"公路养护"的年终总结

　　XX年养护工作总结

　　XX年我站在鹤大公路管理处的正确领导下，在处养护科的有力指导下，以建设全国文明样板路为目标，全面贯彻落实“加强养护、科学管理、提高质量、保障畅通”的公路养护方针，立足实际，务实工作，取得了一定的成绩。现将我站XX年养护工作情况简要汇报如下：

　　一、基本情况

　　我站下设一个养护办四个道班。管理人员5人养护员工25人。管养路段主线36.1公里，林口互通区1处。大桥979.94米/6座、中桥373.36米/6座、小桥237.3米/7座，圆管涵683.98米/23道、盖板涵654.68米17道、箱涵337.24米/8道，乔木2551棵，灌木2236棵。标志牌86块。

　　二、本年度主要工作：

　　（一）、养护队伍建设

　　1、养护管理人员培训。针对养护工作的需要，达到科学养护的目标，我站有针对性的制定学习方案，确定培训时间为每周四下午13：00—16：00。主要学习《公路养护技术规范》、《公路养护质量评定标准》等。通过学习不断提高养护办工作人员的业务水平，自觉把所学的知识灵活运用到实际工作当中。

　　2、养路员工培训。为提高养护人员的综合素质，由养护办制定学习方案，每月5日对养路工进行全方面的知识培训，培训的主要内容为《养路员工岗位责任制》、《养路工管理办法》和《公路养护技术规范》，同时并对养路员工基本操作知识进行现场指导，这样为养路员工之间的业务交流创造了条件，从而全面提高养路工整体素质和业务水平。

　　（二）、防汛保通

　　1、我站根据汛期的实际情况制定了详细的《汛期保通工作方案》，并派专人负责收听天气预报，及时掌握天气变化，做到预防为主，防抢结合，确保公路安全渡汛。

　　2、在汛前对所辖路段的桥梁、涵洞、边沟、截水沟进行了检查和疏通清理。疏通涵洞9道，清理边沟、截水沟12KM，清除淤泥124立方米。

　　（三）、除雪保通

　　冬季除雪保通成立专门的组织机构，制定除雪保通工作方案。抢前抓早争主动，提前做好准备工作，9月份中旬开始进行冬季整备工作，储备防滑沙，除雪工具等。为保证除雪及时、彻底、高效，我们坚持“以雪为令，雪停即清”的原则，制定了四项保障措施。一是人力保证。分别与公路周边村屯村民取得联系，保证紧急时可雇用村民60人进行清雪。二是设备保证。与设备站保持联系，保证降雪时除雪设备能够及时到达现场清理。充分发挥机械除雪的工作效率，把机械除雪和人工除雪有机结合起来提高除雪速度及质量。三是资讯保证。每日安排专人收听天气预报，如出现可能降雪天气，增加值班留宿人员，组织养路工巡视路上雪情，发现特大雪情立即报告。四是制度保证。对除雪时限作出具体规定，要求大雪在七日内、中雪五日内清完路面压实积雪，小雪随下随清。保证公路畅通和车辆行驶安全。从1月份至3月末我站除雪量为484340立方米，桥面除冰11立方米，为沿线公路的畅通无阻提供了基本保证。

　　（四）、养护内业建设

　　由专人对各种资料进行整理及时归档，及时统计报表。内业档案基本实现了标准化、规范化、科学化。5月、10月份开展两次大型路况调查，详细掌握管养路段公路各项技术指标情况，分类整理基础资料，为养护工作提供信息保障。

　　（五）、早春养护工作

　　1、疏通桥涵。对桥梁、涵洞两侧及边沟的积雪彻底清理，对泄水槽排水孔及时疏通，对损坏处及时上报并做出维修方案，尽早进行修复。

　　2、抓好GBM工程。做好我站公路沿线绿化、美化工作，及时对边坡、边沟进行修整，使边坡保持平顺、坚实，带领养路工进行播种扫帚梅、树木刷白等工作，使公路达到标准化、美化的要求。

　　3、加强沿线设施养护维修。对沿线设施的损坏情况做出调查统计，并做出修复计划，在短期内将损坏设施全部修复，恢复其功能。

　　（六）、保洁美化工作。

　　对养路工实行养护责任制，包干到人，分组分段工作，签订养护责任状。每日查看养路工出勤情况，每周一下午召开养路工组长会议，总结出勤工作情况，养路工上路率达到99%，全年保洁量为13,541.5km。加强公路沿线的植被管理，树木存活率达到处统一的要求，路边杂草高度符合规定，实现了公路的绿化、美化、香化。

