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
On one side, there is the US in decline. On the other, there is an emerging China.
In the middle, there are the maritime routes crucial for the export of oil, such as the Strait of Hormuz in the Arabian Gulf.
Ocean-borne trade is the foundation of the global economy, and the
Middle East is a hub for world shipping. The sea lanes in this region
narrow into what are called choke points, which are keys to regional
control.
"After the war [World War II], the US was in a position essentially
to work out ways to organize and control the world .... It's control.
You want to control because it does yield a substantial measure of world
control," says Noam Chomsky, of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
About 20 per cent of the world's oil supply passes through the Strait
of Hormuz. The rivalry between Iran, Israel and the US make it a
flashpoint.
To the southwest, the Gulf of Aden ends at the Bab el-Mandeb strait, a hunting ground for Somali pirates, and pirate hunters.
Both are part of an ongoing drama which hints at an unraveling of Western domination in the area.
To the north, the Suez Canal is the gateway to the Mediterranean. For decades the West controlled Egypt and the canal.
But all this is changing.
"After 500 years of Western domination, we are slowly going back to
an age of indigenous control .... The US navy has gone from 586 warships
during the Reagan era to 286 warships now," says Robert D Kaplan, of
the Center for a New American Security.
There are new players and new agendas in the Middle East that need
the region and its oil. Their ships have multiplied and their influence
grown. And the interests of the Chinese now brush against those of the
Americans.
From Libya to Iran, from the waters of the
Mediterranean to the pirate coast of Somalia, a new great game for
control is unfolding.
Al Jazeera spent three years documenting the West's declining control
of the strategic waterways of the Middle East. They discovered a region
in flux - with new players both locally and globally - who want in. The
focus, as always, is oil.
Weekly Address: Now Is The Time to Take Action Against Gun Violence
Hi, everybody. This week, I announced a series of concrete
steps we should take to protect our children and our communities from
gun violence.
These proposals grew out of meetings Vice President Biden
and his task force held over the last month with more than 200 different
groups – from parents and teachers; to law enforcement and sportsmen;
to religious leaders and mental health professionals.
And in the weeks ahead, I will do everything in my power
to make them a reality. Because while we may not be able to prevent
every senseless act of violence in this country, if there is even one
thing we can do to reduce it – if even one life can be saved – we’ve got
an obligation to try.
My administration is taking a series of actions right away
– from strengthening our background check system, to helping schools
hire more resource officers if they want them, to directing the Centers
for Disease Control to study the best ways to reduce gun violence.
But the truth is, making a real and lasting difference also requires Congress to act – and act soon.
First, it’s time for Congress to require a universal
background check for anyone trying to buy a gun. The law already
requires licensed gun dealers to perform these checks, but as many as
40% of all gun purchases are conducted without one. That’s not safe,
it’s not smart, and it’s not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers.
An overwhelming majority of Americans agree that anyone trying to buy a
gun should at least have to prove they’re not a felon, or someone
legally prohibited from owning one. That’s just common sense.
Second, Congress should restore a ban on military-style
assault weapons, and a 10-round limit for magazines. Many assault
rifles, when combined with high-capacity magazines, have one purpose and
one purpose only: to fire as many bullets as possible as quickly as
possible. These weapons have no place in our communities. And a majority
of the American people agree with me.
Finally, Congress needs to make it easier, rather than
harder, for law enforcement to do its job. We should get tougher on
people who buy guns only to turn around and sell them to criminals. And
at a time when many communities have been forced to make cuts to their
police force, we should put more cops back on the job and back on the
street.
Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment
guarantees an individual right to bear arms. We have a strong tradition
of gun ownership in this country, and the vast majority of gun owners
act responsibly.
But I also believe most gun owners agree that we can
respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible,
law-breaking few from causing harm on a massive scale. That’s what these
reforms are designed to do.
None of this will be easy. Already, we’re seeing pundits,
politicians, and special-interest lobbyists calling any attempt at
commonsense reform an all-out assault on liberty – not because that’s
true, but because that’s how they get higher ratings and make more
money. And behind the scenes, they’re doing everything they can to
protect the status quo.
But this time, it can’t be up to them. It’s got to be up
to you. If, like me, you want this time to be different, then I need
your help to make it different. Ask your Member of Congress if they
support universal background checks and renewing a ban on military-style
assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And if the answer is no,
ask them why not. Ask them why an A-grade from the gun lobby is more
important than keeping kids safe in a first grade classroom.
Since the tragedy in Newtown, I’ve gotten letters from all
over the country – including many from our young people. One of them
was from 8-year-old Rachel, who lives in Brooklyn, New York. She wrote:
“Please do something so that bad people cannot get guns to kill other
people. Children should be safe, especially in school.”
Rachel is counting on us. Let’s get this done for her, and
let’s make this country a safer place for all our children to learn and
grow.
Noam
Chomsky is an expert on many matters — linguistics, how our economy
functions, and propaganda, among others. One area where his wisdom
especially shines through is in articulating the structure and
functioning of the American empire. Chomsky has been speaking and
publishing on the topic since the ’60s. Below are seven powerful quotes
on the evils, atrocities and ironies of the American empire taken from his personal site and from a fan-curated website dedicated to collecting Chomsky‘s observations.
1.
[In early 2007] there was a new rash of articles and headlines on the
front page about the “Chinese military build-up.” The Pentagon claimed
that China had increased its offensive military capacity — with 400
missiles, which could be nuclear armed. Then we had a debate about
whether that proves China is trying to conquer the world or the numbers
are wrong, or something. Just a little footnote. How many offensive
nuclear armed missiles does the United States have? Well, it turns out
to be 10,000. China may now have maybe 400, if you believe the hawks.
That proves that they are trying to conquer the world.
It turns
out, if you read the international press closely, that the reason China
is building up its military capacity is not only because of U.S.
aggressiveness all over the place, but the fact that the United States
has improved its targeting capacities so it can now destroy missile
sites in a much more sophisticated fashion wherever they are, even if
they are mobile. So who is trying to conquer the world? Well, obviously
the Chinese because since we own it, they are trying to conquer it. It’s
all too easy to continue with this indefinitely. Just pick your topic.
It’s a good exercise to try. This simple principle, “we own the world,”
is sufficient to explain a lot of the discussion about foreign affairs. —
from “We Own the World” January 1, 2008.
2.
“Could we stop the militarization of space? It certainly looks like we
could. The reason is that the U.S. is alone, literally alone, in
pressing for it. The entire world is opposed, because they’re scared,
mainly. The U.S. is way ahead. If other countries are not willing to
even dream of full-spectrum dominance and world control, they’re way too
far behind; they will react, undoubtedly. But they’d like to cut it
off. And there are several treaties, which are in fact already in place,
that are supported literally by the entire world and that the U.S. is
trying to overturn. One is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which bans
placing weapons in outer space. Everyone signed it, including the United
States. Nobody has tried to put weapons in outer space. It has been
observed and would be easily detected if anyone broke it. In 1999, the
treaty came up at the UN General Assembly, and the vote was around 163
to 0 with 2 abstentions, the U.S. and Israel, which votes automatically
with the U.S.” – “Militarizing Space ‘to protect U.S. interests and investment,” International Socialist Review Issue 19, July-August 2001
3.
“Globalization is the result of powerful governments, especially that
of the United States, pushing trade deals and other accords down the
throats of the world’s people to make it easier for corporations and the
wealthy to dominate the economies of nations around the world without
having obligations to the peoples of those nations.” — “Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and the Global Order”
5.
“If something is right (or wrong) for us, it’s right (or wrong) for
others. It follows that if it’s wrong for Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and a
long list of others to bomb Washington and New York, then it’s wrong for
Rumsfeld to bomb Afghanistan (on much flimsier pretexts), and he should
be brought before war crimes trials.” – “On Terrorism,” Noam Chomsky interviewed by John Bolender, Jump Arts Journal, January 2004.
6.
