction between a sound environment
and a strong economy – and that sheltering future generations against
the ravages of climate change is a prerequisite for your vote.
We will be judged – as a people, as a society, and as a
country – on where we go from here. The plan I have put forward to
reduce carbon pollution and protect our country from the effects of
climate change is the path we need to take. And if we remember what’s
at stake – the world we leave to our children – I’m convinced that this
is a challenge that we will meet.
Jodie Laubenberg thinks rape kits are the
same thing as abortions, says they allow women to "get cleaned out"
By Katie McdonoughSource:Salon
Leaflets printed with Bible verses littered the desks of Texas
lawmakers early Monday as House Republicans voted to approve a sweeping
abortion measure that, if passed, would shutter 37 of the state’s 42
abortion clinics.
Senate bill 5 aims to ban abortion after 20
weeks, force clinic doctors to hold admitting privileges at nearby
hospitals and restrict abortions to surgical centers, measures that
opponents say will virtually outlaw the procedure in the state and deny
thousands of women vital medical care.
“If this passes, abortion
would be virtually banned in the state of Texas, and many women could be
forced to resort to dangerous and unsafe measures,” Cecile Richards,
president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement. The
Texas Medical Association, the Texas Hospital Association and the
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also oppose the
measure.
Hundreds of protesters filled the Capitol building on
Sunday to voice their opposition to the measure, while House Democrats
tried to delay the vote by drawing out the debate and adding amendments
to alter the bill.
As reported
by Chris Tomlinson at the Associated Press, one such amendment would
have called for an exemption to the ban in cases of rape and incest;
state Rep. Jodie Laubenberg, R-Parker, felt such an exception was
unnecessary because “in the emergency room they have what’s called rape
kits where a woman can get cleaned out,” she said, incorrectly comparing
the procedure to collect physical evidence after a sexual assault to an
abortion. “The woman had five months to make that decision, at this
point we are looking at a baby that is very far along in its
development.”
Following the exchange, Laubenberg, who is also the
bill’s sponsor and a member of the state’s public health committee,
rejected all proposed changes to the measure. House Republicans then
forced a vote. The measure passed 97-33.
Senate Democrats said they will try to stage a filibuster until the special legislative session ends at midnight Tuesday night.
The
US Supreme Court has ruled that legally married same-sex couples should
get the same benefits as heterosexual couples, in a major victory for
the gay rights movement.
The court on Wednesday invalidated a provision of the federal Defence
of Marriage Act (DOMA) that has prevented married gay couples from
receiving a range of tax, health and retirement benefits that are
generally available to married people.
The vote was 5-4.
Same-sex marriage has been adopted by 12 states and the District of
Columbia. Another 18,000 couples were married in California during a
brief period when same-sex unions were legal there.
Gay marriage in California
The Supreme Court also cleared the way for new same-sex marriages in
California by holding that defenders of California's gay marriage ban
did not have the right to appeal lower court rulings striking down the
ban.
The court's vote on Wednesday leaves in place the initial trial court declaration that the ban is unconstitutional.
Al Jazeera's Kimberly Halkett, reporting from Washington DC, said gay
rights called it a landmark day and a real turning point in terms of
recognition under US law.
"The court ruled that Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996,
is unconstitutional and 'denies a single group of people protection
under the fifth amendment of US constitution," our correspondent said.
"The court also ruled that Proposition 8 which passed in November
2008 California state elections does not have jurisdiction and that
means - with less clarity - same sex marriage would be allowed to
continue in California."
California officials probably will rely on the ruling to allow the resumption of same-sex unions in about a month's time.
The high court itself said nothing about the validity of gay marriage bans in California and roughly three dozen other states.
Same-sex couples burdened
"Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by
reason of government decree, in visible and public ways," Kennedy said.
"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned
marriages and make them unequal," he said. He was joined by the court's
four liberal judges.
Chief Judge John Roberts and Judges Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Scalia read his dissent aloud. He said the court should not have decided the case.
But, given that it did, he said, "we have no power under the
Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation".
The law was passed in 1996 by broad majorities in the House of
Representatives and the Senate, and signed into law by Democratic
President Bill Clinton.
Since then, many politicians who voted for the law and Clinton have renounced their support.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! (Applause.) Thank you, Georgetown!
Thank you so much. Everybody, please be seated. And my first
announcement today is that you should all take off your jackets.
(Laughter.) I’m going to do the same. (Applause.) It’s not that sexy,
now. (Laughter.)
It is good to be back on campus, and it is a great privilege to speak
from the steps of this historic hall that welcomed Presidents going
back to George Washington.
I want to thank your president, President DeGioia, who’s here
today. (Applause.) I want to thank him for hosting us. I want to
thank the many members of my Cabinet and my administration. I want to
thank Leader Pelosi and the members of Congress who are here. We are
very grateful for their support.
And I want to say thank you to the Hoyas in the house for having me
back. (Applause.) It was important for me to speak directly to your
generation, because the decisions that we make now and in the years
ahead will have a profound impact on the world that all of you inherit.
On Christmas Eve, 1968, the astronauts of Apollo 8 did a live
broadcast from lunar orbit. So Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, William Anders
-- the first humans to orbit the moon -– described what they saw, and
they read Scripture from the Book of Genesis to the rest of us back
here. And later that night, they took a photo that would change the way
we see and think about our world.
It was an image of Earth -– beautiful; breathtaking; a glowing marble
of blue oceans, and green forests, and brown mountains brushed with
white clouds, rising over the surface of the moon.
And while the sight of our planet from space might seem routine
today, imagine what it looked like to those of us seeing our home, our
planet, for the first time. Imagine what it looked like to children
like me. Even the astronauts were amazed. “It makes you realize,”
Lovell would say, “just what you have back there on Earth.”
And around the same time we began exploring space, scientists were
studying changes taking place in the Earth’s atmosphere. Now,
scientists had known since the 1800s that greenhouse gases like carbon
dioxide trap heat, and that burning fossil fuels release those gases
into the air. That wasn’t news. But in the late 1950s, the National
Weather Service began measuring the levels of carbon dioxide in our
atmosphere, with the worry that rising levels might someday disrupt the
fragile balance that makes our planet so hospitable. And what they’ve
found, year after year, is that the levels of carbon pollution in our
atmosphere have increased dramatically.
That science, accumulated and reviewed over decades, tells us that
our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on all of
humankind.
The 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15
years. Last year, temperatures in some areas of the ocean reached
record highs, and ice in the Arctic shrank to its smallest size on
record -- faster than most models had predicted it would. These are
facts.
Now, we know that no single weather event is caused solely by climate
change. Droughts and fires and floods, they go back to ancient times.
But we also know that in a world that’s warmer than it used to be, all
weather events are affected by a warming planet. The fact that sea
level in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a
century ago -- that didn’t cause Hurricane Sandy, but it certainly
contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest
city dark and underwater.
The potential impacts go beyond rising sea levels. Here at home,
2012 was the warmest year in our history. Midwest farms were parched by
the worst drought since the Dust Bowl, and then drenched by the wettest
spring on record. Western wildfires scorched an area larger than the
state of Maryland. Just last week, a heat wave in Alaska shot
temperatures into the 90s.
And we know that the costs of these events can be measured in lost
lives and lost livelihoods, lost homes, lost businesses, hundreds of
billions of dollars in emergency services and disaster relief. In fact,
those who are already feeling the effects of climate change don’t have
time to deny it -- they’re busy dealing with it. Firefighters are
braving longer wildfire seasons, and states and federal governments have
to figure out how to budget for that. I had to sit on a meeting with
the Department of Interior and Agriculture and some of the rest of my
team just to figure out how we're going to pay for more and more
expensive fire seasons.
Farmers see crops wilted one year, washed away the next; and the
higher food prices get passed on to you, the American consumer.