　　（七）、病害修复工作

　　我站养护工作人员每天按时上道巡查，对公路病害和损坏的设施及时申请修复。并在9月份秋季路况调查后，进行了一次全面修复工作，包括波形板140块、边沟修复4处、急流槽修复5处、桥锥坡修复1处、里程牌1块等。XX年共计修复病害8处，保证了沿线设施的完整。

　　三、不足之处和下一步打算

　　我站XX年的养护工作基本实现了稳步发展的趋势，达到了年初的即定目标，但也存在一些不足之处，主要体现在：1、人员素质还有待继续提高；2、个别职工工作态度不够端正；3、科学养护水平还需进一步提高。在下一步工作中，我站将有针对性的开展工作，细化工作指标，纳入明年的工作计划之中。明年着重要加强以下几方面的工作：1、坚持学习，扩展学习内容，要以提高养护人员的综合素质为目标；2、系统性加强养路工的科学养护知识培训，提高养路工的专业养护知识水平和技能水平；3、加强管理，加大考核力度，从管理要效益；4、在摸索中发展，在发展中突破，务实创新，开创新的发展途径，加速养护工作的前进脚步，树立品牌意识，打造品牌形象，尽最大努力推进交通事业的快发展，实现林口站的跨越式发展。

篇2："WhoThenWillSpeakfortheCommonGood?"

　　Barbara Jordan: "Who Then Will Speak for the Common Good?"

　　Thank you ladies and gentlemen for a very warm reception.

　　It was one hundred and forty-four years ago that members of the Democratic Party first met in convention to select a Presidential candidate. Since that time, Democrats have continued to convene once every four years and draft a party platform and nominate a Presidential candidate. And our meeting this week is a continuation of that tradition. But there is something different about tonight. There is something special about tonight. What is different? What is special?

　　I, Barbara Jordan, am a keynote speaker.

　　A lot of years passed since 1832, and during that time it would have been most unusual for any national political party to ask that a Barbara Jordan to deliver a keynote address. But tonight here I am. And I feel that notwithstanding the past that my presence here is one additional bit of evidence that the American Dream need not forever be deferred.

　　Now that I have this grand distinction what in the world am I supposed to say? I could easily spend this time praising the accomplishments of this party and attacking the Republicans -- but I don't choose to do that. I could list the many problems which Americans have. I could list the problems which cause people to feel cynical, angry, frustrated: problems which include lack of integrity in government; the feeling that the individual no longer counts; the reality of material and spiritual poverty; the feeling that the grand American experiment is failing or has failed. I could recite these problems, and then I could sit down and offer no solutions. But I don't choose to do that either. The citizens of America expect more. They deserve and they want more than a recital of problems.

　　We are a people in a quandary about the present. We are a people in search of our future. We are a people in search of a national community. We are a people trying not only to solve the problems of the present, unemployment, inflation, but we are attempting on a larger scale to fulfill the promise of America. We are attempting to fulfill our national purpose, to create and sustain a society in which all of us are equal.

　　Throughout out history, when people have looked for new ways to solve their problems, and to uphold the principles of this nation, many times they have turned to political parties. They have often turned to the Democratic Party. What is it? What is it about the Democratic Party that makes it the instrument the people use when they search for ways to shape their future? Well I believe the answer to that question lies in our concept of governing. Our concept of governing is derived from our view of people. It is a concept deeply rooted in a set of beliefs firmly etched in the national conscience of all of us.

　　Now what are these beliefs? First, we believe in equality for all and privileges for none. This is a belief that each American regardless of background has equal standing in the public forum -- all of us. Because we believe this idea so firmly, we are an inclusive rather than an exclusive party. Let everybody come! I think it no accident that most of those emigrating to America in the 19th century identified with the Democratic Party. We are a heterogeneous party made up of Americans of diverse backgrounds.

　　We believe that the people are the source of all governmental power; that the authority of the people is to be extended, not restricted.

　　This can be accomplished only by providing each citizen with every opportunity to participate in the management of the government. They must have that, we believe. We believe that the government which represents the authority of all the people, not just one interest group, but all the people, has an obligation to actively -- underscore actively -- seek to remove those obstacles which would block individual achievement -- obstacles emanating from race, sex, economic condition. The government must remove them, seek to remove them.

　　We are a party of innovation. We do not reject our traditions, but we are willing to adapt to changing circumstances, when change we must. We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. We have a positive vision of the future founded on the belief that the gap between the promise and reality of America can one day be finally closed.

　　We believe that.

　　This, my friends, is the bedrock of our concept of governing. This is a part of the reason why Americans have turned to the Democratic Party. These are the foundations upon which a national community can be built. Let's all understand that these guiding principles cannot be discarded for short-term political gains. They represent what this country is all about. They are indigenous to the American idea. And these are principles which are not negotiable.