“Suppose that, say, China established military bases in Colombia to
carry out chemical warfare in Kentucky and North Carolina to destroy
this lethal crop [tobacco] that is killing huge numbers of Chinese.” – Noam Chomsky on the irony of the drug war waged by the United States in Central and South America.
7.
The U.S. is, of course, concerned over Iranian power. That is one
reason why the U.S. turned to active support for Iraq in the late stages
of the Iraq-Iran war, with a decisive effect on the outcome, and why
Washington continued its active courtship of Saddam Hussein until he
interfered with U.S. plans for the region in August 1990. U.S. concerns
over Iranian power were also reflected in the decision to support
Saddam’s murderous assault against the Shiite population of southern
Iraq in March 1991, immediately after the fighting stopped. A narrow
reason was fear that Iran, a Shiite state, might exert influence over
Iraqi Shiites. A more general reason was the threat to “stability” that a
successful popular revolution might pose: to translate into English,
the threat that it might inspire democratizing tendencies that would
undermine the array of dictatorships that the U.S. relies on to control
the people of the region.
Recall that Washington’s support for its
former friend was more than tacit; the U.S. military command even
denied rebelling Iraqi officers access to captured Iraqi equipment as
the slaughter of the Shiite population proceeded under Stormin’ Norman’s
steely gaze. — “Stability,” excerpted from “The Fateful Triangle,” 1999
The NRA is pushing back against critics taking issue with its new ad that references President Obama’s daughter Sasha and Malia.
In a statement released Wednesday, spokesman Andrew Arulanandam
says, ”Whoever thinks the ad is about President Obama’s daughters are
missing the point completely or they’re trying to change the subject.”
“This ad is about keeping our children safe,” the statement
continues. “And the president said he was skeptical about the NRA
proposal to put policemen in all schools in this country. Yet he and his
family are beneficiaries of multiple law enforcement officers
surrounding them 24-hours a day.”
“That’s the real issue. Anything else is an attempted calculated distraction.”
The new ad is running on the Sportsman Channel, a cable network
focused on hunting and fishing programming, and is available on the
NRA’s Stand and Fight website. In it, a narrator implies that the
president thinks his children are more important than the rest of the
nation’s children because he has them under armed protection.
“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” the ad’s
narrator asks. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in
our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their
school?”
White House spokesperson Jay Carney tells NBC News, ”Most Americans
agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a
political fight. But to go so far as to make the safety of the
President’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and
cowardly.”
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Before I begin today, let me say to the families
of the innocents who were murdered 33 days ago, our heart goes out to
you. And you show incredible courage -- incredible courage -- being
here. And the President and I are going to do everything in our power
to honor the memory of your children and your wives with the work we
take up here today.
It’s been 33 days since the nation’s heart was broken by the
horrific, senseless violence that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary
School -- 20 -- 20 beautiful first-graders gunned down in a place that's
supposed to be their second sanctuary. Six members of the staff killed
trying to save those children. It’s literally been hard for the nation
to comprehend, hard for the nation to fathom.
And I know for the families who are here that time is not measured in
days, but it’s measured in minutes, in seconds, since you received that
news. Another minute without your daughter. Another minute without
your son. Another minute without your wife. Another minute without
your mom.
I want to personally thank Chris and Lynn McDonald, who lost their
beautiful daughter, Grace, and the other parents who I had a chance to
speak to, for their suggestions and for -- again, just for the courage
of all of you to be here today. I admire the grace and the resolve that
you all are showing. And I must say I’ve been deeply affected by your
faith, as well. And the President and I are going to do everything to
try to match the resolve you’ve demonstrated.
No one can know for certain if this senseless act could have been
prevented, but we all know we have a moral obligation -- a moral
obligation -- to do everything in our power to diminish the prospect
that something like this could happen again.
As the President knows, I’ve worked in this field a long time -- in
the United States Senate, having chaired a committee that had
jurisdiction over these issues of guns and crime, and having drafted the
first gun violence legislation -- the last gun violence legislation, I
should say. And I have no illusions about what we’re up against or how
hard the task is in front of us. But I also have never seen the
nation’s conscience so shaken by what happened at Sandy Hook. The world
has changed, and it’s demanding action.
It’s in this context that the President asked me to put together,
along with Cabinet members, a set of recommendations about how we should
proceed to meet that moral obligation we have. And toward that end,
the Cabinet members and I sat down with 229 groups -- not just
individuals, representing groups -- 229 groups from law enforcement
agencies to public health officials, to gun officials, to gun advocacy
groups, to sportsmen and hunters and religious leaders. And I’ve spoken
with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, had extensive
conversations with mayors and governors and county officials.
And the recommendations we provided to the President on Monday call
for executive actions he could sign, legislation he could call for, and
long-term research that should be undertaken. They're based on the
emerging consensus we heard from all the groups with whom we spoke,
including some of you who are victims of this god-awful occurrence --
ways to keep guns out of the wrong hands, as well as ways to take
comprehensive action to prevent violence in the first place.
We should do as much as we can, as quickly as we can. And we cannot
let the perfect be the enemy of the good. So some of what you will hear
from the President will happen immediately; some will take some time.
But we have begun. And we are starting here today and we’re going to
resolve to continue this fight.
During the meetings that we held, we met with a young man who’s here
today -- I think Colin Goddard is here. Where are you, Colin? Colin
was one of the survivors of the Virginia Tech massacre. He was in the
classroom. He calls himself one of the “lucky seven.” And he’ll tell
you he was shot four times on that day and he has three bullets that are
still inside him.
And when I asked Colin about what he thought we should be doing, he
said, “I’m not here because of what happened to me. I’m here because of
what happened to me keeps happening to other people and we have to do
something about it.”
Colin, we will. Colin, I promise you, we will. This is our
intention. We must do what we can now. And there’s no person who is
more committed to acting on this moral obligation we have than the
President of the United States of America.
Ladies and gentlemen, President Barack Obama. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Please have a seat. Good afternoon, everybody.
Let me begin by thanking our Vice President, Joe Biden, for your
dedication, Joe, to this issue, for bringing so many different voices to
the table. Because while reducing gun violence is a complicated
challenge, protecting our children from harm shouldn’t be a divisive
one.
Over the month since the tragedy in Newtown, we’ve heard from so
many, and, obviously, none have affected us more than the families of
those gorgeous children and their teachers and guardians who were lost.
And so we’re grateful to all of you for taking the time to be here, and
recognizing that we honor their memories in part by doing everything we
can to prevent this from happening again.
But we also heard from some unexpected people. In particular, I
started getting a lot of letters from kids. Four of them are here today
-- Grant Fritz, Julia Stokes, Hinna Zeejah, and Teja Goode. They’re
pretty representative of some of the messages that I got. These are
some pretty smart letters from some pretty smart young people.
Hinna, a third-grader -- you can go ahead and wave, Hinna. That’s you
-- (laughter.) Hinna wrote, “I feel terrible for the parents who lost
their children…I love my country and [I] want everybody to be happy and
safe.”
And then, Grant -- go ahead and wave, Grant. (Laughter.) Grant
said, “I think there should be some changes. We should learn from what
happened at Sandy Hook…I feel really bad.”
And then, Julia said -- Julia, where are you? There you go -- “I’m
not scared for my safety, I’m scared for others. I have four brothers
and sisters and I know I would not be able to bear the thought of losing
any of them.”
These are our kids. This is what they’re thinking about. And so
what we should be thinking about is our responsibility to care for them,
and shield them from harm, and give them the tools they need to grow up
and do everything that they’re capable of doing -- not just to pursue
their own dreams, but to help build this country. This is our first
task as a society, keeping our children safe. This is how we will be
judged. And their voices should compel us to change.
And that’s why, last month, I asked Joe to lead an effort, along with
members of my Cabinet, to come up with some concrete steps we can take
right now to keep our children safe, to help prevent mass shootings, to
reduce the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country.
And we can't put this off any longer. Just last Thursday, as TV
networks were covering one of Joe’s meetings on this topic, news broke
of another school shooting, this one in California. In the month since
20 precious children and six brave adults were violently taken from us
at Sandy Hook Elementary, more than 900 of our fellow Americans have
reportedly died at the end of a gun -- 900 in the past month. And every
day we wait, that number will keep growing.
