A bit more about Obama turning down lunch with Norway's king

A lunch invite from the King of Norway is accorded every Nobel Peace Prize winner. President Obama turned it down. My friend Damian, who has an absurd amount of knowledge about such things, writes:

Obama has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.

According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.

Especially since King Harald LIVED in the White House during WW II when he was a kid as guests of his god father - FDR.

I'm all for ignoring royalty, but King Harald is a somewhat different case. He still speaks English with a pronounced Tidewater accent, and calls people 'hon'. He crawled out of his sick bed to accompany his father to President Kennedy's funeral. Like his father before him, he has never invited a Republican President to the royal palace because they hate Republicans.

Does anybody in this fool administration know anything about anything?

I just checked, and Damian is correct. The King did live for several weeks in the White House during World War II, as a refugee from the Nazis. And he does to this day have an American bent to his accent in English. Read the rest of this post...

Is a Charlie Brown Christmas tree really so bad?

OK, it does kind of look dead and a bit pathetic, but hey, it's real. Maybe those who don't like it can cough up the cash to buy what "looks like Christmas" or else deal with it. If a "real Christmas tree" looks like anything we experienced during the bubble years, perhaps going back to basics should be fine. Why not? Does it really matter?

"We had to cut $8 million out of our budget and had to lay people off, so we had to figure out a way to share the spirit of the season while still cutting expenses," explained Mayor Guy Bjerke.

He said the city would have ended up spending about $23,000 for a cut tree had they not opted to use the one growing in Todos Santos Plaza. The city chose the tree over other fuller trees in the plaza because of its location near an electrical outlet and away from the road.

While onlookers have described it as pathetic, scraggly and a sad reflection of the economy, it is getting a lot of attention and even finding supporters.

Read the rest of this post...

FOX reportedly soliciting Teabaggers to populate its live audience for new "business" show

Only at FOX would they hire John Stossel, a longtime partisan hack, and have him do his first show about "global warming," and then try to secretly populate the audience for the show with Teabaggers. A friend is one a Teabagging email list. Here is the email he just got:

Date: Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Subject: {Tea Party Patriots} Stossel

--------------------
Subject: John Stossell Tonight

Hi all,

John Stossel's new show on the Fox Business Network is finally beginning! The show premieres this Thursday, December 10th, at 8pm EST, and the first topic will be global warming!

The new show, simply called "Stossel," will tackle many important political and economic issues from Stossel's unique libertarian perspective. Be sure to check your local listings to see if your cable provider carries the Fox Business Network yet.

Also, if anyone in SFL is interested in being a part of the studio audience for future tapings of the show (generally filmed on Thursdays), please email Stosseltix@foxnews.com or call 877-369-8587. They have made a special offer to SFL member to be part of the audience.

Sincerely & For Liberty,
Alexander

Read the rest of this post...

A number of interesting stories to check out tonight

John Dickerson at Slate has high praise for Obama's Nobel speech today.

A moving story about the 800,000 children born to German soldiers in non-German occupied Europe during the war.

The Brits says the Swine Flu is less lethal than thought. (Having said that, I know a few people who have had it, and it knocked them on their butts for a month - including one guy just under 30). This is no normal flu if you get it bad.

Defense Dept. in contempt of court for failing to videotape detainee testimony.

Brazil dethrones China as spam capital of the world (and I thought it was Nigeria).

The California Assembly picks a gay speaker.

The Politico made me laugh with this headline: "Race barriers remain in post-Obama South." You think?

Greece may have to declare bankruptcy next week, potentially threatening the survival of the Euro. Excellent article from Megan McArdle at the Atlantic.

Bilerico suggests that the Salahis may not have eve gone through the proper security procedures at the White House, so says a witness.

The American Petroleum Institute is looking for a few good minorities... to photoshop.

Bad news for you drinkers. Drinking coffee apparently does NOT sober you up.

TIME names the Advocate's June issue a top ten cover for 2009.

Jon Stewart on the health care debate and Sarah Palin's tomato thrower.

The NYT looks at ideas. Just a very very cool series of short articles. Read the rest of this post...

Houston Mayor's race marred by homophobic attacks on lesbian candidate -- from a fellow Democrat

The runoff for Mayor of Houston, which takes place this Saturday, is between two Democrats, Annise Parker and Gene Locke. Parker is a lesbian and her Democratic opponent has sidled up to homophobes. Unfortunately, that has now defined this campaign. Two of Locke's top supporters actually funded the political action committee of one of the worst anti-gay leaders in Texas (who is using those funds to attack Parker's sexual orientation.) It's disgusting that a Democrat would sink to this level. More about the race at AMERICAblog Gay.

If you want to help, Parker's website is here. Her ActBlue page is here. Read the rest of this post...