　　In other times, I could stand here and give this kind of exposition on the beliefs of the Democratic Party and that would be enough. But today that is not enough. People want more. That is not sufficient reason for the majority of the people of this country to vote Democratic. We have made mistakes. We realize that. In our haste to do all things for all people, we did not foresee the full consequences of our actions. And when the people raised their voices, we didn't hear. But our deafness was only a temporary condition, and not an irreversible condition.

　　Even as I stand here and admit that we have made mistakes, I still believe that as the people of America sit in judgment on each party, they will recognize that our mistakes were mistakes of the heart. They'll recognize that.

　　And now we must look to the future. Let us heed the voice of the people and recognize their common sense. If we do not, we not only blaspheme our political heritage, we ignore the common ties that bind all Americans. Many fear the future. Many are distrustful of their leaders, and believe that their voices are never heard. Many seek only to satisfy their private work wants. To satisfy their private interests. But this is the great danger America faces. That we will cease to be one nation and become instead a collection of interest groups: city against suburb, region against region, individual against individual. Each seeking to satisfy private wants. If that happens, who then will speak for America? Who then will speak for the common good?

　　This is the question which must be answered in 1976.

　　Are we to be one people bound together by common spirit, sharing in a common endeavor; or will we become a divided nation? For all of its uncertainty, we cannot flee the future. We must not become the new Puritans and reject our society. We must address and master the future together. It can be done if we restore the belief that we share a sense of national community, that we share a common national endeavor. It can be done.

　　There is no executive order; there is no law that can require the American people to form a national community. This we must do as individuals, and if we do it as individuals, there is no President of the United States who can veto that decision.

　　As a first step, we must restore our belief in ourselves. We are a generous people so why can't we be generous with each other? We need to take to heart the words spoken by Thomas Jefferson:

　　"Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life are but dreary things."

　　A nation is formed by the willingness of each of us to share in the responsibility for upholding the common good. A government is invigorated when each of us is willing to participate in shaping the future of this nation. In this election year we must define the common good and begin again to shape a common future. Let each person do his or her part. If one citizen is unwilling to participate, all of us are going to suffer. For the American idea, though it is shared by all of us, is realized in each one of us.

　　And now, what are those of us who are elected public officials supposed to do? We call ourselves public servants but I'll tell you this: We as public servants must set an example for the rest of the nation. It is hypocritical for the public official to admonish and exhort the people to uphold the common good if we are derelict in upholding the common good. More is required of public officials than slogans and handshakes and press releases. More is required. We must hold ourselves strictly accountable. We must provide the people with a vision of the future.

　　If we promise as public officials, we must deliver. If we as public officials propose, we must produce. If we say to the American people it is time for you to be sacrificial; sacrifice. If the public official says that, we [public officials] must be the first to give. We must be. And again, if we make mistakes, we must be willing to admit them. We have to do that. What we have to do is strike a balance between the idea that government should do everything and that idea, the belief, that government ought to do nothing. Strike a balance. Let there be no illusions about the difficulty of forming this kind of a national community. It's tough, difficult, not easy. But a spirit of harmony will survive in America only if each of us remembers that we share a common destiny. If each of us remembers when self-interest and bitterness seem to prevail that we share a common destiny.

　　I have confidence that we can form this kind of national community.

　　I have confidence that the Democratic Party can lead the way.

　　I have that confidence.

　　We cannot improve on the system of government handed down to us by the founders of the Republic. There is no way to improve upon that. But what we can do is to find new ways to implement that system and realize our destiny.

　　Now, I began this speech by commenting to you on the uniqueness of a Barbara Jordan making a keynote address. Well I am going to close my speech by quoting a Republican President and I ask you that as you listen to these words of Abraham Lincoln, relate them to the concept of a national community in which every last one of us participates:

　　"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of Democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no Democracy."

　　Thank you.

篇3："ATimeforChoosing"(aka"TheSpeech")

　　Ronald Reagan: "A Time for Choosing" (aka "The Speech")

　　Program Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan:

　　Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

　　I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."

　　But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

　　As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

　　Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

　　And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

　　This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

　　You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down -- [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

　　In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

　　Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

　　Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming -- that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.

　　Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

　　At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

　　Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

　　Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

　　They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.

　　We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

　　But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

　　Now -- so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -- and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs -- do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

　　But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.

　　Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things -- we're never "for" anything.

　　Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

　　Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

　　But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

　　A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?

　　Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

　　At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

　　In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?

　　I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

　　I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

　　No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So.governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.

　　Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.

　　Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

　　Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.

　　But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

　　Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

　　Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men -- that we're to choose just between two personalities.

　　Well what of this man that they would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

　　This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

　　An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

　　During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.

　　Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

　　We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

　　Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

　　You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

　　You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

　　You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

　　We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

　　We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

　　Thank you very much.