So I’m putting forward a specific set of proposals based on the work
of Joe’s task force. And in the days ahead, I intend to use whatever
weight this office holds to make them a reality. Because while there is
no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence
completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy,
every act of evil, if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this
violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we've got an
obligation to try.
And I’m going to do my part. As soon as I'm finished speaking here, I
will sit at that desk and I will sign a directive giving law
enforcement, schools, mental health professionals and the public health
community some of the tools they need to help reduce gun violence.
We will make it easier to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by
strengthening the background check system. We will help schools hire
more resource officers if they want them and develop emergency
preparedness plans. We will make sure mental health professionals know
their options for reporting threats of violence -- even as we
acknowledge that someone with a mental illness is far more likely to be a
victim of violent crime than the perpetrator.
And while year after year, those who oppose even modest gun safety
measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into
the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease
Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it -- and Congress
should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on
young minds. We don't benefit from ignorance. We don't benefit from
not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence.
These are a few of the 23 executive actions that I’m announcing
today. But as important as these steps are, they are in no way a
substitute for action from members of Congress. To make a real and
lasting difference, Congress, too, must act -- and Congress must act
soon. And I’m calling on Congress to pass some very specific proposals
right away.
First: It’s time for Congress to require a universal background
check for anyone trying to buy a gun. (Applause.) The law already
requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the
last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting
their hands on a gun. But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as
40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background
check. That’s not safe. That's not smart. It’s not fair to
responsible gun buyers or sellers.
If you want to buy a gun -- whether it’s from a licensed dealer or a
private seller -- you should at least have to show you are not a felon
or somebody legally prohibited from buying one. This is common sense.
And an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with us on the need for
universal background checks -- including more than 70 percent of the
National Rifle Association’s members, according to one survey. So
there’s no reason we can’t do this.
Second: Congress should restore a ban on military-style assault
weapons, and a 10-round limit for magazines. (Applause.) The type of
assault rifle used in Aurora, for example, when paired with
high-capacity magazines, has one purpose -- to pump out as many bullets
as possible, as quickly as possible; to do as much damage, using bullets
often designed to inflict maximum damage.
And that's what allowed the gunman in Aurora to shoot 70 people -- 70
people -- killing 12 in a matter of minutes. Weapons designed for the
theater of war have no place in a movie theater. A majority of
Americans agree with us on this.
And, by the way, so did Ronald Reagan, one of the staunchest
defenders of the Second Amendment, who wrote to Congress in 1994, urging
them -- this is Ronald Reagan speaking -- urging them to “listen to the
American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban
on the further manufacture of [military-style assault] weapons.”
(Applause.)
And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law
enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy
guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to
criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do
this. Since Congress hasn’t confirmed a director of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in six years, they should confirm Todd
Jones, who will be -- who has been Acting, and I will be nominating for
the post. (Applause.)
And at a time when budget cuts are forcing many communities to reduce
their police force, we should put more cops back on the job and back on
our streets.
Let me be absolutely clear. Like most Americans, I believe the
Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. I respect
our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and
sportsmen. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in
America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting, or sport, or
protection, or collection.
I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second
Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from
inflicting harm on a massive scale. I believe most of them agree that
if America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous
people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in
Newtown. That’s what these reforms are designed to do. They’re
common-sense measures. They have the support of the majority of the
American people.
And yet, that doesn’t mean any of this is going to be easy to enact
or implement. If it were, we’d already have universal background
checks. The ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines never
would have been allowed to expire. More of our fellow Americans might
still be alive, celebrating birthdays and anniversaries and
graduations.
This will be difficult. There will be pundits and politicians and
special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out
assault on liberty -- not because that’s true, but because they want to
gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. And behind the
scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any common-sense reform
and make sure nothing changes whatsoever.
The only way we will be able to change is if their audience, their
constituents, their membership says this time must be different -- that
this time, we must do something to protect our communities and our
kids.
I will put everything I've got into this, and so will Joe. But I
tell you, the only way we can change is if the American people demand
it. And by the way, that doesn’t just mean from certain parts of the
country. We're going to need voices in those areas, in those
congressional districts, where the tradition of gun ownership is strong
to speak up and to say this is important. It can't just be the usual
suspects. We have to examine ourselves and our hearts, and ask
ourselves what is important.
This will not happen unless the American people demand it. If
parents and teachers, police officers and pastors, if hunters and
sportsmen, if responsible gun owners, if Americans of every background
stand up and say, enough; we’ve suffered too much pain and care too much
about our children to allow this to continue -- then change will come.
That's what it's going to take.
In the letter that Julia wrote me, she said, “I know that laws have
to be passed by Congress, but I beg you to try very hard.” (Laughter.)
Julia, I will try very hard. But she’s right. The most important
changes we can make depend on congressional action. They need to bring
these proposals up for a vote, and the American people need to make sure
that they do.
Get them on record. Ask your member of Congress if they support
universal background checks to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Ask
them if they support renewing a ban on military-style assault weapons
and high-capacity magazines. And if they say no, ask them why not. Ask
them what’s more important -- doing whatever it takes to get a A grade
from the gun lobby that funds their campaigns, or giving parents some
peace of mind when they drop their child off for first grade?
(Applause.)
This is the land of the free, and it always will be. As Americans,
we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights that no
man or government can take away from us. But we've also long
recognized, as our Founders recognized, that with rights come
responsibilities. Along with our freedom to live our lives as we will
comes an obligation to allow others to do the same. We don’t live in
isolation. We live in a society, a government of, and by, and for the
people. We are responsible for each other.
The right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to
Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The right to assemble peaceably, that
right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in
Aurora, Colorado. That most fundamental set of rights to life and
liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- fundamental rights that were
denied to college students at Virginia Tech, and high school students at
Columbine, and elementary school students in Newtown, and kids on
street corners in Chicago on too frequent a basis to tolerate, and all
the families who’ve never imagined that they’d lose a loved one to a
bullet -- those rights are at stake. We’re responsible.
When I visited Newtown last month, I spent some private time with
many of the families who lost their children that day. And one was the
family of Grace McDonald. Grace’s parents are here. Grace was seven
years old when she was struck down -- just a gorgeous, caring, joyful
little girl. I’m told she loved pink. She loved the beach. She dreamed
of becoming a painter.
And so just before I left, Chris, her father, gave me one of her
paintings, and I hung it in my private study just off the Oval Office.
And every time I look at that painting, I think about Grace. And I
think about the life that she lived and the life that lay ahead of her,
and most of all, I think about how, when it comes to protecting the most
vulnerable among us, we must act now -- for Grace. For the 25 other
innocent children and devoted educators who had so much left to give.
For the men and women in big cities and small towns who fall victim to
senseless violence each and every day. For all the Americans who are
counting on us to keep them safe from harm. Let’s do the right thing.
Let’s do the right thing for them, and for this country that we love so
much. (Applause.)
It’s no secret that Israel has an image problem, to put it mildly.
From unabated settlement construction in the West Bank infuriating the
international community and eliciting repeated condemnations in the
U.N., to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bellicose approach to Iran
that has strained relations with the Obama administration, to Israel’s
consistent disregard for Palestinian human rights, Israel is one of the
most divisive subjects in international politics and media. At next
month’s Oscar ceremony, that “image problem” will be on prominent
display as two local films centered around the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict and highly critical of Israel are up for nominations in the
best documentary category.
“The Gatekeepers” – an
Israeli/French/Belgian production directed by Israeli Dror Moreh – takes
the audience into the world of Israel’s anti-terror operations since it
assumed control of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, as told by the very
men who oversaw them. Moreh, who says he is inspired by Errol Morris’
“The Fog of War,” conducts in-depth interviews with six former heads of
Israel’s Shin Bet (the secret internal security service, comparable to
the FBI), whose candid recounting of targeted assassinations, village
raids and prisoner interrogations reveal the ethical and political
failures of Israeli occupation.