Mountain communities worry about what smaller snowpacks will mean for
tourism -- and then, families at the bottom of the mountains wonder what
it will mean for their drinking water. Americans across the country
are already paying the price of inaction in insurance premiums, state
and local taxes, and the costs of rebuilding and disaster relief.
So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming
judgment of science -- of chemistry and physics and millions of
measurements -- has put all that to rest. Ninety-seven percent of
scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the
data, have now put that to rest. They've acknowledged the planet is
warming and human activity is contributing to it.
So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before
it’s too late. And how we answer will have a profound impact on the
world that we leave behind not just to you, but to your children and to
your grandchildren.
As a President, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act. (Applause.)
I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a
planet that’s beyond fixing. And that’s why, today, I'm announcing a
new national climate action plan, and I'm here to enlist your
generation's help in keeping the United States of America a leader -- a
global leader -- in the fight against climate change.
This plan builds on progress that we've already made. Last year, I
took office -- the year that I took office, my administration pledged to
reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions by about 17 percent from
their 2005 levels by the end of this decade. And we rolled up our
sleeves and we got to work. We doubled the electricity we generated from
wind and the sun. We doubled the mileage our cars will get on a gallon
of gas by the middle of the next decade. (Applause.)
Here at Georgetown, I unveiled my strategy for a secure energy
future. And thanks to the ingenuity of our businesses, we're starting
to produce much more of our own energy. We're building the first
nuclear power plants in more than three decades -- in Georgia and South
Carolina. For the first time in 18 years, America is poised to produce
more of our own oil than we buy from other nations. And today, we
produce more natural gas than anybody else. So we're producing energy.
And these advances have grown our economy, they've created new jobs,
they can't be shipped overseas -- and, by the way, they've also helped
drive our carbon pollution to its lowest levels in nearly 20 years.
Since 2006, no country on Earth has reduced its total carbon pollution
by as much as the United States of America. (Applause.)
So it's a good start. But the reason we're all here in the heat today is because we know we've got more to do.
In my State of the Union address, I urged Congress to come up with a
bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one that
Republican and Democratic senators worked on together a few years ago.
And I still want to see that happen. I'm willing to work with anyone to
make that happen.
But this is a challenge that does not pause for partisan gridlock.
It demands our attention now. And this is my plan to meet it -- a plan
to cut carbon pollution; a plan to protect our country from the impacts
of climate change; and a plan to lead the world in a coordinated assault
on a changing climate. (Applause.)
This plan begins with cutting carbon pollution by changing the way we
use energy -- using less dirty energy, using more clean energy, wasting
less energy throughout our economy.
Forty-three years ago, Congress passed a law called the Clean Air Act
of 1970. (Applause.) It was a good law. The reasoning behind it was
simple: New technology can protect our health by protecting the air we
breathe from harmful pollution. And that law passed the Senate
unanimously. Think about that -- it passed the Senate unanimously. It
passed the House of Representatives 375 to 1. I don’t know who the one
guy was -- I haven’t looked that up. (Laughter.) You can barely get
that many votes to name a post office these days. (Laughter.)
It was signed into law by a Republican President. It was later
strengthened by another Republican President. This used to be a
bipartisan issue.
Six years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are
pollutants covered by that same Clean Air Act. (Applause.) And they
required the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, to determine
whether they’re a threat to our health and welfare. In 2009, the EPA
determined that they are a threat to both our health and our welfare in
many different ways -- from dirtier air to more common heat waves --
and, therefore, subject to regulation.
Today, about 40 percent of America’s carbon pollution comes from our
power plants. But here’s the thing: Right now, there are no federal
limits to the amount of carbon pollution that those plants can pump into
our air. None. Zero. We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like
mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air or our water, but power plants
can still dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air for
free. That’s not right, that’s not safe, and it needs to stop.
(Applause.)
So today, for the sake of our children, and the health and safety of
all Americans, I’m directing the Environmental Protection Agency to put
an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power
plants, and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing
power plants. (Applause.)
I’m also directing the EPA to develop these standards in an open and
transparent way, to provide flexibility to different states with
different needs, and build on the leadership that many states, and
cities, and companies have already shown. In fact, many power companies
have already begun modernizing their plants, and creating new jobs in
the process. Others have shifted to burning cleaner natural gas instead
of dirtier fuel sources.
Nearly a dozen states have already implemented or are implementing
their own market-based programs to reduce carbon pollution. More than
25 have set energy efficiency targets. More than 35 have set renewable
energy targets. Over 1,000 mayors have signed agreements to cut carbon
pollution. So the idea of setting higher pollution standards for our
power plants is not new. It’s just time for Washington to catch up with
the rest of the country. And that's what we intend to do. (Applause.)
Now, what you’ll hear from the special interests and their allies in
Congress is that this will kill jobs and crush the economy, and
basically end American free enterprise as we know it. And the reason I
know you'll hear those things is because that's what they said every
time America sets clear rules and better standards for our air and our
water and our children’s health. And every time, they've been wrong.
For example, in 1970, when we decided through the Clean Air Act to do
something about the smog that was choking our cities -- and, by the
way, most young people here aren't old enough to remember what it was
like, but when I was going to school in 1979-1980 in Los Angeles, there
were days where folks couldn't go outside. And the sunsets were
spectacular because of all the pollution in the air.
But at the time when we passed the Clean Air Act to try to get rid of
some of this smog, some of the same doomsayers were saying new
pollution standards will decimate the auto industry. Guess what -- it
didn’t happen. Our air got cleaner.
In 1990, when we decided to do something about acid rain, they said
our electricity bills would go up, the lights would go off, businesses
around the country would suffer -- I quote -- “a quiet death.” None of
it happened, except we cut acid rain dramatically.
See, the problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it
suggests a fundamental lack of faith in American business and American
ingenuity. (Applause.) These critics seem to think that when we ask
our businesses to innovate and reduce pollution and lead, they can't or
they won't do it. They'll just kind of give up and quit. But in
America, we know that’s not true. Look at our history.
When we restricted cancer-causing chemicals in plastics and leaded
fuel in our cars, it didn’t end the plastics industry or the oil
industry. American chemists came up with better substitutes. When we
phased out CFCs -- the gases that were depleting the ozone layer -- it
didn’t kill off refrigerators or air-conditioners or deodorant.
(Laughter.) American workers and businesses figured out how to do it
better without harming the environment as much.
The fuel standards that we put in place just a few years ago didn’t
cripple automakers. The American auto industry retooled, and today, our
automakers are selling the best cars in the world at a faster rate than
they have in five years -- with more hybrid, more plug-in, more
fuel-efficient cars for everybody to choose from. (Applause.)
So the point is, if you look at our history, don’t bet against
American industry. Don’t bet against American workers. Don’t tell
folks that we have to choose between the health of our children or the
health of our economy. (Applause.)
The old rules may say we can’t protect our environment and promote
economic growth at the same time, but in America, we’ve always used new
technologies -- we’ve used science; we’ve used research and development
and discovery to make the old rules obsolete.
Today, we use more clean energy –- more renewables and natural gas -–
which is supporting hundreds of thousands of good jobs. We waste less
energy, which saves you money at the pump and in your pocketbooks. And
guess what -- our economy is 60 percent bigger than it was 20 years ago,
while our carbon emissions are roughly back to where they were 20 years
ago.
So, obviously, we can figure this out. It’s not an either/or; it’s a
both/and. We’ve got to look after our children; we have to look after
our future; and we have to grow the economy and create jobs. We can do
all of that as long as we don’t fear the future; instead we seize it.
(Applause.)
