Posted on 07/12/2003 5:07:31 PM PDT by ejdrapes
Because Michael Jackson cancelled out at the last minute.
A metting of the leftist irrelevants
http://www.progressive-governance.net/
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Florence, Italy)
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release November 21, 1999
CLOSING REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT THE CONFERENCE ON
PROGRESSIVE GOVERNANCE FOR THE XXI CENTURY
Palazzo Vecchio
Florence, Italy
4:05 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, Prime Minister, I want to thank you
and the government and the people of Italy for hosting us here in the
city of Florence, and all the people who have done so much to make this
a wonderful stay.
I don't know that I can add anything to what I have said and what
the others have said. I would like to begin by saying I feel deeply
privileged to have been here. I respect and admire the other leaders
who are here on this panel, and those who are in the audience who have
participated. And I think we are all fortunate to serve at this moment
in history when, really for the only time in my lifetime we have the
chance, in the absence of external threat and dramatic internal turmoil,
to forge the future of our dreams for our children and to give people in
less fortunate parts of the world the chance to live out their God-given
capacities. So I think we should come here with gratitude and humility.
Now, let me also say that for -- at a certain level, this is about
politics. What we want to do is to find a way to, first, explain the
world in which we live in a way that makes sense to the people we
represent and the people we would like to reach; and then to propose a
course of action that will draw people together, move people forward and
touch their hearts, so that elections will be one and decisions can be
implemented; and so that we can work together to actually change the
things that we're concerned about and maximize the opportunities that
are manifestly there.
Now, we have called this the Third Way or, in Lionel Jospin's
wonderful characterization, we'll say yes to the market economy, but no
to the market society. Or, in the shorthand usage in America we say
we're for opportunity, responsibility and community. But at bottom,
what we're striving for is to replace a divided way of looking at
politics and talking about our common live with a unifying theory.
For up to the present moment, mostly you were for the economy or
for protecting the environment; you were for business or you were for
labor; you were for promoting work or for promoting family life; you
were for preventing crime or for punishing criminals; you were for
cultural diversity or for universal identity; you were for the market
society or for social values. We come and say, well, we're for fiscal
responsibility and full employment; we're for personal responsibility
and social justice; we're for individual and group identity and the
national community.
Now, let me just say that I don't think these are just words. I
think life is more satisfying when people are animated by personal and
civic philosophies that are unifying, that give us a chance to strive
for true integrity, putting our minds and our bodies and our spirits in
the same place; and treating other people in the way we would like to be
treated, and giving other people those opportunities and shouldering
those responsibilities.
So if I might, let me just comment briefly on three things that
were mentioned earlier. First, the representative of the Green movement
and then the question you posed to Tony Blair. I have been very
convinced for years that it is no longer necessary to choose between
growing the economy and preserving, and even improving, the environment.
But it is quite necessary to abandon the Industrial Age energy use
patterns.
The reason I am for the broadest possible use of energy
emission-trading permits is not so the United States -- the world's
worst emitter of greenhouse gases -- can get out of cutting our own
emissions, but because I want to spare the Indians and the Chinese and
others of the burden of growing rich in the way we did, because global
warming means we can't afford for people to do what we have done, which
is, you pollute and you get rich -- Japan, the United States, Europe --
and then you turn around when you're rich and you get richer by cleaning
up your pollution. That would work, except with global warming you keep
making the greenhouse gas factor worse.
So I urge you to all read a book -- I'll hawk a book here --
"Natural Capitalism," by Paul Hawken and Amory and Hunter Lovins. It
basically proves beyond any argument that there are presently available
technologies, and those just on horizon, which will permit us to get
richer by cleaning, not by spoiling, the environment. So we can have a
unifying vision here.
The second issue you raised, about the genetically modified
organisms and food production, and all these food fights we see -- food
fights between Britain and France, food fights between America and the
European Union. I think there what we have to do is to try to give
people the choice of pursuing their prejudices even if they're blind by
having absolute honest and full labeling. (Applause.) And then we
have to have complete -- no one should have an interest in keeping
anyone ignorant of the source of food or how it was grown.
And then whether it comes to whether the food should be admitted to
the market in the first place, I think it's important that the Europeans
-- and Tony mentioned this -- develop sort of the equivalent of the
American Food and Drug Administration on a European-wide basis, so that
you actually have confidence when someone says to you, this food is
safe, you don't think that the people who did the analysis and voiced
the opinion were either incompetent or in the back pocket of the
economic interest who benefit from the decision. And I think that's
very important, so that you can have safe food and open trade.
The third thing I would like to mention is the lady who talked
about cultural diversity. I think we think about culture in two
different ways. One is popular culture -- you know, not just art and
theater, but movies and music. My view is that countries should
preserve their popular culture but not shut out other countries'
culture. But in the deeper sense that you mentioned, it seems to me
that we're not seeing the abolition of culture, but what we are in
danger of is either people losing their culture or protecting it in an
exclusive way that leads them into hostility with others -- that's what
you see in Kosovo or Bosnia.
And what I think we have to find a way to do is to actually
preserve in multi-ethnic, multi-racial settings the language, the
culture, the history, the uniqueness of people in a way that is
unifying, not divisive. I said this last night -- I will close with
this: people crave coherence in life. We want to believe that we can
work hard and provide in a material sense for our families and still be
animated by higher impulses. We want to believe we can be proud of
being Irish or Brazilian or French or whatever, and still know it's more
important that we're members of the human race.
And I think the answer is not to get rid of cultural diversity but
to extol it, to protect it, to preserve it, to celebrate it as a
particular manifestation of our common humanity. I still think -- and I
will end with this -- that's our most important responsibility.
We haven't talked much about that, but it seems to me that the real
essence of what we're saying is if you want a unifying approach to
politics, then every person who advocates that has a far higher level of
personal responsibility for citizenship than we on the left of the
political equation have traditionally acknowledged. And the good news
is that we'll have more fulfilling lives if we can pull it off.
Thank you very much.
END 4:15 P.M. (L)
"It is not a bad idea at all(.) Will it be possible? I don't know."
Meanwhile, his co-traitor:
Abstract: The Logan Act was intended to prohibit United States citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. There appear to have been no prosecutions under the Act in its almost 200 year history. However, there have been a number of judicial references to the Act, and it is not uncommon for it to be used as a political weapon. Although attempts have been made to repeal the Act, it remains law and at least a potential sanction to be used against anyone who without authority interferes in the foreign relations of the United States.
Book 'em, Dan-o.
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.