“Five Broken Cameras,” a Palestinian/Israeli/French production (which is currently airing on Hulu),
tells the story of a small West Bank village’s nonviolent struggle
against Israel’s separation wall, settlement construction and military
control, as told through the eyes (and lens) of Emad Burnat, a resident
of Bil’in, which has become a model and international symbol of
Palestinian civil disobedience.
Between 2005 and 2011, Burnat’s
five cameras have all been physically damaged while documenting the
Israel Defense Forces’ violent dispersal methods during weekly protests
against the separation wall built on Bil’in’s lands (which was partially
dismantled and rerouted last year following a 2007 Israeli High Court
ruling). His footage documents routine arrests and night raids in the
village, and the killing of several residents by IDF fire while they
were protesting peacefully. Burnat has been arrested and shot, and in
the film, his wife implores him to stop documenting for fear of another
arrest. It is impossible to come away from this movie without a palpable
sense of Israel’s unjust treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank.
In
“The Gatekeepers,” it is not Palestinians, but senior figures from the
heart of Israel’s security establishment who criticize Israeli policies.
The oldest and most notorious of the interviewees, Avshalom Shalom –
who served as Shin Bet chief from 1981 to 1986 and was forced to resign
after allegedly ordering the killing of two Palestinians terrorists
apprehended after hijacking a bus in 1984 – admits that peace and
security cannot be achieved only through military might. He and the
others say that Israel must find a way to work with the Palestinians to
find a solution. In stark contrast to current government policies and
the general atmosphere in the halls of Israel’s Knesset today, all six
spymasters call on Israel to negotiate with Hamas, Iran and Islamic
Jihad. “In the State of Israel, it’s too great a luxury not to speak
with our enemies,” Shalom says. It’s in the nature of the professional
intelligence man to talk to everyone. That’s how you get to the bottom
of things.”
Both films put Israel in the international spotlight,
sending a clear message that something is very rotten in the Holy Land –
not exactly the image Netanyahu and his government want to project to
the world. The films constitute candid, tragic confessions of what
reality is like on the ground, snapshots of the recent history of
Israel/Palestine – one through the perspective of the occupied, and the
other, the occupier; one, a grass-roots compilation of rough amateur
footage showing civilians going up against a massive army, the other a
sophisticated amalgamation of archival footage and digitally re-created
imagery that exposes the inner workings and downfalls of some of
Israel’s most covert security operations.
The films went largely
under the Israeli media’s radar until the Oscar nominations were
announced last week, despite both receiving numerous awards and
international accolades (among them, “The Gatekeepers” was selected best
documentary by the National Society of Film Critics in the U.S., and
“Five Broken Cameras” won the World Cinema Directing Award at Sundance).
Now headlines in Israel abound with news of the “unprecedented” Israeli
achievement. Those on the left
stress that it is only thanks to the paucity of dissidents that Israel
can salvage its reputation abroad and still have something to be proud
of, while those on the far right have gone as far as calling both
films “pro-Arab” and even condemned them as “Palestinian propaganda
films.” To date, neither film has been awarded an Israeli prize, though
the Foreign Ministry’s website does have a link to a Facebook page
called CultureBuzz congratulating the films.
Responding
to the nomination, “Five Broken Cameras” director Burnat said, “This is
one of the happiest moments of my life. The village of Bil’in is
celebrating international support of my film.” His Israeli co-director
Guy Davidi also welcomed the news, but noted the complexity in accepting
the recognition. Since the nomination was announced, the Israeli and
American Jewish media have co-opted “Five Broken Cameras” as an Israeli
film, when it is, in fact, as Davidi notes, “first and foremost a
Palestinian film,” but adds, “not that a film should have any
citizenship at all.” Davidi hopes the story of Palestinian nonviolent
struggle will not only circulate around the globe, but also reach
Israeli youth gearing up for their army service. He is trying to
organize independent screenings in high schools, since the Ministry of
Education steers clear of such politically subversive work.
“Gatekeepers
“director Dror Moreh, who considers himself an Israeli centrist, is
also determined to have an impact on the Israeli public. He told me the
main goal of the film is to “put a mirror in front of Israeli society,”
forcing it to confront the “unthinkable actions” taken in its name. The
timing of his film’s release is no coincidence. With elections taking
place next week and polls indicating an even further shift to the right,
with the increasing popularity of an extremist
national-religious-settler bloc that does not support a two-state
solution, Moreh hopes the film will make people think twice about what
direction the country is headed in.
In such a hot political
climate, maybe it shouldn’t come as a surprise that this region is
producing some of the most biting and powerful documentary films around.
On Oscar night, audiences will be witness to two testaments of Israel’s
mechanisms of control over the Palestinian population that Israeli
government spokespeople will have a very difficult time trying to
repackage or explain away. The question is, will it have an effect on
the reality on the ground in Israel?
THE PRESIDENT: Please have a seat, everybody. Good morning. I
thought it might make sense to take some questions this week, as my
first term comes to an end.
It’s been a busy and productive four years. And I expect the same
for the next four years. I intend to carry out the agenda that I
campaigned on -- an agenda for new jobs, new opportunity, and new
security for the middle class.
Right now, our economy is growing, and our businesses are creating
new jobs, so we are poised for a good year if we make smart decisions
and sound investments -- and as long as Washington politics don’t get in
the way of America’s progress.
As I said on the campaign, one component to growing our economy and
broadening opportunity for the middle class is shrinking our deficits in
a balanced and responsible way. And for nearly two years now, I’ve
been fighting for such a plan -- one that would reduce our deficits by
$4 trillion over the next decade, which would stabilize our debt and our
deficit in a sustainable way for the next decade. That would be enough
not only to stop the growth of our debt relative to the size of our
economy, but it would make it manageable so it doesn’t crowd out the
investments we need to make in people and education and job training and
science and medical research -- all the things that help us grow.
Now, step by step, we’ve made progress towards that goal. Over the
past two years, I’ve signed into law about $1.4 trillion in spending
cuts. Two weeks ago, I signed into law more than $600 billion in new
revenue by making sure the wealthiest Americans begin to pay their fair
share. When you add the money that we’ll save in interest payments on
the debt, all together that adds up to a total of about $2.5 trillion in
deficit reduction over the past two years -- not counting the $400
billion already saved from winding down the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
So we've made progress. We are moving towards our ultimate goal of
getting to a $4 trillion reduction. And there will be more deficit
reduction when Congress decides what to do about the $1.2 trillion in
automatic spending cuts that have been pushed off until next month.
The fact is, though, we can’t finish the job of deficit reduction
through spending cuts alone. The cuts we’ve already made to priorities
other than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense mean that we
spend on everything from education to public safety less as a share of
our economy than it has -- than has been true for a generation. And
that’s not a recipe for growth.
So we’ve got to do more both to stabilize our finances over the
medium and long term, but also spur more growth in the short term. I’ve
said I’m open to making modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to
protect them for future generations. I’ve also said that we need more
revenue through tax reform by closing loopholes in our tax code for the
wealthiest Americans. If we combine a balanced package of savings from
spending on health care and revenues from closing loopholes, we can
solve the deficit issue without sacrificing our investments in things
like education that are going to help us grow.
It turns out the American people agree with me. They listened to an
entire year’s debate over this issue, and they made a clear decision
about the approach they prefer. They don’t think it’s fair, for
example, to ask a senior to pay more for his or her health care, or a
scientist to shut down lifesaving research so that a multimillionaire
investor can pay less in tax rates than a secretary. They don’t think
it’s smart to protect endless corporate loopholes and tax breaks for the
wealthiest Americans rather than rebuild our roads and our schools,
invest in our workers’ skills, or help manufacturers bring jobs back to
America. So they want us to get our books in order in a balanced way,
where everybody pulls their weight, everyone does their part.
That's what I want as well. That's what I've proposed. And we can
get it done, but we're going to have to make sure that people are
looking at this in a responsible way rather than just through the lens
of politics.