And, by the way, don’t take my word for it -- recently, more than 500
businesses, including giants like GM and Nike, issued a Climate
Declaration, calling action on climate change “one of the great economic
opportunities of the 21st century.” Walmart is working to cut its
carbon pollution by 20 percent and transition completely to renewable
energy. (Applause.) Walmart deserves a cheer for that. (Applause.)
But think about it. Would the biggest company, the biggest retailer in
America -- would they really do that if it weren’t good for business, if
it weren’t good for their shareholders?
A low-carbon, clean energy economy can be an engine of growth for
decades to come. And I want America to build that engine. I want
America to build that future -- right here in the United States of
America. That’s our task. (Applause.)
Now, one thing I want to make sure everybody understands -- this does
not mean that we’re going to suddenly stop producing fossil fuels. Our
economy wouldn’t run very well if it did. And transitioning to a clean
energy economy takes time. But when the doomsayers trot out the old
warnings that these ambitions will somehow hurt our energy supply, just
remind them that America produced more oil than we have in 15 years.
What is true is that we can’t just drill our way out of the energy and
climate challenge that we face. (Applause.) That’s not possible.
I put forward in the past an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but
our energy strategy must be about more than just producing more oil.
And, by the way, it’s certainly got to be about more than just building
one pipeline. (Applause.)
Now, I know there’s been, for example, a lot of controversy
surrounding the proposal to build a pipeline, the Keystone pipeline,
that would carry oil from Canadian tar sands down to refineries in the
Gulf. And the State Department is going through the final stages of
evaluating the proposal. That’s how it’s always been done. But I do
want to be clear: Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a
finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest. And our
national interest will be served only if this project does not
significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. (Applause.)
The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be
absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go
forward. It’s relevant.
Now, even as we’re producing more domestic oil, we’re also producing
more cleaner-burning natural gas than any other country on Earth. And,
again, sometimes there are disputes about natural gas, but let me say
this: We should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer
because, in the medium term at least, it not only can provide safe,
cheap power, but it can also help reduce our carbon emissions.
Federally supported technology has helped our businesses drill more
effectively and extract more gas. And now, we'll keep working with the
industry to make drilling safer and cleaner, to make sure that we're not
seeing methane emissions, and to put people to work modernizing our
natural gas infrastructure so that we can power more homes and
businesses with cleaner energy.
The bottom line is natural gas is creating jobs. It's lowering many
families' heat and power bills. And it's the transition fuel that can
power our economy with less carbon pollution even as our businesses work
to develop and then deploy more of the technology required for the even
cleaner energy economy of the future.
And that brings me to the second way that we're going to reduce
carbon pollution -- by using more clean energy. Over the past four
years, we've doubled the electricity that we generate from zero-carbon
wind and solar power. (Applause.) And that means jobs -- jobs
manufacturing the wind turbines that now generate enough electricity to
power nearly 15 million homes; jobs installing the solar panels that now
generate more than four times the power at less cost than just a few
years ago.
I know some Republicans in Washington dismiss these jobs, but those
who do need to call home -- because 75 percent of all wind energy in
this country is generated in Republican districts. (Laughter.) And that
may explain why last year, Republican governors in Kansas and Oklahoma
and Iowa -- Iowa, by the way, a state that harnesses almost 25 percent
of its electricity from the wind -- helped us in the fight to extend tax
credits for wind energy manufacturers and producers. (Applause.) Tens
of thousands good jobs were on the line, and those jobs were worth the
fight.
And countries like China and Germany are going all in in the race for
clean energy. I believe Americans build things better than anybody
else. I want America to win that race, but we can't win it if we're not
in it. (Applause.)
So the plan I'm announcing today will help us double again our energy
from wind and sun. Today, I'm directing the Interior Department to
green light enough private, renewable energy capacity on public lands to
power more than 6 million homes by 2020. (Applause.)
The Department of Defense -- the biggest energy consumer in America
-- will install 3 gigawatts of renewable power on its bases, generating
about the same amount of electricity each year as you'd get from burning
3 million tons of coal. (Applause.)
And because billions of your tax dollars continue to still subsidize
some of the most profitable corporations in the history of the world, my
budget once again calls for Congress to end the tax breaks for big oil
companies, and invest in the clean-energy companies that will fuel our
future. (Applause.)
Now, the third way to reduce carbon pollution is to waste less energy
-- in our cars, our homes, our businesses. The fuel standards we set
over the past few years mean that by the middle of the next decade, the
cars and trucks we buy will go twice as far on a gallon of gas. That
means you’ll have to fill up half as often; we’ll all reduce carbon
pollution. And we built on that success by setting the first-ever
standards for heavy-duty trucks and buses and vans. And in the coming
months, we’ll partner with truck makers to do it again for the next
generation of vehicles.
Meanwhile, the energy we use in our homes and our businesses and our
factories, our schools, our hospitals -- that’s responsible for about
one-third of our greenhouse gases. The good news is simple upgrades
don’t just cut that pollution; they put people to work -- manufacturing
and installing smarter lights and windows and sensors and appliances.
And the savings show up in our electricity bills every month --
forever. That’s why we’ve set new energy standards for appliances like
refrigerators and dishwashers. And today, our businesses are building
better ones that will also cut carbon pollution and cut consumers’
electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars.
That means, by the way, that our federal government also has to lead
by example. I’m proud that federal agencies have reduced their
greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15 percent since I took office.
But we can do even better than that. So today, I’m setting a new goal:
Your federal government will consume 20 percent of its electricity from
renewable sources within the next seven years. We are going to set
that goal. (Applause.)
We’ll also encourage private capital to get off the sidelines and get
into these energy-saving investments. And by the end of the next
decade, these combined efficiency standards for appliances and federal
buildings will reduce carbon pollution by at least three billion tons.
That’s an amount equal to what our entire energy sector emits in nearly
half a year.
So I know these standards don’t sound all that sexy, but think of it
this way: That’s the equivalent of planting 7.6 billion trees and
letting them grow for 10 years -- all while doing the dishes. It is a
great deal and we need to be doing it. (Applause.)
So using less dirty energy, transitioning to cleaner sources of
energy, wasting less energy through our economy is where we need to go.
And this plan will get us there faster. But I want to be honest --
this will not get us there overnight. The hard truth is carbon
pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades now. And even if
we Americans do our part, the planet will slowly keep warming for some
time to come. The seas will slowly keep rising and storms will get more
severe, based on the science. It's like tapping the brakes of a car
before you come to a complete stop and then can shift into reverse.
It's going to take time for carbon emissions to stabilize.
So in the meantime, we're going to need to get prepared. And that’s
why this plan will also protect critical sectors of our economy and
prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change that we
cannot avoid. States and cities across the country are already taking
it upon themselves to get ready. Miami Beach is hardening its water
supply against seeping saltwater. We’re partnering with the state of
Florida to restore Florida’s natural clean water delivery system -- the
Everglades.
The overwhelmingly Republican legislature in Texas voted to spend money
on a new water development bank as a long-running drought cost jobs and
forced a town to truck in water from the outside.
New York City is fortifying its 520 miles of coastline as an
insurance policy against more frequent and costly storms. And what
we’ve learned from Hurricane Sandy and other disasters is that we’ve got
to build smarter, more resilient infrastructure that can protect our
homes and businesses, and withstand more powerful storms. That means
stronger seawalls, natural barriers, hardened power grids, hardened
water systems, hardened fuel supplies.
So the budget I sent Congress includes funding to support communities
that build these projects, and this plan directs federal agencies to
make sure that any new project funded with taxpayer dollars is built to
withstand increased flood risks.
And we’ll partner with communities seeking help to prepare for
droughts and floods, reduce the risk of wildfires, protect the dunes and
wetlands that pull double duty as green space and as natural storm
barriers. And we'll also open our climate data and NASA climate imagery
to the public, to make sure that cities and states assess risk under
different climate scenarios, so that we don’t waste money building
structures that don’t withstand the next storm.