篇4：公路养护年终总结

　　一、狠抓了地方公路养护管理

　　我们通过认真贯彻落实我们一直坚持贯彻交通部的建养三十二字方针，进一步强化管理措施，加强公路日常养护，及时抢修公路水毁，确保了公路路况质量的稳定。

　　一是为充分调动地方公路系统广大干部职工、农民代表工的生产积极性，提高地方公路管养水平，我们积极响应省厅、省、州交通工会的号召，在全州地方公路系统大力开展了“交通杯”公路养护劳动竞赛。在劳动竞赛活动中，各县市公路管理站以“养好公路，保障畅通”为主题，以省局提出的日常养护应做到“七无二有”及“三勤”为标准，围绕各自的突出问题和薄弱环节，强化内部管理，在工班之间大力开展“比、学、超”活动，有力地促进了路况质量的稳定。

　　二是及时抢修水毁工程。在水毁突击抢修上，我们一是根据先通后畅保重点的原则，不等、不靠，积极、及时地拿出水毁预留资金进行突击抢修。水毁工程实施抢修项目州处进行了多次现场督查督办，从经费管理、质量管理、安全管理全方面提出更高要求。三年来共完成水毁修复投资271万元，修复路基78.2公里9600立方米、路面64.4公里200.95千平方米、桥梁6座38延米，涵洞53道155米、挡土墙108处11358立方米，清除坍方156处38468立方米。

　　三是认真贯彻落实省、州有关安全生产会议精神，狠抓了地方公路养护安全管理，规范了砂石的堆放等养护操作规程，加强了渡口的安全监管，做到安全生产；对所管养公路进行了不定期的检查，对桥梁进行了普查，落实了桥梁维护管理三人制度，并建立了责任档案。发现有行车安全隐患的路段及时做好了防范措施，有行车安全隐患的危桥实行了关闭交通。安全设施的投入是州处直接进行的专项管理、专项计划资金的惠民工程。3年来，全州共投入专项资金20余万元，共设置警示桩1802根、防护墩106个、警示标志648块。我处在多次组织的安全检查中，尤其狠抓了公路渡口的相关制度的落实和渡船的安全运行。汽车渡口主要分布在吉首、保靖两县市，根据具体情况，我们撤消了保靖县的铁厂渡口，保靖的涂乍、清水渡口实施安全检查，落实安全责任，消除安全隐患，提高管理运行水平，三个汽车渡口保证了平安渡运。

　　四是规范路政管理。几年来，我处牢固树立依法治路、依法行政的观念，在规范路政管理的同时，逐步建立了路产档案，桥梁、涵洞资料台帐，公开了办案程序栏，使路政工作逐渐走上法律化、规范化道路，使办事制度公开化、透明化。通过大力宣传《公路法》，认真抓了路障和违章建筑的排查工作，三年来共清障1211处，有效地维护了地方公路的路产路权。

　　XX年底经自检，全州地方公路省道、县乡道年末好路率分别为94.41%、86.85%。均超额完成了州交通局下达的目标任务。几年来，路况质量基本保持了稳定。

　　二、狠抓了通村公路建设

　　通村公路建设是一项富民工程。几年来，我们的工作力度一直不减。一是认真研究，分解任务，采取得力措施，保证年度通村公路任务的完成；二是集中资金，集中工程技术人员，确保修一条，通一条。通过省交通厅通村公路验收组全面验收，确定XX年竣工里程408公里，新通62个行政村；确定XX年竣工里程317.1公里，新通51个行政村。至此，全州2664个行政村中通公路的已达2386个，通路率为89.6%。超额地完成了省委下达的阶段性目标。123

　　今年来，全州又有31个行政村积极行动，在建通村公路249.9公里。其中路基基本成型166.5公里。共完成土石方168.5万方，桥梁127延米6座，涵洞68.5米11道，群众投工投劳127.8万个。

　　3、狠抓了拖养费征收

　　拖养费是地方公路的主要资金来源，为了多征费、征好费、征足费，我们面对“费改税”前夕的困难形势，积极想办法，认真定措施，尤其注意了文明征费。对内加强管理，继续实行计划到月、任务到人、按月考核、按月兑现的管理办法；对外加大征收稽查力度，放弃了所有节假日。通过全州拖养费征收人员的共同努力，XX年共征收拖养费937万元，XX年共征收拖养费1060万元。XX年的拖养费征收改革，虽然给地方部门带来了一定影响和工作压力，但是，我们积极转变征收观念，针对费源少、费源散的特点，改进征收方法，加大征收力度，克服了“非典”带来的不利影响，超额完成了拖摩养路费的征收任务，截止XX年11月2日，全州共完成拖摩养路费 265.2万元，为年计划的189%。