Now, the other congressionally imposed deadline coming up is the
so-called debt ceiling -- something most Americans hadn’t even heard of
before two years ago. I want to be clear about this. The debt ceiling
is not a question of authorizing more spending. Raising the debt
ceiling does not authorize more spending. It simply allows the country
to pay for spending that Congress has already committed to. These are
bills that have already been racked up and we need to pay them.
So while I’m willing to compromise and find common ground over how to
reduce our deficits, America cannot afford another debate with this
Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they’ve already
racked up.
If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America’s bills on time,
Social Security checks and veterans’ benefits will be delayed. We might
not be able to pay our troops, or honor our contracts with small
business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialists
who track down loose nuclear material wouldn’t get their paychecks.
Investors around the world will ask if the United States of America is,
in fact, a safe bet. Markets could go haywire. Interest rates would
spike for anybody who borrows money -- every homeowner with a mortgage,
every student with a college loan, every small business owner who wants
to grow and hire. It would be a self-inflicted wound on the economy.
It would slow down our growth, might tip us into recession, and
ironically, would probably increase our deficit.
So to even entertain the idea of this happening -- of the United
States of America not paying its bills -- is irresponsible. It’s
absurd. As the Speaker said two years ago, it would be -- and I'm
quoting Speaker Boehner now -- “a financial disaster, not only for us,
but for the worldwide economy.”
So we've got to pay our bills. And Republicans in Congress have two
choices here: They can act responsibly, and pay America’s bills; or
they can act irresponsibly, and put America through another economic
crisis. But they will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing
the American economy. The financial well-being of the American people
is not leverage to be used. The full faith and credit of the United
States of America is not a bargaining chip.
And they better choose quickly, because time is running short. The
last time Republicans in Congress even flirted with this idea, our AAA
credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history; our
businesses created the fewest jobs of any month in nearly the past three
years; and, ironically, the whole fiasco actually added to the
deficit.
So it shouldn’t be surprising, given all this talk, that the American
people think Washington is hurting, rather than helping, the country at
the moment. They see their representatives consumed with partisan
brinksmanship over paying our bills, while they overwhelmingly want us
to focus on growing the economy and creating more jobs.
So let’s finish this debate. Let’s give our businesses and the world
the certainty that our economy and our reputation are still second to
none. We pay our bills. We handle our business. And then we can move
on -- because America has a lot to do. We’ve got to create more jobs.
We've got to boost the wages of those who have work. We’ve got to reach
for energy independence. We've got to reform our immigration system.
We’ve got to give our children the best education possible, and we've
got to do everything we can to protect them from the horrors of gun
violence.
And let me say I’m grateful to Vice President Biden for his work on
this issue of gun violence and for his proposals, which I'm going to be
reviewing today and I will address in the next few days and I intend to
vigorously pursue.
So, with that, I'm going to take some questions. And I'm going to
start with Julie Pace of AP. And I want to congratulate Julie for this
new, important job.
Q Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q I wanted to ask about gun violence. Today marks the one-year --
or one-month anniversary of the shooting in Newtown, which seemed to
generate some momentum for reinstating the assault weapons ban. But
there’s been fresh opposition to that ban from the NRA. And even Harry
Reid has said that he questions whether it could pass Congress. Given
that, how hard will you push for an assault weapons ban? And if one
cannot pass Congress, what other measures would need to be included in a
broad package in order to curb gun violence successfully?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I said, the Vice President and a number of
members of my Cabinet went through a very thorough process over the last
month, meeting with a lot of stakeholders in this including the NRA,
listened to proposals from all quarters, and they’ve presented me now
with a list of sensible, common-sense steps that can be taken to make
sure that the kinds of violence we saw at Newtown doesn't happen again.
I’m going to be meeting with the Vice President today. I expect to
have a fuller presentation later in the week to give people some
specifics about what I think we need to do.
My starting point is not to worry about the politics; my starting
point is to focus on what makes sense, what works; what should we be
doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we’re reducing
the incidents of gun violence. And I think we can do that in a sensible
way that comports with the Second Amendment.
And then members of Congress I think are going to have to have a
debate and examine their own conscience -- because if, in fact -- and I
believe this is true -- everybody across party lines was as deeply moved
and saddened as I was by what happened in Newtown, then we’re going to
have to vote based on what we think is best. We’re going to have to
come up with answers that set politics aside. And that's what I expect
Congress to do.
But what you can count is, is that the things that I’ve said in the
past -- the belief that we have to have stronger background checks, that
we can do a much better job in terms of keeping these magazine clips
with high capacity out of the hands of folks who shouldn’t have them, an
assault weapons ban that is meaningful -- that those are things I
continue to believe make sense.
Will all of them get through this Congress? I don’t know. But
what’s uppermost in my mind is making sure that I’m honest with the
American people and with members of Congress about what I think will
work, what I think is something that will make a difference. And to
repeat what I’ve said earlier -- if there is a step we can take that
will save even one child from what happened in Newtown, we should take
that step.
Q Can a package be discussed to allow an assault weapons ban?
THE PRESIDENT: I’ll present the details later in the week.
Chuck Todd, NBC.
Q Thank you, sir. As you know, the Senate Democrats, Harry Reid
sent you a letter begging you, essentially, to take -- consider some
sort of executive action on this debt ceiling issue. I know you’ve said
you’re not negotiating on it. Your administration has ruled out the
various ideas that have been out there -- the 14th Amendment. But just
this morning, one of the House Democratic leaders, Jim Clyburn, asked
you to use the 14th Amendment and even said, sometimes that’s what it
takes. He brought up the Emancipation Proclamation as saying it took
executive action when Congress wouldn’t act, and he compared the debt
ceiling to that. So are you considering a plan B, and if not, why not?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Chuck, the issue here is whether or not America
pays its bills. We are not a deadbeat nation. And so there’s a very
simple solution to this: Congress authorizes us to pay our bills.
Now, if the House and the Senate want to give me the authority so
that they don’t have to take these tough votes, if they want to put the
responsibility on me to raise the debt ceiling, I’m happy to take it.
Mitch McConnell, the Republican Leader in the Senate, had a proposal
like that last year, and I’m happy to accept it. But if they want to
keep this responsibility, then they need to go ahead and get it done.
And there are no magic tricks here. There are no loopholes. There
are no easy outs. This is a matter of Congress authorizes spending.
They order me to spend. They tell me, you need to fund our Defense
Department at such and such a level; you need to send out Social
Security checks; you need to make sure that you are paying to care for
our veterans. They lay all this out for me because they have the
spending power. And so I am required by law to go ahead and pay these
bills.
Separately, they also have to authorize the raising of the debt
ceiling in order to make sure that those bills are paid. And so, what
Congress can't do is tell me to spend X, and then say, but we're not
going to give you the authority to go ahead and pay the bills.
And I just want to repeat -- because I think sometimes the American
people, understandably, aren't following all the debates here in
Washington -- raising the debt ceiling does not authorize us to spend
more. All it does is say that America will pay its bills. And we are
not a dead-beat nation. And the consequences of us not paying our
bills, as I outlined in my opening statement, would be disastrous.
So I understand the impulse to try to get around this in a simple
way. But there's one way to get around this. There's one way to deal
with it. And that is for Congress to authorize me to pay for those
items of spending that they have already authorized.
And the notion that Republicans in the House, or maybe some
Republicans in the Senate, would suggest that “in order for us to get
our way on our spending priorities, that we would risk the full faith
and credit of the United States” -- that I think is not what the
Founders intended. That's not how I think most Americans think our
democracy should work. They've got a point of view; Democrats in
Congress have a point of view. They need to sit down and work out a
compromise.
Q You just outlined an entire rationale for why this can't happen.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q And if -- then if -- and you're not negotiating on the debt ceiling.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q So you're not negotiating and they say you have to negotiate,
and you're not considering another plan B, then do you just wait it out
and we do go -- we do see all these things happen?
THE PRESIDENT: Well look, Chuck, there are -- there's a pretty
straightforward way of doing this and that is to set the debt ceiling
aside, we pay our bills, and then we have a vigorous debate about how
we're going to do further deficit reduction in a balanced way.