So that's what my administration will do to support the work already
underway across America, not only to cut carbon pollution, but also to
protect ourselves from climate change. But as I think everybody here
understands, no nation can solve this challenge alone -- not even one as
powerful as ours. And that’s why the final part of our plan calls on
America to lead -- lead international efforts to combat a changing
climate. (Applause.)
And make no mistake -- the world still looks to America to lead.
When I spoke to young people in Turkey a few years ago, the first
question I got wasn't about the challenges that part of the world
faces. It was about the climate challenge that we all face, and
America's role in addressing it. And it was a fair question, because as
the world's largest economy and second-largest carbon emitter, as a
country with unsurpassed ability to drive innovation and scientific
breakthroughs, as the country that people around the world continue to
look to in times of crisis, we've got a vital role to play. We can't
stand on the sidelines. We've got a unique responsibility. And the
steps that I've outlined today prove that we're willing to meet that
responsibility.
Though all America's carbon pollution fell last year, global carbon
pollution rose to a record high. That’s a problem. Developing
countries are using more and more energy, and tens of millions of people
entering a global middle class naturally want to buy cars and
air-conditioners of their own, just like us. Can't blame them for
that. And when you have conversations with poor countries, they'll say,
well, you went through these stages of development -- why can't we?
But what we also have to recognize is these same countries are also
more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than we are. They
don’t just have as much to lose, they probably have more to lose.
Developing nations with some of the fastest-rising levels of carbon
pollution are going to have to take action to meet this challenge
alongside us. They're watching what we do, but we've got to make sure
that they're stepping up to the plate as well. We compete for business
with them, but we also share a planet. And we have to all shoulder the
responsibility for keeping the planet habitable, or we're going to
suffer the consequences -- together.
So to help more countries transitioning to cleaner sources of energy
and to help them do it faster, we're going to partner with our private
sector to apply private sector technological know-how in countries that
transition to natural gas. We’ve mobilized billions of dollars in
private capital for clean energy projects around the world.
Today, I'm calling for an end of public financing for new coal plants
overseas -- (applause) -- unless they deploy carbon-capture
technologies, or there's no other viable way for the poorest countries
to generate electricity. And I urge other countries to join this
effort.
And I'm directing my administration to launch negotiations toward
global free trade in environmental goods and services, including clean
energy technology, to help more countries skip past the dirty phase of
development and join a global low-carbon economy. They don’t have to
repeat all the same mistakes that we made. (Applause.)
We've also intensified our climate cooperation with major emerging
economies like India and Brazil, and China -- the world’s largest
emitter. So, for example, earlier this month, President Xi of China and
I reached an important agreement to jointly phase down our production
and consumption of dangerous hydrofluorocarbons, and we intend to take
more steps together in the months to come. It will make a difference.
It’s a significant step in the reduction of carbon emissions.
(Applause.)
And finally, my administration will redouble our efforts to engage
our international partners in reaching a new global agreement to reduce
carbon pollution through concrete action. (Applause.)
Four years ago, in Copenhagen, every major country agreed, for the
first time, to limit carbon pollution by 2020. Two years ago, we
decided to forge a new agreement beyond 2020 that would apply to all
countries, not just developed countries.
What we need is an agreement that’s ambitious -- because that’s what
the scale of the challenge demands. We need an inclusive agreement -–
because every country has to play its part. And we need an agreement
that’s flexible -- because different nations have different needs. And
if we can come together and get this right, we can define a sustainable
future for your generation.
So that’s my plan. (Applause.) The actions I’ve announced today
should send a strong signal to the world that America intends to take
bold action to reduce carbon pollution. We will continue to lead by the
power of our example, because that’s what the United States of America
has always done.
I am convinced this is the fight America can, and will, lead in the
21st century. And I’m convinced this is a fight that America must
lead. But it will require all of us to do our part. We’ll need
scientists to design new fuels, and we’ll need farmers to grow new
fuels. We’ll need engineers to devise new technologies, and we’ll need
businesses to make and sell those technologies. We’ll need workers to
operate assembly lines that hum with high-tech, zero-carbon components,
but we’ll also need builders to hammer into place the foundations for a
new clean energy era.
We’re going to need to give special care to people and communities
that are unsettled by this transition -- not just here in the United
States but around the world. And those of us in positions of
responsibility, we’ll need to be less concerned with the judgment of
special interests and well-connected donors, and more concerned with the
judgment of posterity. (Applause.) Because you and your children, and
your children’s children, will have to live with the consequences of
our decisions.
As I said before, climate change has become a partisan issue, but it
hasn’t always been. It wasn’t that long ago that Republicans led the
way on new and innovative policies to tackle these issues. Richard
Nixon opened the EPA. George H.W. Bush declared -- first U.S. President
to declare -- “human activities are changing the atmosphere in
unexpected and unprecedented ways.” Someone who never shies away from a
challenge, John McCain, introduced a market-based cap-and-trade bill to
slow carbon pollution.
The woman that I’ve chosen to head up the EPA, Gina McCarthy, she’s
worked -- (applause) -- she’s terrific. Gina has worked for the EPA in
my administration, but she’s also worked for five Republican governors.
She’s got a long track record of working with industry and business
leaders to forge common-sense solutions. Unfortunately, she’s being
held up in the Senate. She’s been held up for months, forced to jump
through hoops no Cabinet nominee should ever have to –- not because she
lacks qualifications, but because there are too many in the Republican
Party right now who think that the Environmental Protection Agency has
no business protecting our environment from carbon pollution. The
Senate should confirm her without any further obstruction or delay.
(Applause.)
But more broadly, we’ve got to move beyond partisan politics on this
issue. I want to be clear -- I am willing to work with anybody –-
Republicans, Democrats, independents, libertarians, greens -– anybody --
to combat this threat on behalf of our kids. I am open to all sorts of
new ideas, maybe better ideas, to make sure that we deal with climate
change in a way that promotes jobs and growth.
Nobody has a monopoly on what is a very hard problem, but I don’t
have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real.
(Applause.) We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth
Society. (Applause.) Sticking your head in the sand might make you
feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.
And ultimately, we will be judged as a people, and as a society, and as a
country on where we go from here.
Our founders believed that those of us in positions of power are
elected not just to serve as custodians of the present, but as
caretakers of the future. And they charged us to make decisions with an
eye on a longer horizon than the arc of our own political careers.
That’s what the American people expect. That’s what they deserve.
And someday, our children, and our children’s children, will look at
us in the eye and they'll ask us, did we do all that we could when we
had the chance to deal with this problem and leave them a cleaner,
safer, more stable world? And I want to be able to say, yes, we did.
Don’t you want that? (Applause.)
Americans are not a people who look backwards; we're a people who
look forward. We're not a people who fear what the future holds; we
shape it. What we need in this fight are citizens who will stand up,
and speak up, and compel us to do what this moment demands.
Understand this is not just a job for politicians. So I'm going to
need all of you to educate your classmates, your colleagues, your
parents, your friends. Tell them what’s at stake. Speak up at town
halls, church groups, PTA meetings. Push back on misinformation. Speak
up for the facts. Broaden the circle of those who are willing to stand
up for our future. (Applause.)
Convince those in power to reduce our carbon pollution. Push your
own communities to adopt smarter practices. Invest. Divest.
(Applause.) Remind folks there's no contradiction between a sound
environment and strong economic growth. And remind everyone who
represents you at every level of government that sheltering future
generations against the ravages of climate change is a prerequisite for
your vote. Make yourself heard on this issue. (Applause.)
I understand the politics will be tough. The challenge we must
accept will not reward us with a clear moment of victory. There’s no
gathering army to defeat. There's no peace treaty to sign. When
President Kennedy said we’d go to the moon within the decade, we knew
we’d build a spaceship and we’d meet the goal. Our progress here will
be measured differently -- in crises averted, in a planet preserved.
