Posted on 02/11/2007 12:20:25 PM PST by Right_at_RiceU
resident Bill Clinton spoke about global challenges from terrorism to health care policy to sustainability at a near-capacity crowd at Autry Court yesterday afternoon. The topic of the speech was “Embracing our Common Humanity: Meeting the Challenges of Global Interdependence in the 21st Century.”
Baker Institute Director, Ambassador Edward Djerejian, President David Leebron and former Secretary of State — and Honorary Chair of the Baker Institute for Public Policy — James Baker each made opening remarks.
After lamenting the length of time Clinton took to schedule a trip to Rice, Baker drew laughter from the audience by alluding to Senator Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid.
“We’ve been trying to get our speaker here for quite a number of years — we began to think if things got going another couple years, we would have to start all over again and invite the next President Clinton,” Baker said, eliciting applause from the audience.
“Please do me a favor,” Baker said to Clinton. “Tell the senator that, of course, cannot be an endorsement.”
Baker acknowledged that he and Clinton often find themselves on opposite sides of issues, but he had no shortage of praise for Clinton, acknowledging his Global Initiative, his work in the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami and his advice to the Iraq Study Group, which Baker co-chaired. He also stressed some of their common ideals.
“We share a profound appreciation of the imperative of American engagement on the world scene, whether by expanding the exchange of free trade in the Western hemisphere or by serving as an honest broker in the Middle East,” Baker said.
In opening, Clinton discussed the challenges of globalization. He addressed the audience directly, reminding listeners of their advantageous positions in the global economy and inviting them to keep in mind that framework when they think about global issues, economic and otherwise.
“If we live in an interdependent world, that’s good for us, but not so good for half the people,” he said. “And if it’s unequal, unstable and unsustainable, it’s clear that what the mission of thoughtful people all over the world is in the 21st century: We have to move from simple interdependence to more integrated communities locally, nationally and globally.”
Clinton elaborated on his conception of interdependence, noting that the best way to achieve global integration is through improved national security, revitalized diplomacy and better economic policies.
Improving policy in these three areas, he said, may improve America’s role in combating three of the largest current global problems: economic inequality, health care and energy resources.
A theme of sustainability permeated Clinton’s speech, although he devoted limited time to strictly environmental issues. He emphasized the urgency of current environmental issues including climate change and resource depletion.
Clinton stressed the importance of building allies against terrorism, in part for the purpose of promoting the sharing of energy resources.
“You do have to have a security policy, but building more and more partners and fewer terrorists is always cheaper than going to war,” he said.
Clinton also discussed the need for health care reform that extends coverage to all Americans and new lifestyle choices among Americans to reduce obesity and violence.
Tying his health care discussion back to the problem of uneven distribution of global resources, Clinton gave a detailed comparison of the United States’ health care policies with those of other countries around the world.
Using a series of paired statistics to show how much more money is spent on health care in America than anywhere else in the world, he concluded that a majority of the wasteful spending is the product of bureaucracy.
“We spend 16 percent of our income on health care. No other country spends more than 11,” Clinton said. “Thirty-four percent of every [U.S.] health care dollar is spent on administrative compliance costs between insurers and providers. Nineteen percent is the next highest number I can find anywhere in the world. ”
The gross costs of some of these disparities range between 300 and 800 billion dollars, Clinton said, and he charged the U.S. policy of issuing patents with exclusive production rights to privately owned drug companies with incurring much of this cost.
Clinton discussed the increasing role of non-wealthy Americans in funding humanitarian relief and poverty reduction.
He said the Internet facilitates the speed and ease of making financial donations and gave the example of American donations toward disaster relief after the tsunami in December 2005: More than half of the $1.2 billion in American donations were made via the Internet.
Clinton appealed to students, especially those in computer-oriented fields, to remember such statistics as they move on in their careers.
He ended his speech by encouraging Rice students to be active global citizens in contributing to solutions to today’s global challenges.
“You’re at a great university, you’re supposed to be learning,” Clinton said. “You have more power to do than any group of Americans ever had, and there’s plenty of doing that needs to be done.”
Following the speech, there was a question and answer session. Students had submitted their questions to the Baker Institute via e-mail prior to the speech.