Keep in mind that what we've heard from some Republicans in both the
House and the Senate is that they will only increase the debt ceiling by
the amount of spending cuts that they're able to push through and -- in
order to replace the automatic spending cuts of the sequester -- that's
$1.2 trillion. Say it takes another trillion or trillion-two to get us
through one more year, they'd have to identify $2.5 trillion in cuts
just to get the debt ceiling extended to next year -- $2.5 trillion.
They can't even -- Congress has not been able to identify $1.2
trillion in cuts that they're happy with. Because these same
Republicans say they don’t want to cut defense; they've claimed that
they don't want to gut Medicare or harm the vulnerable. But the truth
of the matter is that you can't meet their own criteria without
drastically cutting Medicare, or having an impact on Medicaid, or
affecting our defense spending. So the math just doesn’t add up.
Now, here’s what would work. What would work would be for us to say
we’ve already done close to $2 trillion in deficit reduction, and if you
add the interest that we won’t be paying because of less spending and
increased revenue, it adds up to about $2.5 trillion. The consensus is
we need about $4 trillion to stabilize our debt and our deficit, which
means we need about $1.5 trillion more. The package that I offered to
Speaker Boehner before we -- before the New Year would achieve that. We
were actually fairly close in terms of arriving at that number.
So if the goal is to make sure that we are being responsible about
our debt and our deficit, if that’s the conversation we’re having, I’m
happy to have that conversation. And by closing some additional
loopholes through tax reform -- which Speaker Boehner has acknowledged
can raise money in a sensible way -- and by doing some additional cuts,
including making sure that we are reducing our health care spending,
which is the main driver of our deficits, we can arrive at a package
that gets this thing done.
I’m happy to have that conversation. What I will not do is to have
that negotiation with a gun at the head of the American people -- the
threat that “unless we get our way, unless you gut Medicare or Medicaid,
or otherwise slash things that the American people don’t believe should
be slashed, that we’re going to threaten to wreck the entire economy.”
That is not how historically this has been done. That’s not how we’re
going to do it this time.
Q No plan B? You're not searching for any other --
THE PRESIDENT: Chuck, what I’m saying to you is that there is no
simpler solution, no ready, credible solution, other than Congress
either give me the authority to raise the debt ceiling, or exercise the
responsibility that they have kept for themselves and raise the debt
ceiling. Because this is about paying your bills.
Everybody here understands this. I mean, this is not a complicated
concept. You don’t go out to dinner and then eat all you want, and then
leave without paying the check. And if you do, you’re breaking the
law. And Congress should think about it the same way that the American
people do. You don’t -- now, if Congress wants to have a debate about
maybe we shouldn’t go out to dinner next time, maybe we should go to a
more modest restaurant, that’s fine. That’s a debate that we should
have. But you don’t say, in order for me to control my appetites, I’m
going to not pay the people who already provided me services, people who
already lent me the money. That’s not showing any discipline. All
that’s doing is not meeting your obligations. You can’t do that.
And that’s not a credible way to run this government. We’ve got to
stop lurching from crisis to crisis to crisis, when there’s this clear
path ahead of us that simply requires some discipline, some
responsibility and some compromise. That’s where we need to go. That’s
how this needs to work.
Major Garrett.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you well know, sir, finding votes for the debt ceiling can sometimes be complicated.
You, yourself, as a member of the Senate, voted against a debt ceiling
increase. And in previous aspects of American history -- President
Reagan in 1985, President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, President
Clinton in 1997 -- all signed deficit reduction deals that were
contingent upon or in the context of raising the debt ceiling. You,
yourself, four times have done that. Three times, those were related to
deficit reduction or budget maneuvers.
What Chuck and I and I think many people are curious about is this
new, adamant desire on your part not to negotiate, when that seems to
conflict with the entire history in the modern era of American
Presidents and the debt ceiling, and your own history on the debt
ceiling. And doesn’t that suggest that we are going to go into a
default situation because no one is talking to each other about how to
resolve this?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, no, Major, I think if you look at the history,
getting votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult, and budgets in
this town are always difficult. I went through this just last year.
But what’s different is we never saw a situation as we saw last year in
which certain groups in Congress took such an absolutist position that
we came within a few days of defaulting. And the fact of the matter is,
is that we have never seen the debt ceiling used in this fashion, where
the notion was, you know what, we might default unless we get 100
percent of what we want. That hasn’t happened.
Now, as I indicated before, I’m happy to have a conversation about
how we reduce our deficits further in a sensible way. Although one
thing I want to point out is that the American people are also concerned
about how we grow our economy, how we put people back to work, how we
make sure that we finance our workers getting properly trained and our
schools are giving our kids the education we deserve. There’s a whole
growth agenda which will reduce our deficits that’s important as well.
But what you’ve never seen is the notion that has been presented, so
far at least, by the Republicans that deficit reduction -- we’ll only
count spending cuts; that we will raise the deficit -- or the debt
ceiling dollar for dollar on spending cuts. There are a whole set of
rules that have been established that are impossible to meet without
doing severe damage to the economy.
And so what we’re not going to do is put ourselves in a position
where in order to pay for spending that we’ve already incurred, that our
two options are we’re either going to profoundly hurt the economy and
hurt middle-class families and hurt seniors and hurt kids who are trying
to go to college, or, alternatively, we’re going to blow up the
economy. We’re not going to do that.
Q (Inaudible) -- open to a one-to-three-month extension to the
debt ceiling -- whatever Congress sends you, you’re okay with it?
THE PRESIDENT: No, not whatever Congress sends me. They’re going to
have to send me something that’s sensible. And we shouldn’t be doing
this --
Q -- (inaudible) --
THE PRESIDENT: -- and we shouldn’t be doing this on a one to
three-month timeframe. Why would we do that? This is the United States
of America, Major. What, we can’t manage our affairs in such a way
that we pay our bills and we provide some certainty in terms of how we
pay our bills?
Look, I don’t think anybody would consider my position unreasonable here. I have --
Q But why does it presuppose the need to negotiate and talk about
this on a daily basis? Because if default is the biggest threat to the
economy, why not talk about it --
THE PRESIDENT: Major, I am happy to have a conversation about how we
reduce our deficits. I’m not going to have a monthly or
every-three-months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills.
Because that in and of itself does severe damage. Even the threat of
default hurts our economy. It’s hurting our economy as we speak. We
shouldn’t be having that debate.
If we want to have a conversation about how to reduce our deficit,
let’s have that. We’ve been having that for the last two years. We
just had an entire campaign about it. And by the way, the American
people agreed with me that we should reduce our deficits in a balanced
way that also takes into account the need for us to grow this economy
and put people back to work.
And despite that conversation, and despite the election results, the
position that’s been taken on the part of some House Republicans is
that, “no, we’ve got to do it our way, and if we don’t, we simply won’t
pay America’s bills.” Well, that can’t be a position that is
sustainable over time. It’s not one that's good for the economy now.
It's certainly not going to be the kind of precedent that I want to
establish not just for my presidency, but for future Presidents, even if
it was on the other side.
Democrats don't like voting for the debt ceiling when a Republican is
President, and yet you -- but you never saw a situation in which
Democrats suggested somehow that we would go ahead and default if we
didn't get 100 percent of our way. That's just not how it's supposed to
work.
Jon Karl.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. On the issue of guns, given how
difficult it will be -- some would say impossible -- to get any gun
control measure passed through this Congress, what are you willing or
able to do, using the powers of your presidency, to act without
Congress? And I'd also like to know, what do you make of these long
lines we're seeing at gun shows and gun stores all around the country? I
mean, even in Connecticut, applications for guns are up since the
shooting in Newtown.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, my understanding is the Vice President is going
to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence.
Some of them will require legislation. Some of them I can accomplish
through executive action. And so I'll be reviewing those today. And as
I said, I'll speak in more detail to what we're going to go ahead and
propose later in the week.