But can we imagine a more worthy goal? For while we may not live to see
the full realization of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of
knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for
what we did.
“It makes you realize,” that astronaut said all those years ago,
“just what you have back there on Earth.” And that image in the
photograph, that bright blue ball rising over the moon’s surface,
containing everything we hold dear -- the laughter of children, a quiet
sunset, all the hopes and dreams of posterity -- that’s what’s at
stake. That’s what we’re fighting for. And if we remember that, I’m
absolutely sure we'll succeed.
Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
The controversial Canadian author Irshad Manji discusses Islamophobia and the need to reform Islam.
Head to Head is Al Jazeera’s new forum of ideas - a
gladiatorial contest tackling big issues such as faith, the economic
crisis, democracy and intervention in front of an opinionated audience
at the Oxford Union
Source: Al Jazeera
Is there really a problem with Islam today? Critics see Muslim women
as downtrodden and sectarian conflict dominates the headlines, but for
many Muslims this is a gross misrepresentation.
In this episode of Head to Head at the Oxford Union, Mehdi Hasan challenges controversial Canadian author Irshad Manji, writer of The Trouble with Islam Today and also Allah, Liberty and Love on the need to reform Islam, the notion of Ijtihad, the problem of Islamophobia and what Muslims need to own-up to.
Manji is an author and broadcaster, but also the director of the
Moral Courage Project. She strongly believes that Islam needs reform.
Mehdi Hasan challenges Irshad, asking where the problem lies, and
whether critics sometimes encourage Islamophobia.
“Muslims are the trouble with Islam today,” says Manji. “We have
allowed tribal culture to colonise the faith of Islam. It’s the
behaviour of Muslims that defines, in every generation, what Islam is.”
And joining the discussion are: Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra who was elected
as an assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain in
2008 and who is also the chair of the Inter Faith Relations Committee,
and serves as an imam and scholar in Leicester; Halla Diyab, an
award-winning Syrian writer, filmmaker, broadcaster and women's rights
activist, and the author of controversial TV dramas such as Beautiful Maidens and Your Rightful Disposal; and Myriam Francois-Cerrah, an academic and journalist focusing on Islamic movements and political culture.
Hi everybody. Right now, the United States Senate is debating a
bipartisan, commonsense bill that would be an important step toward
fixing our broken immigration system.
It’s a bill that would continue to strengthen security at our
borders, and hold employers more accountable if they knowingly hire
undocumented workers, so they won’t have an unfair advantage over
businesses that follow the law.
It’s a bill that would modernize the legal immigration system so
that, as we train American workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we’re also
attracting the highly skilled entrepreneurs and engineers who grow our
economy for everyone.
It’s a bill that would provide a pathway to earned citizenship for
the 11 million individuals who are in this country illegally – a pathway
that includes passing a background check, learning English, paying
taxes and a penalty, then going to the back of the line behind everyone
trying to come here legally.
And, a few days ago, a report from the Congressional Budget Office
definitively showed that this bipartisan, commonsense bill will help the
middle class grow our economy and shrink our deficits, by making sure
that every worker in America plays by the same set of rules and pays
taxes like everyone else.
According to this independent report, reforming our immigration
system would reduce our deficits by almost a trillion dollars over the
next two decades. And it will boost our economy by more than 5 percent,
in part because of businesses created, investments made, and
technologies invented by immigrants.
This comes on the heels of another report from the independent office
that monitors Social Security’s finances, which says that this
immigration bill would actually strengthen the long-term health and
solvency of Social Security for future generations.
Because with this bill, millions of additional people will start
paying more in taxes for things like Social Security and education.
That’ll make the economy fairer for middle-class families.
So that’s what comprehensive immigration reform looks like. Stronger
enforcement. A smarter legal immigration system. A pathway to earned
citizenship. A more vibrant, growing economy that’s fairer on the
middle class. And a more stable fiscal future for our kids.
Now, the bill isn’t perfect. It’s a compromise. Nobody is going to
get everything they want – not Democrats, not Republicans, not me. But
it’s consistent with the principles that I and others have laid out for
commonsense reform. That’s why Republicans and Democrats, CEOs and
labor leaders, are saying that now is the time to pass this bill. If
you agree with us, reach out to your Senators and Representatives. Tell
them that the time for excuses is over; it’s time to fix our broken
immigration system once and for all.
We can do this, because we are a nation of laws and a nation of
immigrants; a place enriched by the contributions of people from all
over the world, and stronger for it. That’s been the story of America
from the start. Let’s keep it going. Thanks, and have a great weekend.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Hello, Berlin! (Applause.) Thank you, Chancellor
Merkel, for your leadership, your friendship, and the example of your
life -- from a child of the East to the leader of a free and united
Germany.
As I’ve said, Angela and I don’t exactly look like previous German and
American leaders. But the fact that we can stand here today, along the
fault line where a city was divided, speaks to an eternal truth: No
wall can stand against the yearning of justice, the yearnings for
freedom, the yearnings for peace that burns in the human heart.
(Applause.)
Mayor Wowereit, distinguished guests, and especially the people of
Berlin and of Germany -- thank you for this extraordinarily warm
welcome. In fact, it's so warm and I feel so good that I'm actually
going to take off my jacket, and anybody else who wants to, feel free
to. (Applause.) We can be a little more informal among friends.
(Applause.)
As your Chancellor mentioned, five years ago I had the privilege to
address this city as senator. Today, I'm proud to return as President
of the United States. (Applause.) And I bring with me the enduring
friendship of the American people, as well as my wife, Michelle, and
Malia and Sasha. (Applause.) You may notice that they're not here.
The last thing they want to do is to listen to another speech from me.
(Laughter.) So they're out experiencing the beauty and the history of
Berlin. And this history speaks to us today.
Here, for thousands of years, the people of this land have journeyed
from tribe to principality to nation-state; through Reformation and
Enlightenment, renowned as a “land of poets and thinkers,” among them
Immanuel Kant, who taught us that freedom is the “unoriginated
birthright of man, and it belongs to him by force of his humanity.”
Here, for two centuries, this gate stood tall as the world around it
convulsed -- through the rise and fall of empires; through revolutions
and republics; art and music and science that reflected the height of
human endeavor, but also war and carnage that exposed the depths of
man’s cruelty to man.
It was here that Berliners carved out an island of democracy against
the greatest of odds. As has already been mentioned, they were
supported by an airlift of hope, and we are so honored to be joined by
Colonel Halvorsen, 92 years old -- the original “candy bomber.” We
could not be prouder of him. (Applause.) I hope I look that good, by
the way, when I'm 92. (Laughter.)
During that time, a Marshall Plan seeded a miracle, and a North
Atlantic Alliance protected our people. And those in the neighborhoods
and nations to the East drew strength from the knowledge that freedom
was possible here, in Berlin -- that the waves of crackdowns and
suppressions might therefore someday be overcome.
Today, 60 years after they rose up against oppression, we remember the
East German heroes of June 17th. When the wall finally came down, it
was their dreams that were fulfilled. Their strength and their passion,
their enduring example remind us that for all the power of militaries,
for all the authority of governments, it is citizens who choose whether
to be defined by a wall, or whether to tear it down. (Applause.)
And we’re now surrounded by the symbols of a Germany reborn. A rebuilt
Reichstag and its glistening glass dome. An American embassy back at
its historic home on Pariser Platz. (Applause.) And this square
itself, once a desolate no man’s land, is now open to all. So while I
am not the first American President to come to this gate, I am proud to
stand on its Eastern side to pay tribute to the past. (Applause.)