　　4、突出抓了交通扶贫工程

　　XX年来，我们还突出抓了交通扶贫工程的前期工作、项目管理等。花垣至龙山公路改造项目，全长155.8公里，完成投资10720万元；凤凰火炉坪至禾库公路，新建四级公路13.45公里，完成投资280万元；展笔至小溪公路，全长52.12公里，完成投资2720万元，已顺利通过省局验收。

　　5、认真抓了公路普查、农村公路规划及推广桥梁管理系统工作

　　交通部和国家统计局决定XX年进行第二次全国公路普查。为了切实搞好公路普查工作，我处抽调工程技术人员，分成三个组，到各县（市）集中进行里程丈量和路况数据采集。同时，安排了专项资金，购买了电脑3台、车辆1台，共投入资金45万元。在普查过程中，严格按照省道普查办规定的实施方案执行，以确保里程丈量的数据准确性和野外数据采集准确性；在普查数据的整理、录入中，做到不漏一个数据，不错一个数据，按时完成内业录入、装订工作，在与省普查办上交资料时，一次通过。省普查办驻湘西督查员在其总结材料中对我州公路普查工作给予了充分的肯定。

　　同时，在州局的组织下，在调查、搜集和分析社会经济及交通现状的基础上，通过科学分析，我处还牵头编制了《湘西自治州农村公路发展规划》，为全州今后20年的农村公路建设选定了目标，明确了任务。

　　XX年，我们根据省局要求，积极推广桥梁管理系统，抽调了专门人员，配备了相关设备，确保桥梁管理系统的外、内夜数据采集工作能顺利进行。

　　6、狠抓了职工思想建设

　　XX年以来，我们继续认真把职工思想建设抓好抓实。采用集中学习与分散自学相结合的方式，在党员干部中继续认真开展学习“xxxx”重要思想，贯彻xx届六中全会以及xx大精神，继续组织勤政廉政学习，完善党风廉政建设制度，大力开展了郑培民、陈德华同志先进事迹学习活动，使全体干部职工特别是领导干部深刻认识到保持谦虚谨慎和艰苦奋斗的极端重要性。3年来，共出学习专栏16期，上理论辅导课15次，组织座谈讨论15次。在处支部的组织下，17名党员干部的参学率达100%，讨论发言率达100%。购买学习资料60册，记心得笔记38万余字，人平2.2万字，写学习心得170篇，人平10篇。还组织参学党员召开民主生活会，督促党员学员开展批评与自我批评，并要大家认真对照检查和反思。通过学习，进一步提高了干部职工贯彻执行党的基本理论、基本路线、基本纲领的自觉性和坚定性。各基层单位也通过强有力的思想政治工作，树立正气，形成合力，排除干扰抓大事，保证了各项工作健康顺利开展，出现围绕养建中心开展创建活动，争创文明单位的良好局面，办公室文明窗口建设活动领导重视，思想统一，全员参与，广大职工共塑行业文明意识和集体荣誉感普遍增强，为我州地方公路事业全面发展提供了强大的思想政治保证。123

　　7、狠抓了党风廉政责任制的落实

　　几年来，我处领导班子在认真贯彻落实全州反腐败工作会议的同时，根据州直党风廉政建设责任制领导小组的要求，以“xxxx”重要思想为指针，按照集体领导和个人分工负责相结合、谁主管谁负责、一级抓一级的、层层抓落实的原则，加大从源头上预防和治理腐败的力度，深化反腐败三项工作，狠抓了党风廉政建设责任制工作。

　　为搞好党风廉政建设责任制工作，我处专门成立了党风廉政建设责任制工作领导小组，制定了州地方道路管理处纪检监察工作意见，对我处党风廉政建设工作提出明确目标和要求。同时，根据州有关文件要求，我处对处领导班子的党风廉政建设责任制进行了分解，班子成员根据各自工作分工，对职责范围内的党风廉政建设责任制负领导责任，实行了“一岗双责”，按照谁主管谁负责的原则，明确了责任，增强了领导班子、股室负责人和各县市站一把手抓党风廉政建设的紧迫感和责任感。

　　在过来的几年中，我们虽然取得了一定的成绩，但离上级的要求仍有一定差距。我们决心今后的工作中，深入贯彻xx大和xx届三中全会精神，继续认真践行“xxxx”重要思想，深化改革，强化内部管理，力争我州地方公路再上新台阶，为全面建设小康社会作出应有的贡献。

123

篇5：LyndonBainesJohnson:"LetUsContinue"

　　Lyndon Baines Johnson: "Let Us Continue"

　　Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, Members of the House, Members of the Senate, my fellow Americans:

　　All I have I would have given gladly not to be standing here today.