CA councilman compares Pelosi to Stalin

The GOP's modern McCarthyism began early this year when a few fringe Republicans started accusing President Obama of being a socialist. Then the accusation went mainstream in the GOP because no one on the left challenged it. Now it's everywhere, to the point where I hear "normal" Republicans use the charge when I travel the country (someone at dinner recently seriously told me that they were concerned about the large number of Maoists in the Obama administration). This is an example of what happens when you don't stand up for yourself. Or much of anything. Read the rest of this post...

Approval rating down

From Politico:

“Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50 percent of voters now say they prefer having him as president to George W. Bush, with 44 percent saying they’d rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term, that’s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country’s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like [former Ohio Republican Rep.] Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former president.”

Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi softening on public option?

Greg Sargeant writes:

In yet another sign that the writing is on the wall for the public option, Nancy Pelosi repeatedly refused to say today that a bill without one could not pass the House, backing away from a marker she’d laid down in the past.

Asked directly at a presser about the current Senate bill lacking the public option, and her previous claims that the bill couldn’t pass the House without one, Pelosi sidestepped the question. She claimed she’d always said that it was her belief that the public option is the best way to achieve affordability and availability, and that leaders were prepared to listen to anyone with better ideas.

After the presser, Pelosi was again asked in the hallways of the Capitol whether such a bill could pass the House. She demured...

Read the rest of this post...

Obama leads GOP in 2012 match-ups, barely

From Political Wire:

* Obama 46%, Huckabee 45%
* Obama 47%, Romney 42%
* Obama 50%, Palin 44%
* Obama 48%, Pawlenty 35%

And actually, the margin of error is plus or minus 2.8%. So Huckabee is basically a tie. Read the rest of this post...

Editor & Publisher magazine axed

This is sad, and bad, news. Greg Mitchell, the editor, has been a relentless advocate for the truth. Read the rest of this post...

Abortion ban in Ireland challenged in EU court

This is where the EU starts to get interesting. In the past, issues could be buried by the system in any particular country. It's not possible to do any longer. The EU has played an important role in business changes (emphasizing competition, for example) and it appears as though it could be ready to make other changes for the better as well. This decision is not going to legalize abortion as it stands in the rest of the EU but it will be a positive change, if it succeeds.

Three women, named only as A, B and C, brought a landmark case before the European Human Rights court in Strasbourg, the outcome of which could force Ireland to weaken its strict laws against abortion for the first time in 17 years.

The three plaintiffs – two Irish women and a Lithuanian – say that their own rights to health and life were threatened by pregnancies which they could not terminate legally in Ireland the only EU state other than Malta, with a near outright ban on the procedure. Like an estimated 7,000 Irish women a year, the three women travelled to the UK to obtain legal abortions in Britain.

Read the rest of this post...

Obama's approach to the presidency, and whether he's a liberal

I think Ezra misses the point:

But though Obama's program is quite liberal, he doesn't seem to care much how it's achieved. A public option would be nice, but if it's not there, then that's fine, too. Full auction of permits is a good idea, but if most get given away to corporations, then that's how it goes. Infrastructure spending is good, but if tax cuts are the price of passage, then tax cuts there shall be. The best description of the administration's ideology probably came from Rahm Emanuel when he said, "The only nonnegotiable principle here is success."

You could imagine a lot of presidents more dogmatically liberal than Obama, but I wonder whether there are a lot of plausible hypotheticals in which they amass more liberal achievements than Obama. At the executive level, it might be the case that being too liberal is a liability to, well, liberalism. That, Tony Judt would probably say, is why countries need a healthy left.

A few things.

1. Define "success." Rahm's definition of success is transactional. Mine is substantive. Rahm defines success on health care reform as passing a bill, any bill, so long as the bill is "called" Health Care Reform. I don't define any compromise, any solution, so long as it passes, "success." That's the definition of a legislative PR stunt, not leadership, and not success.

2. Obama's program is not liberal. He not only doesn't care how his program is achieved, he also doesn't care "if" it's achieved substantively. He only cares if his program is achieved in name only. See point one, above.

3. What "liberal achievements" is Obama racking up? The stimulus package, in which he gave away 40% of the money to relatively useless tax cuts in order to buy only 3 Republican votes? The tax cut money was wasted, several hundred billion dollars worth - that's neither liberal nor conservative. It's puffery - see point one, above. The health care bill? It remains to be seen how liberal the effects of this legislation really are. So far, the only clear winners are the health care industry. It's not at all clear that our premiums are going to significantly decrease, or our benefits significantly increase, under this legislation - and that was the goal, wasn't it? (The vehicle might have been bringing costs down - but the goal was to help the consumer get better health care at a lower price. And it's not entirely clear that this legislation will bring costs down either, since the public option was to provide real cost competition, and now that's gone.)