For throughout all this history, the fate of this city came down to a
simple question: Will we live free or in chains? Under governments
that uphold our universal rights, or regimes that suppress them? In
open societies that respect the sanctity of the individual and our free
will, or in closed societies that suffocate the soul?
As free peoples, we stated our convictions long ago. As Americans, we
believe that “all men are created equal” with the right to life and
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And as Germans, you declared in
your Basic Law that “the dignity of man is inviolable.” (Applause.)
Around the world, nations have pledged themselves to a Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes the inherent dignity and
rights of all members of our human family.
And this is what was at stake here in Berlin all those years. And
because courageous crowds climbed atop that wall, because corrupt
dictatorships gave way to new democracies, because millions across this
continent now breathe the fresh air of freedom, we can say, here in
Berlin, here in Europe -- our values won. Openness won. Tolerance
won. And freedom won here in Berlin. (Applause.)
And yet, more than two decades after that triumph, we must acknowledge
that there can, at times, be a complacency among our Western
democracies. Today, people often come together in places like this to
remember history -- not to make it. After all, we face no concrete
walls, no barbed wire. There are no tanks poised across a border.
There are no visits to fallout shelters. And so sometimes there can be a
sense that the great challenges have somehow passed. And that brings
with it a temptation to turn inward -- to think of our own pursuits, and
not the sweep of history; to believe that we’ve settled history’s
accounts, that we can simply enjoy the fruits won by our forebears.
But I come here today, Berlin, to say complacency is not the character
of great nations. Today’s threats are not as stark as they were half a
century ago, but the struggle for freedom and security and human dignity
-- that struggle goes on. And I’ve come here, to this city of hope,
because the tests of our time demand the same fighting spirit that
defined Berlin a half-century ago.
Chancellor Merkel mentioned that we mark the anniversary of President
John F. Kennedy’s stirring defense of freedom, embodied in the people of
this great city. His pledge of solidarity -- “Ich bin ein Berliner” --
(applause) -- echoes through the ages. But that’s not all that he said
that day. Less remembered is the challenge that he issued to the crowd
before him: “Let me ask you,” he said to those Berliners, “let me ask
you to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today” and “beyond the
freedom of merely this city.” Look, he said, “to the day of peace with
justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.”
President Kennedy was taken from us less than six months after he spoke
those words. And like so many who died in those decades of division,
he did not live to see Berlin united and free. Instead, he lives
forever as a young man in our memory. But his words are timeless
because they call upon us to care more about things than just our own
self-comfort, about our own city, about our own country. They demand
that we embrace the common endeavor of all humanity.
And if we lift our eyes, as President Kennedy called us to do, then
we’ll recognize that our work is not yet done. For we are not only
citizens of America or Germany -- we are also citizens of the world.
And our fates and fortunes are linked like never before.
We may no longer live in fear of global annihilation, but so long as
nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe. (Applause.) We may
strike blows against terrorist networks, but if we ignore the
instability and intolerance that fuels extremism, our own freedom will
eventually be endangered. We may enjoy a standard of living that is the
envy of the world, but so long as hundreds of millions endure the agony
of an empty stomach or the anguish of unemployment, we’re not truly
prosperous. (Applause.)
I say all this here, in the heart of Europe, because our shared past
shows that none of these challenges can be met unless we see ourselves
as part of something bigger than our own experience. Our alliance is
the foundation of global security. Our trade and our commerce is the
engine of our global economy. Our values call upon us to care about the
lives of people we will never meet. When Europe and America lead with
our hopes instead of our fears, we do things that no other nations can
do, no other nations will do. So we have to lift up our eyes today and
consider the day of peace with justice that our generation wants for
this world.
I'd suggest that peace with justice begins with the example we set here
at home, for we know from our own histories that intolerance breeds
injustice. Whether it's based on race, or religion, gender or sexual
orientation, we are stronger when all our people -- no matter who they
are or what they look like -- are granted opportunity, and when our
wives and our daughters have the same opportunities as our husbands and
our sons. (Applause.)
When we respect the faiths practiced in our churches and synagogues,
our mosques and our temples, we're more secure. When we welcome the
immigrant with his talents or her dreams, we are renewed. (Applause.)
When we stand up for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and treat
their love and their rights equally under the law, we defend our own
liberty as well. We are more free when all people can pursue their own
happiness. (Applause.) And as long as walls exist in our hearts to
separate us from those who don’t look like us, or think like us, or
worship as we do, then we're going to have to work harder, together, to
bring those walls of division down.
Peace with justice means free enterprise that unleashes the talents and
creativity that reside in each of us; in other models, direct economic
growth from the top down or relies solely on the resources extracted
from the earth. But we believe that real prosperity comes from our most
precious resource -- our people. And that’s why we choose to invest in
education, and science and research. (Applause.)
And now, as we emerge from recession, we must not avert our eyes from
the insult of widening inequality, or the pain of youth who are
unemployed. We have to build new ladders of opportunity in our own
societies that -- even as we pursue new trade and investment that fuels
growth across the Atlantic.
America will stand with Europe as you strengthen your union. And we
want to work with you to make sure that every person can enjoy the
dignity that comes from work -- whether they live in Chicago or
Cleveland or Belfast or Berlin, in Athens or Madrid, everybody deserves
opportunity. We have to have economies that are working for all people,
not just those at the very top. (Applause.)
Peace with justice means extending a hand to those who reach for
freedom, wherever they live. Different peoples and cultures will follow
their own path, but we must reject the lie that those who live in
distant places don’t yearn for freedom and self-determination just like
we do; that they don’t somehow yearn for dignity and rule of law just
like we do. We cannot dictate the pace of change in places like the
Arab world, but we must reject the excuse that we can do nothing to
support it. (Applause.)
We cannot shrink from our role of advancing the values we believe in --
whether it's supporting Afghans as they take responsibility for their
future, or working for an Israeli-Palestinian peace -- (applause) -- or
engaging as we've done in Burma to help create space for brave people to
emerge from decades of dictatorship. In this century, these are the
citizens who long to join the free world. They are who you were. They
deserve our support, for they too, in their own way, are citizens of
Berlin. And we have to help them every day. (Applause.)
Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without
nuclear weapons -- no matter how distant that dream may be. And so, as
President, I've strengthened our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear
weapons, and reduced the number and role of America’s nuclear weapons.
Because of the New START Treaty, we’re on track to cut American and
Russian deployed nuclear warheads to their lowest levels since the
1950s. (Applause.)
But we have more work to do. So today, I’m announcing additional steps
forward. After a comprehensive review, I’ve determined that we can
ensure the security of America and our allies, and maintain a strong and
credible strategic deterrent, while reducing our deployed strategic
nuclear weapons by up to one-third. And I intend to seek negotiated
cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures. (Applause.)
At the same time, we’ll work with our NATO allies to seek bold
reductions in U.S. and Russian tactical weapons in Europe. And we can
forge a new international framework for peaceful nuclear power, and
reject the nuclear weaponization that North Korea and Iran may be
seeking.
America will host a summit in 2016 to continue our efforts to secure
nuclear materials around the world, and we will work to build support in
the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,
and call on all nations to begin negotiations on a treaty that ends the
production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. These are steps we
can take to create a world of peace with justice. (Applause.)
Peace with justice means refusing to condemn our children to a harsher,
less hospitable planet. The effort to slow climate change requires
bold action. And on this, Germany and Europe have led.
In the United States, we have recently doubled our renewable energy
from clean sources like wind and solar power. We’re doubling fuel
efficiency on our cars. Our dangerous carbon emissions have come down.
But we know we have to do more -- and we will do more. (Applause.)
With a global middle class consuming more energy every day, this must
now be an effort of all nations, not just some. For the grim
alternative affects all nations -- more severe storms, more famine and
floods, new waves of refugees, coastlines that vanish, oceans that
rise. This is the future we must avert. This is the global threat of
our time. And for the sake of future generations, our generation must
move toward a global compact to confront a changing climate before it is
too late. That is our job. That is our task. We have to get to
work. (Applause.)