　　The greatest leader of our time has been struck down by the foulest deed of our time. Today, John Fitzgerald Kennedy lives on in the immortal words and works that he left behind. He lives on in the mind and memories of mankind. He lives on in the hearts of his countrymen. No words are sad enough to express our sense of loss. No words are strong enough to express our determination to continue the forward thrust of America that he began.

　　The dream of conquering the vastness of space, the dream of partnership across the Atlantic -- and across the Pacific as well -- the dream of a Peace Corps in less developed nations, the dream of education for all of our children, the dream of jobs for all who seek them and need them, the dream of care for our elderly, the dream of an all-out attack on mental illness, and above all, the dream of equal rights for all Americans, whatever their race or color. These and other American dreams have been vitalized by his drive and by his dedication. And now the ideas and the ideals which he so nobly represented must and will be translated into effective action.

　　Under John Kennedy's leadership, this nation has demonstrated that it has the courage to seek peace, and it has the fortitude to risk war. We have proved that we are a good and reliable friend to those who seek peace and freedom. We have shown that we can also be a formidable foe to those who reject the path of peace and those who seek to impose upon us or our allies the yoke of tyranny. This nation will keep its commitments from South Vietnam to West Berlin. We will be unceasing in the search for peace, resourceful in our pursuit of areas of agreement -- even with those with whom we differ -- and generous and loyal to those who join with us in common cause.

　　In this age when there can be no losers in peace and no victors in war, we must recognize the obligation to match national strength with national restraint. We must be prepared at one and the same time for both the confrontation of power and the limitation of power. We must be ready to defend the national interest and to negotiate the common interest. This is the path that we shall continue to pursue. Those who test our courage will find it strong, and those who seek our friendship will find it honorable. We will demonstrate anew that the strong can be just in the use of strength, and the just can be strong in the defense of justice.

　　And let all know we will extend no special privilege and impose no persecution. We will carry on the fight against poverty, and misery, and disease, and ignorance, in other lands and in our own. We will serve all the nation, not one section or one sector, or one group, but all Americans.

　　These are the United States: A united people with a united purpose.

　　Our American unity does not depend upon unanimity. We have differences; but now, as in the past, we can derive from those differences strength, not weakness, wisdom, not despair. Both as a people and a government, we can unite upon a program, a program which is wise and just, enlightened and constructive.

　　For 32 years Capitol Hill has been my home. I have shared many moments of pride with you, pride in the ability of the Congress of the United States to act, to meet any crisis, to distill from our differences strong programs of national action. An assassin's bullet has thrust upon me the awesome burden of the Presidency. I am here today to say I need your help. I cannot bear this burden alone. I need the help of all Americans, and all America.

　　This nation has experienced a profound shock, and in this critical moment, it is our duty, yours and mine, as the Government of the United States, to do away with uncertainty and doubt and delay, and to show that we are capable of decisive action; that from the brutal loss of our leader we will derive not weakness, but strength; that we can and will act and act now.

　　From this chamber of representative government, let all the world know and none misunderstand that I rededicate this Government to the unswerving support of the United Nations, to the honorable and determined execution of our commitments to our allies, to the maintenance of military strength second to none, to the defense of the strength and the stability of the dollar, to the expansion of our foreign trade, to the reinforcement of our programs of mutual assistance and cooperation in Asia and Africa, and to our Alliance for Progress in this hemisphere.

　　On the 20th day of January, in 19 and 61, John F. Kennedy told his countrymen that our national work would not be finished "in the first thousand days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet." "But," he said, "let us begin."

　　Today in this moment of new resolve, I would say to all my fellow Americans, let us continue.

　　This is our challenge -- not to hesitate, not to pause, not to turn about and linger over this evil moment, but to continue on our course so that we may fulfill the destiny that history has set for us.

　　Our most immediate tasks are here on this Hill. First, no memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the Civil Rights Bill for which he fought so long. We have talked long enough in this country about equal rights. We have talked for a hundred years or more. It is time now to write the next chapter, and to write it in the books of law. I urge you again, as I did in 19 and 57 and again in 19 and 60, to enact a civil rights law so that we can move forward to eliminate from this nation every trace of discrimination and oppression that is based upon race or color. There could be no greater source of strength to this nation both at home and abroad.

　　And second, no act of ours could more fittingly continue the work of President Kennedy than the early passage of the tax bill for which he fought all this long year. This is a bill designed to increase our national income and Federal revenues, and to provide insurance against recession. That bill, if passed without delay, means more security for those now working, more jobs for those now without them, and more incentive for our economy.