4. A final point that many of the President's defenders keep ignoring. You don't praise your kid for getting a C+, or even a B-, on an exam, when they could have had an A, but simply didn't try. If anything, praising your child for blowing off the exam and getting a B- sends exactly the wrong signal. This administration is far too consumed with whether it is liked, far too afraid of being criticized, and far too obsessed with about avoiding conflict at all costs. President Obama was handed the presidency by a rather healthy margin, an opposition in utter ruin, a Senate with a filibuster proof majority, a House with overwhelming Democratic control, approval ratings through the roof, and on his signature issue, he dropped the ball for nine months, until the climate was so poisoned by incessant attacks from the right, that he "had no choice" but to cave on the most important promise of his campaign. That is not leadership. And it's not liberalism. It smacks of fear and weakness, and political naivete. I've worked in politics in this town for twenty years, and this is not "the way things work," nor is it the way you win. Read the rest of this post...

Obama's Nobel, and Europe's awakening

Europeans are up in arms that President Obama "snubbed" Norway's king by turning down the traditional lunch invitation at the Nobel ceremonies (he also said no to the traditional tour of the exhibit about his prize, and to being greeted by local schoolchildren). This is the first time that Europeans are seeing the President's true nature. Obama has faced heavy criticism from conservatives for receiving the prize overall, and for being seen with royalty. Thus, Obama tries to minimize the prize and avoid the king, all in one fell swoop. He accepts his Nobel, but refuses to follow the tradition of what the Peace Prize winner is expected to do. In an effort to avoid conservative criticism, rather than take it on, he cuts the Nobel baby in half, he caves on his commitment, as he does whenever an issue comes with a whiff of conservative controversy. Read the rest of this post...

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Speech

The President accepted the Nobel Peace Prize today -- with an acknowledgment of war. Here's the start of his speech:

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

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

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

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

The text of rest of the speech is after the break.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma – there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So let us reach for the world that ought to be – that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he’s outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

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

Read the rest of this post...

Obama snubs Norway

Regardless of whether he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, it still does come with certain responsibilities. The Bush years were notorious for embarrassments like this. Many had hoped the new president was going to be an improvement in this area but apparently not.

The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children's event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.

He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.

According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.

More on Obama's acceptance speech today here. Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Your President received his Nobel Peace Prize today. He's giving the speech as I write this. There's much discussion about the role of war in his speech.

The House is trying to pass financial services reform. The "New Democrats" led by Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL) have been pushing pro-industry amendments. I mean, it seems that everyone hates Wall Street and the banks right now. The GOP is owned by bankers -- and insurance companies. So leave it to Bean and allies to kowtow to Wall Street.

The Senate is waiting for the CBO score on the health care bill compromise. It's all very fluid. And, Democratic leaders are all trying to make sure that Joe Lieberman is happy.

Let's get started.... Read the rest of this post...

UK hits bankers with one time 50% bonus tax

Good. The bankers are screaming that the world is going to end, but nobody really cares any more. In fact, let them go to Dubai where their kitch Palm Island is sinking along with the economy. Go for it and no need to send a postcard because nobody cares.

Britain's Labour government slapped a one-off levy on bank bonuses on Wednesday and said it would hike income tax for all but the poorest in 2011, delaying action to tackle a record deficit until after an election it is expected to lose.

Despite warnings by ratings agencies that debt has to be reined in, finance minister Alistair Darling revised up his borrowing forecast for this year to a record 177.6 billion pounds ($290 billion) or 12.6 percent of GDP, from 175 billion.

Read the rest of this post...

UK police again stop photographer - use anti-terror law as excuse

Somehow this doesn't promote confidence that the British police have any clue about what is going on around them. Yes, they need to cautious due to actual terrorism but sending out truckloads of Keystone Kops (or perhaps Cheech and Chong) is an obvious overreaction. Between other similar problems with photographers and then the G20 fiasco, you have to wonder if there is anyone in control over there.

"Three of them descended on me and said they were here because of reports of an aggressive male," Smith said. "One of them even admired my badge which said 'I am a photographer not a terrorist'. But they searched my bag for terrorist-related paraphernalia and demanded to know who I was and what I was doing. I refused. saying that I didn't have to tell them, but they said if I didn't they would take me off and physically search me."

Smith's trouble began when he refused to provide his name and explain what he was doing to a security guard from a nearby Bank of America office. He said he was astonished by the police response, not least the expense of dispatching four vehicles and seven officers.

His experience comes despite a warning last week to all police forces not to use section 44 measures unnecessarily against photographers. In a circular to fellow chief constables, Andy Trotter, of British Transport police, said: "Officers and community support officers are reminded that we should not be stopping and searching people for taking photos. Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether from the casual tourist or professional, is unacceptable."

Read the rest of this post...