Peace with justice means meeting our moral obligations. And we have a
moral obligation and a profound interest in helping lift the
impoverished corners of the world. By promoting growth so we spare a
child born today a lifetime of extreme poverty. By investing in
agriculture, so we aren’t just sending food, but also teaching farmers
to grow food. By strengthening public health, so we’re not just sending
medicine, but training doctors and nurses who will help end the outrage
of children dying from preventable diseases. Making sure that we do
everything we can to realize the promise -- an achievable promise -- of
the first AIDS-free generation. That is something that is possible if
we feel a sufficient sense of urgency. (Applause.)
Our efforts have to be about more than just charity. They’re about new
models of empowering people -- to build institutions; to abandon the
rot of corruption; to create ties of trade, not just aid, both with the
West and among the nations they’re seeking to rise and increase their
capacity. Because when they succeed, we will be more successful as
well. Our fates are linked, and we cannot ignore those who are yearning
not only for freedom but also prosperity.
And finally, let’s remember that peace with justice depends on our
ability to sustain both the security of our societies and the openness
that defines them. Threats to freedom don’t merely come from the
outside. They can emerge from within -- from our own fears, from the
disengagement of our citizens.
For over a decade, America has been at war. Yet much has now changed
over the five years since I last spoke here in Berlin. The Iraq war is
now over. The Afghan war is coming to an end. Osama bin Laden is no
more. Our efforts against al Qaeda are evolving.
And given these changes, last month, I spoke about America’s efforts
against terrorism. And I drew inspiration from one of our founding
fathers, James Madison, who wrote, “No nation could preserve its freedom
in the midst of continual warfare.” James Madison is right -- which is
why, even as we remain vigilant about the threat of terrorism, we must
move beyond a mindset of perpetual war. And in America, that means
redoubling our efforts to close the prison at Guantanamo. (Applause.)
It means tightly controlling our use of new technologies like drones.
It means balancing the pursuit of security with the protection of
privacy. (Applause.)
And I'm confident that that balance can be struck. I'm confident of
that, and I'm confident that working with Germany, we can keep each
other safe while at the same time maintaining those essential values for
which we fought for.
Our current programs are bound by the rule of law, and they're focused
on threats to our security -- not the communications of ordinary
persons. They help confront real dangers, and they keep people safe
here in the United States and here in Europe. But we must accept the
challenge that all of us in democratic governments face: to listen to
the voices who disagree with us; to have an open debate about how we use
our powers and how we must constrain them; and to always remember that
government exists to serve the power of the individual, and not the
other way around. That’s what makes us who we are, and that’s what
makes us different from those on the other side of the wall.
(Applause.)
That is how we'll stay true to our better history while reaching for
the day of peace and justice that is to come. These are the beliefs
that guide us, the values that inspire us, the principles that bind us
together as free peoples who still believe the words of Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. -- that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere." (Applause.)
And we should ask, should anyone ask if our generation has the courage
to meet these tests? If anybody asks if President Kennedy's words ring
true today, let them come to Berlin, for here they will find the people
who emerged from the ruins of war to reap the blessings of peace; from
the pain of division to the joy of reunification. And here, they will
recall how people trapped behind a wall braved bullets, and jumped
barbed wire, and dashed across minefields, and dug through tunnels, and
leapt from buildings, and swam across the Spree to claim their most
basic right of freedom. (Applause.)
The wall belongs to history. But we have history to make as well. And
the heroes that came before us now call to us to live up to those
highest ideals -- to care for the young people who can't find a job in
our own countries, and the girls who aren't allowed to go to school
overseas; to be vigilant in safeguarding our own freedoms, but also to
extend a hand to those who are reaching for freedom abroad.
This is the lesson of the ages. This is the spirit of Berlin. And the
greatest tribute that we can pay to those who came before us is by
carrying on their work to pursue peace and justice not only in our
countries but for all mankind.
Vielen Dank. (Applause.) God bless you. God bless the peoples of
Germany. And God bless the United States of America. Thank you very
much. (Applause.)
A government initiative aimed at saving
money by eliminating paper checks is hurting some recipients of federal
benefits while earning the bank that operates the program millions in
fees charged to consumers.
The U.S. Treasury Department has been urging people who collect
Social Security and other benefits to switch to direct deposit rather
than rely on mailed checks, to save millions of dollars a year in
administrative costs.
But beneficiaries without bank accounts — and even some who do have
accounts — are being pressured into using prepaid debit cards offered by
Comerica Bank, an effort that is shifting costs to elderly people, veterans and other vulnerable consumers.
The Treasury Department launched the program in 2008, teaming up with
the Dallas-based bank to issue the “Direct Express” debit cards in a
deal that lacked the open competition or transparency of most federal
contracts.
The exclusive agreement — whose financial details are not public —
was then renegotiated to make it more lucrative for the bank while
Treasury took over responsibilities that were originally Comerica’s.
Now millions of poor people who rely on Social Security and
Supplemental Security Income are using debit cards that may be
ill-suited to their needs and can cost them more than paper checks or
direct deposit to a bank account.
Meanwhile, Treasury is saving money and Comerica is booking profits.
“To stand in the way of the purpose of the programs is appalling, and that’s really what they’re doing,” says Rebecca Vallas, a Philadelphia attorney who represents federal benefits recipients.
The Senate Special Committee on Aging is holding a hearing Wednesday
on the Treasury program and Treasury’s inspector general, its
independent, internal watchdog, is looking into the Comerica deal.
Paper or plastic?
It costs the U.S. government $1.05 to print and mail a check, compared with 9 cents for an electronic transfer, according to testimony last year by Richard Gregg, Treasury’s fiscal assistant secretary, who is set to testify at Wednesday’s hearing.
Congress in 1996 ordered Treasury to eliminate paper checks from the
federal payments system within three years. That mandate, however, gave
the department broad leeway to waive the requirement where it didn’t
make sense or would impose hardship.
In 2010, more than 85 percent of all federal payments were
electronic, and Treasury officials decided to make a final push to
eliminate the remaining checks by March of this year. By then most
people on Social Security or SSI were having their payments deposited
directly into their bank accounts. Others received benefits on debit
payment cards offered by private companies — a choice that can lead to
heavy fees.
People who choose to keep receiving paper checks are generally
elderly or poor or both, and don’t have bank accounts or access to bank
branches. Some mistrust banks because of abuses and failures they
observed during the Great Depression or the recent financial crisis.
Others may not understand how electronic payments work.
Treasury didn’t have a good option for them, so it sought a low-cost
payment card, eventually selecting Comerica to provide Direct Express.
Government prepaid cards are a fast-growing industry. At least $100
billion was distributed in 2011 on cards for 158 federal, state and
local governments’ payment programs, according to a Federal Reserve study
published last July. The cards are similar to those issued with
checking accounts, but don’t always offer the same consumer protections.
Comerica has issued 9 million government payments cards, including
more than 4 million Direct Express cards, making it the second-biggest
issuer, according to recent investor presentations. Other top issuers of
cards used by states and other governments to deliver payments to
consumers include Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, U.S. Bancorp and
Citigroup.
Comerica offered to issue the Direct Express cards at no cost to
Treasury, spend millions to market them and charge consumers lower fees
than most privately issued prepaid cards.
Comerica offered one free ATM withdrawal per month.
Treasury pressure
In January 2011, the government began an all-out push to move the
10.4 million people who were still receiving paper checks to electronic
payments, an effort that could eventually save $119 million per year.
Treasury resorted to tactics that advocates for the elderly and
disabled say were too pushy and sometimes misleading. Notices papered
the walls of Social Security offices and advertisements looped on the
offices’ closed circuit televisions, urging people to go electronic,
according to Vallas.