　　In short, this is no time for delay. It is a time for action -- strong, forward-looking action on the pending education bills to help bring the light of learning to every home and hamlet in America; strong, forward-looking action on youth employment opportunities; strong, forward-looking action on the pending foreign aid bill, making clear that we are not forfeiting our responsibilities to this hemisphere or to the world, nor erasing Executive flexibility in the conduct of our foreign affairs; and strong, prompt, and forward-looking action on the remaining appropriation bills.

　　In this new spirit of action, the Congress can expect the full cooperation and support of the executive branch. And, in particular, I pledge that the expenditures of your Government will be administered with the utmost thrift and frugality. I will insist that the Government get a dollar's value for a dollar spent. The Government will set an example of prudence and economy.

　　This does not mean that we will not meet our unfilled needs or that we will not honor our commitments. We will do both.

　　As one who has long served in both Houses of the Congress, I firmly believe in the independence and the integrity of the legislative branch. And I promise you that I shall always respect this. It is deep in the marrow of my bones. With equal firmness, I believe in the capacity and I believe in the ability of the Congress, despite the divisions of opinions which characterize our nation, to act -- to act wisely, to act vigorously, to act speedily when the need arises.

　　The need is here. The need is now. I ask your help.

　　We meet in grief, but let us also meet in renewed dedication and renewed vigor. Let us meet in action, in tolerance, and in mutual understanding.

　　John Kennedy's death commands what his life conveyed -- that America must move forward.

　　The time has come for Americans of all races and creeds and political beliefs to understand and to respect one another. So let us put an end to the teaching and the preaching of hate and evil and violence. Let us turn away from the fanatics of the far left and the far right, from the apostles of bitterness and bigotry, from those defiant of law, and those who pour venom into our nation's bloodstream.

　　I profoundly hope that the tragedy and the torment of these terrible days will bind us together in new fellowship, making us one people in our hour of sorrow.

　　So let us here highly resolve that John Fitzgerald Kennedy did not live or die in vain.

　　And on this Thanksgiving eve, as we gather together to ask the Lord's blessing, and give Him our thanks, let us unite in those familiar and cherished words:

　　America, America,

　　God shed His grace on thee,

　　And crown thy good

　　With brotherhood

　　From sea to shining sea.

篇6："ThePerilsofIndifference"

　　Elie Wiesel: "The Perils of Indifference"

　　Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, members of Congress, Ambassador Holbrooke, Excellencies, friends:

　　Fifty-four years ago to the day, a young Jewish boy from a small town in the Carpathian Mountains woke up, not far from Goethe's beloved Weimar, in a place of eternal infamy called Buchenwald. He was finally free, but there was no joy in his heart. He thought there never would be again. Liberated a day earlier by American soldiers, he remembers their rage at what they saw. And even if he lives to be a very old man, he will always be grateful to them for that rage, and also for their compassion. Though he did not understand their language, their eyes told him what he needed to know -- that they, too, would remember, and bear witness.

　　And now, I stand before you, Mr. President -- Commander-in-Chief of the army that freed me, and tens of thousands of others -- and I am filled with a profound and abiding gratitude to the American people. Gratitude is a word that I cherish. Gratitude is what defines the humanity of the human being. And I am grateful to you, Hillary, or Mrs. Clinton, for what you said, and for what you are doing for children in the world, for the homeless, for the victims of injustice, the victims of destiny and society. And I thank all of you for being here.

　　We are on the threshold of a new century, a new millennium. What will the legacy of this vanishing century be? How will it be remembered in the new millennium? Surely it will be judged, and judged severely, in both moral and metaphysical terms. These failures have cast a dark shadow over humanity: two World Wars, countless civil wars, the senseless chain of assassinations (Gandhi, the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Sadat, Rabin), bloodbaths in Cambodia and Nigeria, India and Pakistan, Ireland and Rwanda, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Sarajevo and Kosovo; the inhumanity in the gulag and the tragedy of Hiroshima. And, on a different level, of course, Auschwitz and Treblinka. So much violence; so much indifference.

　　What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means "no difference." A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil. What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one's sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals?

　　Of course, indifference can be tempting -- more than that, seductive. It is so much easier to look away from victims. It is so much easier to avoid such rude interruptions to our work, our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all, awkward, troublesome, to be involved in another person's pain and despair. Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbor are of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the Other to an abstraction.

　　Over there, behind the black gates of Auschwitz, the most tragic of all prisoners were the "Muselmanner," as they were called. Wrapped in their torn blankets, they would sit or lie on the ground, staring vacantly into space, unaware of who or where they were -- strangers to their surroundings. They no longer felt pain, hunger, thirst. They feared nothing. They felt nothing. They were dead and did not know it.