But I'm confident that there are some steps that we can take that
don't require legislation and that are within my authority as
President. And where you get a step that has the opportunity to reduce
the possibility of gun violence then I want to go ahead and take it.
Q Any idea of what kind of steps?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, for example, how we are gathering
data, for example, on guns that fall into the hands of criminals, and
how we track that more effectively -- there may be some steps that we
can take administratively as opposed through legislation.
As far as people lining up and purchasing more guns, I think that
we've seen for some time now that those who oppose any common-sense gun
control or gun safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up
fear on the part of gun owners that somehow the federal government is
about to take all your guns away. And there's probably an economic
element to that. It obviously is good for business.
But I think that those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly
said that responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection,
for hunting, for sportsmanship, they don't have anything to worry
about. The issue here is not whether or not we believe in the Second
Amendment. The issue is, are there some sensible steps that we can take
to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can't walk
into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a shockingly rapid
fashion. And surely, we can do something about that.
But part of the challenge that we confront is, is that even the
slightest hint of some sensible, responsible legislation in this area
fans this notion that somehow, here it comes and everybody's guns are
going to be taken away. It's unfortunate, but that's the case. And if
you look at over the first four years of my administration, we’ve tried
to tighten up and enforce some of the laws that were already on the
books. But it would be pretty hard to argue that somehow gun owners
have had their rights infringed.
Q So you think this is an irrational fear that's driving all these people to go and stock up --
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me?
Q Do you think this is an irrational fear --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I said, I think it's a fear that's fanned by
those who are worried about the possibility of any legislation getting
out there.
Julianna Goldman.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to come back to the debt
ceiling, because in the summer of 2011, you said that you wouldn't
negotiate on the debt ceiling, and you did. Last year, you said that
you wouldn't extend any of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and you
did. So as you say now that you're not going to negotiate on the debt
ceiling this year, why should House Republicans take that seriously and
think that if we get to the one-minute-to-midnight scenario, that you're
not going to back down?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, Julianna, let's take the example
of this year and the fiscal cliff. I didn't say that I would not have
any conversations at all about extending the Bush tax cuts. What I said
was we weren't going to extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -- and we
didn't. Now, you can argue that during the campaign I said -- I set the
criteria for wealthy at $250,000 and we ended up being at $400,000.
But the fact of the matter is millionaires, billionaires are paying
significantly more in taxes, just as I said. So from the start, my
concern was making sure that we had a tax code that was fair and that
protected the middle class, and my biggest priority was making sure that
middle-class taxes did not go up.
The difference between this year and 2011 is the fact that we've
already made $1.2 trillion in cuts. And at the time, I indicated that
there were cuts that we could sensibly make that would not damage our
economy, would not impede growth. I said at the time I think we should
pair it up with revenue in order to have an overall balanced package.
But my own budget reflected cuts in discretionary spending. My own
budget reflected the cuts that needed to be made, and we've made those
cuts.
Now, the challenge going forward is that we've now made some big
cuts, and if we're going to do further deficit reduction, the only way
to do it is in a balanced and responsible way.
The alternative is for us to go ahead and cut commitments that we've
made on things like Medicare, or Social Security, or Medicaid, and for
us to fundamentally change commitments that we've made to make sure that
seniors don't go into poverty, or that children who are disabled are
properly cared for. For us to change that contract we've made with the
American people rather than look at options like closing loopholes for
corporations that they don't need, that points to a long-term trend in
which we have fundamentally, I think, undermined what people expect out
of this government -- which is that parties sit down, they negotiate,
they compromise, but they also reflect the will of the American people;
that you don't have one narrow faction that is able to simply dictate
100 percent of what they want all the time or otherwise threaten that we
destroy the American economy.
Another way of putting it is we've got to break the habit of
negotiating through crisis over and over again. And now is as good of a
time as any, at the start of my second term, because if we continue
down this path, then there's really no stopping the principle. I mean,
literally -- even in divided government, even where we've got a
Democratic President and a Democratic Senate, that a small group in the
House of Representatives could simply say every two months, every three
months, every six months, every year, we are going to more and more
change the economy in ways that we prefer, despite strong objections of
Americans all across the country, or otherwise we're going to have
America not pay its bills. And that is no way for us to do business.
And by the way, I would make the same argument if it was a Republican
President and a Republican Senate and you had a handful of Democrats
who were suggesting that we are going to hijack the process and make
sure that either we get our way 100 percent of the time, or otherwise we
are going to default on America’s obligations.
Q (Inaudible) -- line in the sand negotiating, how is that (inaudible) to the economy?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, look, what I’ve said is that I’m happy to have a conversation about deficit reduction --
Q So you technically are willing to negotiate?
THE PRESIDENT: No, Julianna, look, this is pretty straightforward.
Either Congress pays its bills or it doesn't. Now, if -- and they want
to keep this responsibility; if John Boehner and Mitch McConnell think
that they can come up with a plan that somehow meets their criteria that
they’ve set for why they will -- when they will raise the debt ceiling,
they're free to go ahead and try. But the proposals that they’ve put
forward in order to accomplish that -- only by cutting spending -- means
cuts to things like Medicare and education that the American people
profoundly reject.
Now, if they think that they can get that through Congress, then
they're free to try. But I think that a better way of doing this is go
ahead and say, we’re going to pay our bills. The question now is how do
we actually get our deficit in a manageable, sustainable way? And
that's a conversation I’m happy to have.
All right. Matt Spetalnick.
Q Thank you, sir. You’ve spoken extensively about the debt
ceiling debate, but some Republicans have further said that they're
willing to allow a government shutdown to take place rather than put off
deep spending cuts. Are you prepared to allow the government to grind
to a halt if you disagree with the spending cut proposals they put
forth? And who do you think the American people would blame if that
came to pass?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, ultimately, Congress makes the decisions about
whether or not we spend money and whether or not we keep this government
open. And if the Republicans in Congress have made a decision that
they want to shut down the government in order to get their way then
they have the votes at least in the House of Representatives, probably,
to do that.
I think that would be a mistake. I think it would be profoundly
damaging to our economy. I think it would actually add to our deficit
because it will impede growth. I think it’s shortsighted. But they’re
elected representatives, and folks put them into those positions and
they’re going to have to make a decision about that. And I don’t -- I
suspect that the American people would blame all of Washington for not
being able to get its act together.
But the larger issue here has to do with what is it that we’re trying
to accomplish. Are we trying to reduce the deficit? Because if we’re
trying to reduce the deficit, then we can shape a bipartisan plan to
reduce the deficit. I mean, is that really our objective? Our concern
is that we’re spending more than we take in, and if that’s the case,
then there’s a way of balancing that out so that we take in more money
in increasing revenue and we reduce spending. And there’s a recipe for
getting that done.
And in the conversations that I had with Speaker Boehner before the
end of the year, we came pretty close -- a few hundred billion dollars
separating us when stretched over a 10-year period, that’s not a lot.
But it seems as if what’s motivating and propelling at this point
some of the House Republicans is more than simply deficit reduction.
They have a particular vision about what government should and should
not do. So they are suspicious about government’s commitments, for
example, to make sure that seniors have decent health care as they get
older. They have suspicions about Social Security. They have suspicions
about whether government should make sure that kids in poverty are
getting enough to eat, or whether we should be spending money on medical
research. So they’ve got a particular view of what government should
do and should be.
And that view was rejected by the American people when it was debated
during the presidential campaign. I think every poll that’s out there
indicates that the American people actually think our commitment to
Medicare or to education is really important, and that’s something that
we should look at as a last resort in terms of reducing the deficit, and
it makes a lot more sense for us to close, for example, corporate
loopholes before we go to putting a bigger burden on students or
seniors.
But if the House Republicans disagree with that and they want to shut
down the government to see if they can get their way on it, that’s
their prerogative. That’s how the system is set up. It will damage our
economy.