Six questions were asked and answered on topics including international policy in the Middle East, nuclear development in Iran and presidential term limits.
Clinton emphasized the necessity for a comprehensive peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians in improving ties with other Middle Eastern nations.
Prior to the speech, Clinton made an appearance at Baker Hall, where he visited Baker’s office and took pictures with several groups, including one with 30 students invited by the Baker Institute.
The students lined up for the picture in the International Conference Facility and waited for Clinton. When he arrived, Clinton posed in the middle of the group for three photographs before the students were quickly ushered out.
Rice Vote Coalition Chair Claire Randall said Clinton was kind and charismatic.
“I kind of looked at him and said ‘hi,’” Randall, a Brown College junior, said. “I wasn’t forceful enough. Some people went in for the kill, and I was just kind of star struck.”
Baker Institute Student Forum member Christina Lagos said the buildup to Clinton’s arrival made the photo shoot exciting but that she wished the students could have interacted with Clinton in a “coffee talk” setting.
A more meaningful moment of the event, she said, came when Djerejian asked a question Lagos submitted. The question addressed how Clinton’s Global Initiative seeks to minimize governments’ corrupt use of aid.
Lagos, a Wiess College junior, said Clinton gave a more thorough answer than she expected.
“I was expecting an answer similar to what I had read on the Clinton Global Initiative Web site,” Lagos said. “I was really pleased he gave such examples of how he deals with leaders and how he explained that any deviations from the programs guidelines end the support.”
Clinton gave an example of an unnamed, newly elected foreign head of state who requested Clinton’s help in buying drugs for his government because of a corrupt health ministry.
“He said, ‘I’ve got a problem with this ministry, and I have to fire a bunch of people … So will you buy these drugs for four months until I get around to cleaning it out?” Clinton said. “He understood how committed we were to ending corruption.”
Media....tools of, by, and for....our enemies!!!!
:-(
Which means we need to become more socialist..
James Baker was always the favorite of the DC leftist political class. I believe he is the one that leaked the story about hiding Reagan's copy of the weekly "Human Events" from Reagan. Baker always received favorable coverage from the leftist media hive, especially when Baker dissed the Conservatives. He is a political streetwalker, and a guttersnipe.
What are "incahouts"?
I've never trusted James Baker .. and it seems my instincts were correct.
I can only pray Bush figures it out too.
Bill Clinton...Inca mummy (as someone he'd like to date).
I have no idea what an Incahout is. But the Democrats will defend them if they are illegal aliens.
"Incahouts" how curious, goorzelup has 45 listings for the use of "incahouts."
Evolution in the making.
They must be in cahoots with the malaprop community.
An ancient South American tribe of pagans who worship Tytonidae, I believe.
Baker really believes the country would have been better off with Gore?
ROFL
The so-called "realist school" of foreign policy is revealed as bankrupt and worthless.
Their ilk may have been capable of evaluating and "fixing" national security threats on the margin. But they are obviously incapable of recognizing an existential threat to the country -- much less defending against it.
You can't "fix" the Islamofascists.
I have no idea what an Incahout is. But the Democrats will defend them if they are illegal aliens.
**
I really did LOL at that one.
...in cahoots with the malaprop community.
&&
Good one!
I once had respect for Baker. I guess I was naive.
More on the James Baker/Bill Clinton romance. Sickening!
Personally, I doubt that! If you were there perhaps you misunderstood.
I have heard him make similar comments in several situations. Basically stating that life's greatest curse is prayers answered, when it comes to being President Bush's lawyer in 2000 Florida.
I heard him himself say it at the Baker Institute. You speak as if the ISG was at all in support of the current, and better, Bush.
My intention was to say that the relationship between them is still strong enough that Bush appointed Baker and Baker accepted. That said, there has been an ongoing disagreement about the conduct of the WoT between Bush's present advisers and those of his dad, including Baker and Skowcroft.
However, it is difficult for me to grasp that the relationship has deteriorated to the point of Baker being sorry that he help Bush secure the office he had rightfully won. Is Baker saying that he was wrong in his legal thinking? Is he saying that Bush did not in-fact win the election, despite what the Supreme Court said? Is he saying he now would have preferred that Gore had won?
See, none of that makes sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.