　　Rooted in our tradition, some of us felt that to be abandoned by humanity then was not the ultimate. We felt that to be abandoned by God was worse than to be punished by Him. Better an unjust God than an indifferent one. For us to be ignored by God was a harsher punishment than to be a victim of His anger. Man can live far from God -- not outside God. God is wherever we are. Even in suffering? Even in suffering.

　　In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony. One does something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it.

　　Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor -- never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees -- not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity, we betray our own.

　　Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment.

　　And this is one of the most important lessons of this outgoing century's wide-ranging experiments in good and evil.

　　In the place that I come from, society was composed of three simple categories: the killers, the victims, and the bystanders. During the darkest of times, inside the ghettoes and death camps -- and I'm glad that Mrs. Clinton mentioned that we are now commemorating that event, that period, that we are now in the Days of Remembrance -- but then, we felt abandoned, forgotten. All of us did.

　　And our only miserable consolation was that we believed that Auschwitz and Treblinka were closely guarded secrets; that the leaders of the free world did not know what was going on behind those black gates and barbed wire; that they had no knowledge of the war against the Jews that Hitler's armies and their accomplices waged as part of the war against the Allies. If they knew, we thought, surely those leaders would have moved heaven and earth to intervene. They would have spoken out with great outrage and conviction. They would have bombed the railways leading to Birkenau, just the railways, just once.

　　And now we knew, we learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew. And the illustrious occupant of the White House then, who was a great leader -- and I say it with some anguish and pain, because, today is exactly 54 years marking his death -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt died on April the 12th, 1945. So he is very much present to me and to us. No doubt, he was a great leader. He mobilized the American people and the world, going into battle, bringing hundreds and thousands of valiant and brave soldiers in America to fight fascism, to fight dictatorship, to fight Hitler. And so many of the young people fell in battle. And, nevertheless, his image in Jewish history -- I must say it -- his image in Jewish history is flawed.

　　The depressing tale of the St. Louis is a case in point. Sixty years ago, its human cargo -- nearly 1,000 Jews -- was turned back to Nazi Germany. And that happened after the Kristallnacht, after the first state sponsored pogrom, with hundreds of Jewish shops destroyed, synagogues burned, thousands of people put in concentration camps. And that ship, which was already in the shores of the United States, was sent back. I don't understand. Roosevelt was a good man, with a heart. He understood those who needed help. Why didn't he allow these refugees to disembark? A thousand people -- in America, the great country, the greatest democracy, the most generous of all new nations in modern history. What happened? I don't understand. Why the indifference, on the highest level, to the suffering of the victims?

　　But then, there were human beings who were sensitive to our tragedy. Those non-Jews, those Christians, that we call the "Righteous Gentiles," whose selfless acts of heroism saved the honor of their faith. Why were they so few? Why was there a greater effort to save SS murderers after the war than to save their victims during the war? Why did some of America's largest corporations continue to do business with Hitler's Germany until 1942? It has been suggested, and it was documented, that the Wehrmacht could not have conducted its invasion of France without oil obtained from American sources. How is one to explain their indifference?

　　And yet, my friends, good things have also happened in this traumatic century: the defeat of Nazism, the collapse of communism, the rebirth of Israel on its ancestral soil, the demise of apartheid, Israel's peace treaty with Egypt, the peace accord in Ireland. And let us remember the meeting, filled with drama and emotion, between Rabin and Arafat that you, Mr. President, convened in this very place. I was here and I will never forget it.

　　And then, of course, the joint decision of the United States and NATO to intervene in Kosovo and save those victims, those refugees, those who were uprooted by a man, whom I believe that because of his crimes, should be charged with crimes against humanity.

　　But this time, the world was not silent. This time, we do respond. This time, we intervene.

　　Does it mean that we have learned from the past? Does it mean that society has changed? Has the human being become less indifferent and more human? Have we really learned from our experiences? Are we less insensitive to the plight of victims of ethnic cleansing and other forms of injustices in places near and far? Is today's justified intervention in Kosovo, led by you, Mr. President, a lasting warning that never again will the deportation, the terrorization of children and their parents, be allowed anywhere in the world? Will it discourage other dictators in other lands to do the same?

　　What about the children? Oh, we see them on television, we read about them in the papers, and we do so with a broken heart. Their fate is always the most tragic, inevitably. When adults wage war, children perish. We see their faces, their eyes. Do we hear their pleas? Do we feel their pain, their agony? Every minute one of them dies of disease, violence, famine.

　　Some of them -- so many of them -- could be saved.

　　And so, once again, I think of the young Jewish boy from the Carpathian Mountains. He has accompanied the old man I have become throughout these years of quest and struggle. And together we walk towards the new millennium, carried by profound fear and extraordinary hope.

来源: https://www.512406.cn/articles/fw7j.html