The government is a big part of this economy, and it’s interesting
that a lot of times you have people who recognize that when it comes to
defense spending -- some of the same folks who say we’ve got to cut
spending, or complain that government jobs don’t do anything, when it
comes to that defense contractor in their district, they think, wow,
this is a pretty important part of the economy in my district and we
shouldn’t stop spending on that. Let’s just make sure we’re not
spending on those other folks.
Q -- find agreement with Republicans on this and --
THE PRESIDENT: Look, my hope is, is that common sense prevails.
That’s always my preference. And I think that would the preference of
the American people, and that’s what would be good for the economy.
So let me just repeat: If the issue is deficit reduction, getting
our deficits sustainable over time, getting our debt in a sustainable
place, then Democrats and Republicans in Congress will have a partner
with me.
We can achieve that, and we can achieve it fairly quickly. I mean,
we know what the numbers are. We know what needs to be done. We know
what a balanced approach would take. We’ve already done probably more
than half of the deficit reduction we need to stabilize the debt and the
deficit. There’s probably been more pain and drama in getting there
than we needed. And so finishing the job shouldn’t be that difficult --
if everybody comes to the conversation with an open mind, and if we
recognize that there are some things, like not paying our bills, that
should be out of bounds.
All right. I’m going to take one last question. Jackie Calmes.
Q Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q I’d like to ask you, now that you’ve reached the end of your
first term, starting your second, about a couple of criticisms -- one
that’s longstanding, another more recent. The longstanding one seems to
have become a truism of sorts that you’re -- you and your staff are too
insular, that you don’t socialize enough. And the second, the more
recent criticism is that your team taking shape isn’t diverse -- isn’t
as diverse as it could be, or even was, in terms of getting additional
voices, gender, race, ethnic diversity. So I’d like you to address both
of those.
THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Let me take the second one first. I’m very
proud that in the first four years we had as diverse, if not more
diverse, a White House and a Cabinet than any in history. And I intend
to continue that, because it turns out that when you look for the very
best people, given the incredible diversity of this country, you’re
going to end up with a diverse staff and a diverse team. And that very
diversity helps to create more effective policymaking and better
decision-making for me, because it brings different perspectives to the
table.
So if you think about my first four years, the person who probably
had the most influence on my foreign policy was a woman. The people who
were in charge of moving forward my most important domestic initiative,
health care, were women. The person in charge of our homeland security
was a woman. My two appointments to the Supreme Court were women, and
50 percent of my White House staff were women. So I think people should
expect that that record will be built upon during the next four years.
Now, what, I’ve made four appointments so far? And one women --
admittedly, a high-profile one -- is leaving the -- has already left the
administration, and I have made a replacement. But I would just suggest
that everybody kind of wait until they’ve seen all my appointments,
who’s in the White House staff and who’s in my Cabinet before they rush
to judgment.
Q (Inaudible) -- the big three.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but I guess what I’m saying, Jackie, is that I
think until you’ve seen what my overall team looks like, it’s premature
to assume that somehow we’re going backwards. We’re not going
backwards, we’re going forward.
With respect to this “truism” about me not socializing enough and
patting folks on the back and all that stuff, most people who know me
know I’m a pretty friendly guy. (Laughter.) And I like a good party.
(Laughter.) And the truth is that when I was in the Senate, I had great
relationships over there, and up until the point that I became
President this was not an accusation that you heard very frequently.
I think that really what’s gone on in terms of some of the paralysis
here in Washington or difficulties in negotiations just have to do with
some very stark differences in terms of policy, some very sharp
differences in terms of where we stand on issues. And if you think
about, let's say, myself and Speaker Boehner, I like Speaker Boehner
personally, and when we went out and played golf we had a great time.
But that didn't get a deal done in 2011. When I'm over here at the
congressional picnic and folks are coming up and taking pictures with
their family, I promise you, Michelle and I are very nice to them and we
have a wonderful time. (Laughter.) But it doesn't prevent them from
going onto the floor of the House and blasting me for being a
big-spending socialist. (Laughter.)
And the reason that, in many cases, Congress votes the way they do,
or talks the way they talk, or takes positions in negotiations that they
take doesn't have to do with me. It has to do with the imperatives
that they feel in terms of their own politics -- right? They're worried
about their district. They're worried about what's going on back
home.
I think there are a lot of Republicans at this point that feel that
given how much energy has been devoted in some of the media that's
preferred by Republican constituencies to demonize me, that it doesn't
look real good socializing with me. Charlie Crist down in Florida I
think testifies to that. And I think a lot of folks say, well, if we
look like we're being too cooperative or too chummy with the President
that might cause us problems. That might be an excuse for us to get a
challenge from somebody in a primary.
So that tends to be the challenge. I promise you, we invite folks
from Congress over here all the time. And when they choose to come, I
enjoy their company. Sometimes they don't choose to come, and that has
to do with the fact that I think they don't consider the optics useful
for them politically. And, ultimately, the way we're going to get stuff
done -- personal relationships are important, and obviously I can
always do a better job, and the nice thing is, is that now that my girls
are getting older, they don't want to spend that much time with me
anyway, so I'll be probably calling around, looking for somebody to play
cards with me or something, because I'm getting kind of lonely in this
big house. (Laughter.) So maybe a whole bunch of members of the House
Republican caucus want to come over and socialize more.
But my suspicion is getting the issues resolved that we just talked
about, the big stuff -- whether or not we get sensible laws passed to
prevent gun violence, whether or not America is paying its bills,
whether or not we get immigration reform done -- all that's going to be
determined largely by where the respective parties stand on policy, and
maybe most importantly, the attitude of the American people.
If the American people feel strongly about these issues and they push
hard, and they reward or don't reward members of Congress with their
votes, if they reject sort of uncompromising positions or sharp
partisanship or always looking out for the next election, and they
reward folks who are trying to find common ground, then I think you'll
see behavior in Congress change. And that will be true whether I'm the
life of the party or a stick in the mud.
Linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky remains as vigorous as ever at the age of 84.
His popularity - or notoriety as some would say - endures because he
is still criticising politicians, business leaders and other powerful
figures for not acting in the public’s best interest. At the heart of
Chomsky’s work is examining the ways elites use their power to control
millions of people, and pushing the public to resist.
In this episode of Talk to Al Jazeera, Noam Chomsky sits down with Rosiland Jordan to talk about the two main tracks of his life: research and political activism.
And it is his activism that keeps this US scholar engaged in the public discourse well into his ninth decade.
"The activism for me long antedates the professional work," Chomsky
says. "I grew up that way. So I was a political activist as a teenager
in the 1940s before I ever heard of linguistics."
Discussing US politics, he attributes the growing popularity of the
Tea Party movement, and the fanatical opposition to President Barack
Obama in some quarters, to what he calls "pathological paranoia".
"It’s something that exists in the country. It’s a very frightened country, always has been," he says.
At the same time, Chomsky sees Obama himself as a man without a "moral centre".
"If you look at his policies I think that’s what they reveal. I mean
there’s some nice rhetoric here and there but when you look at the
actual policies … the drone assassination campaign is a perfectly good
example, I mean it’s just a global assassination campaign."
On Israel's continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank,
Chomsky says "there was no effort" by Obama to even try and curb it.
"[Obama's] telling Netanyahu and the other Israeli leaders: I’ll tap
you on the wrist but go ahead and do what you like .... So in fact,
Obama is actually the first president who hasn’t really imposed
restrictions on Israel."
Chomsky also criticises neoliberal programmes which, he says, have
played a large part in the ongoing global financial crisis and are
"pretty harmful" almost everywhere they have been implemented.
"[In] the 1950s and the 1960s, which was the biggest growth period in
American history, financial institutions were regulated. The New Deal
regulations were in place and there were no financial crisis, none ....
Starting in the 1970s it changed pretty radically. There were decisions
made - not laws of nature - to reconstruct the economy."
And decades later, these decisions have resulted in a situation which "really is a catastrophe," he says.
But Chomsky also feels that "nothing’s ever gone too far. Anything can be reversed; these are human decisions."
He emphasises: "The more privilege you have, the more opportunity you
have. The more opportunity you have, the more responsibility you have."