A large countdown clock dominated the government’s main webpage for
people seeking information about the change, indicating down to the
second how long people had before their benefits “may be delivered on
Direct Express.”
Government fliers and websites said anyone who failed to use the card
or arrange direct deposit would be on the wrong side of the law.
“Switching to an electronic payment is not optional — it’s the law,”
said David Lebryk, commissioner of Commissioner of the Bureau of the
Fiscal Service, in a January press release titled “Time is Running Out.”
In January and February, Treasury mailed thousands of the cards to
poor, elderly and disabled people who had not requested them, hoping
they would activate them anyway.
A Treasury official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss
the program candidly, said the department tried to send cards to people
living in low-income neighborhoods, because they are less likely to have
bank accounts.
People who received cards without requesting them had already
received two written notices urging them to pick an electronic payment
method. The high-pressure appeals were necessary, Treasury officials
say, to get the attention of Americans who cling to paper checks despite
decades of opportunities to embrace direct deposit.
Customer service employees were trained to get people to accept
Direct Express, regardless of whether it was the best option for them,
according to interviews with call center employees who spoke on
condition of anonymity and a Center for Public Integrity review of
transcripts and recordings of calls to Treasury’s call center.
Operators provided inaccurate information on seven of 10 calls placed
in February by a former call center worker who conducted a personal
investigation because he was unhappy with how the call center was
operated. The worker spoke on condition of anonymity because he had
agreed not to discuss it as a condition of employment.
On at least five calls, operators denied that certain groups were
allowed to keep receiving paper checks. Several said people who failed
to switch to electronic payments would be mailed a card automatically
after the March 1 deadline. One told the caller that using direct
deposit to a bank account “would incur more fees” than enrolling in
Direct Express.
A February memo instructed the call center workers not to offer
waivers to callers, allowing them to continue to receive paper checks,
“unless they specifically ask for one.” When callers insist they qualify
and want to obtain a waiver, operators should transfer the call to a
group that would provide that information “ONLY AS A LAST RESORT,” says
the memo.
The aggressive campaign worked. By the agency’s self-imposed deadline
of March 1, 2013, it had cut the number of paper checks to 3.5 million,
saving the government about $79 million per year. If the remaining
holdouts went electronic, the government could save another $40 million
per year.
Juliet Carter was one of the people who were persuaded to enroll in
Direct Express. The 57-year-old former cook, who was living on
government disability benefits after being hit by a car five years ago,
was spooked by the notices that accompanied her checks urging her to
sign up for Direct Express or risk being “out of compliance with the
law.”
She phoned the number listed on the flyers and switched to the card.
Within months, identity thieves had redirected her benefits to a
different account and stolen six months of her income. She was evicted
from her apartment and has spent the past few months renting rooms in
houses or staying with her sister.
“I’ve learned I can’t trust those cards,” said Carter. She says she
prefers a paper check because “it comes direct from Social Security to
the mailbox to me, and I feel safer.”
Treasury says the cards are far less susceptible to fraud than paper checks.
In a prepared statement, Treasury spokeswoman Suzanne Elio said,
“Electronic payment provides federal beneficiaries a safer, more secure,
and convenient method of receiving their benefits as compared to paper
check payments, which are considerably more vulnerable to fraud.”
The agency “took great care” in implementing the electronic payment
system and sought to provide “strong consumer protections” for people
without bank accounts, Elio said.
Social Security and SSI are meant to provide people with secure and
accessible income, says Vallas. “They don’t exist for the sake of
administrative efficiency or meeting arbitrary number targets.”
Fees mount
Direct Express’ fees are lower than those on most payment cards.
Still, they can eat into the benefits of people like Juliet Carter who
are living on fixed incomes, often far from banks or ATMs that
participate in the Direct Express network.
To get a month’s worth of cash can require three or four ATM
transactions because of limits on how much money can be withdrawn at a
time. At ATMs participating in Direct Express, customers get one free
withdrawal a month before Comerica charges a 90 cent fee. ATMs outside
the network can tack on fees of $2 or more.
Direct Express may be a good option for people who don’t have a bank
account, as Treasury argues, but almost certainly increases costs for
those who do have accounts. Users pay Comerica for most ATM withdrawals,
online bill payments and money transfers — services that many banks
provide for free.
Yet Treasury and Comerica have pushed the card with such vigor that
as of June 2012, more than a million people with bank accounts had
nonetheless signed up for Direct Express, according to Gregg’s congressional testimony last year.
Comerica spokesman Wayne Mielke declined to comment for this story.
Comerica’s contract with Treasury bars it from discussing the program
without Treasury’s permission.
Fees benefit bank
Both Treasury and Comerica have strong incentives to push the Direct
Express card. For Treasury, each conversion saves money and moves the
government closer to its aim of eliminating checks.
Comerica receives $5 from Treasury for each card it issues, according
to several people with direct knowledge of the contract. Treasury
redacted this information from copies of the contract provided in
response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
Treasury had made direct payments to Comerica totaling more than $22
million as of August 2012, including the $5 fee and other charges,
according to data disclosed in response to the FOIA request. The bank
stands to collect millions more through ATM withdrawal fees, payments
from Visa and MasterCard and the interest earned on money that people
haven’t yet withdrawn, which Comerica keeps.
Comerica initially was chosen because it offered to issue cards and
provide customer support at no cost to the federal government. After it
had won the deal, Comerica reversed course, saying that it was having
trouble making money off Direct Express, in part because of the high
cost of providing telephone support for people who sometimes call to
check their balances multiple times a day, according to two people with
knowledge of the matter. The people spoke on condition of anonymity
because they were not authorized to discuss it.
Without reopening bidding, Treasury agreed in March 2011 to give
Comerica $5 per card, paying retroactively for enrollments since
December 2010. Comerica received millions more to beef up its call
centers and prepare for additional users. The exclusive contract runs
until January 2015.
Treasury’s inspector general wants to k now if the Department acted
improperly when it added the $5 per-card fee and other payments. The
original contract specified that the government would not guarantee “ANY
MINIMUM VOLUME OF BUSINESS, OR LEVEL OF COMPENSATION TO [Comerica] AND
SHALL NOT ADJUST THE COMPENSATION ON THE BASIS THAT VOLUME LEVEL DID NOT
MEET [Comerica’s] EXPECTATIONS.” (Emphasis in original.)
A spokesman for the inspector general declined to comment. The office does not discuss ongoing audits.
Treasury officials declined to speak on the record about the contract.
Comerica’s contract also required it to enroll people in the program
and provide customer service including helping prevent fraud. However,
Treasury took over these responsibilities, setting up a parallel call
center at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, about a mile from
Comerica’s headquarters. Treasury didn’t reduce Comerica’s compensation.
Between October 2011 and the end of August 2012, the Social Security
inspector general received more than 18,000 reports of unauthorized
changes or suspected attempts to make unauthorized changes to payments.
Treasury says it put new procedures in place in January 2012 to reduce
fraud. Yet early this year, the Social Security inspector general’s
office said it was still receiving more than 50 such reports a day.
Juliet Carter says Comerica failed to root out the fraud and reissue
her lost payments despite several requests. At one point, she says, a
Comerica representative threatened to investigate her for fraud if she
continued to pursue the matter.
Comerica declined to comment on her case. Mielke, the bank’s
spokesman, said it does not comment on individual cases, to protect
customers’ privacy.
Carter got rid of her Direct Express card, and switched back to paper
checks last year. The repeated notices from Treasury continued to scare
her, however, and earlier this year she signed up to get her payments
on a Rush Card, a private payment card that carries higher fees than
Direct Express.
Vallas, her lawyer, helped her apply for a waiver this spring to go back on paper checks.
