Conversation 647-017

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

There are a lot of good ones.

We have a lot of good ones.

Let the fire come.

All right, now we've got a couple of things for you.

This is for you.

What's the money for?

It's all the money.

Thank you, thank you.

I appreciate it.

There's a comment for you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

We're glad to have you back on the night.

Thank you, sir.

Glad to be here.

I don't intend to, but I see all these drivers, their guys will serve.

Yes, sir.

I was running off the camera.

Okay.

I'm here, too.

Come on.

If you want to sit down, you can sit down.

Yeah, I got it.

I got it.

Very well, I'll read it, if I can read it.

But though Aaron is an argument, an argument of mine, I'll tell you, we must apologize in time.

I've hurt myself in writing on time.

I remember more than five minutes in here, you're 50 minutes behind.

So I said, if we got through this, do you want to keep it, please?

No matter what, these people are supposed to leave in 30 minutes.

They left in an hour and five minutes.

So, there we go.

We have a low schedule now.

Let's go over and sit down.

While we were doing, oh, we had a little job.

We didn't have a person.

And it was on a quest.

So, here, here, what?

And I read the next thing.

All right.

Next, all right.

Are you going to see me?

No.

That's all right.

I'm going to take a little closer so you can see the eye that you...

I can see the .

I may see this in the sun.

Yeah.

I'm not sure that's the best way you can talk about it.

You see we're moving the company back to Los Angeles.

Are you serious?

It's just regret, yes.

We already had a good part of it.

That's right, we're all good.

What made you excited to do that?

Well, I don't see which hand you've got there.

I just thought we had to move the next 10 years and all of a sudden realized that because of the slowdown

There was space, but there's still a lot of space in our town, or in the mountains.

I've just had to hold it, and it blacked out.

We'll never have it out again.

I don't understand each other and each other as much.

I always feel like they're not there.

I expect them to know we're still here.

The only thing I wish to do is mature.

This is where Charlie goes.

He would have loved coffee.

That would have been a great thing.

He, of course, was a New York Times editor.

Not a Times, but he was basically a countryman.

He built a New York Times.

Charlie was the accountant for the small prayers class and all of these bullies who needed to grow up.

He couldn't wait to get out of town.

All the other things.

Very cognizant of Texas.

Just tell them about the war and how you grew up in New Jersey.

Oh, gosh.

Yeah, I was an instructional planner.

Well, Dallas, of course, there we are.

I see white people in Dallas.

It's exciting to see.

I mean, sure, like all states back in front of them, Dallas and Los Angeles and so forth, you're still building.

They're not dying.

And most people, unfortunately, feel that the day the others die.

And it reflects the day.

I don't think it's...

It's going to be dead, Mr. Burke.

He talks about it.

Yes, sir.

I think when it gets bad enough.

That's what happens with the rest of the great cities today.

If I don't have the people that move it, maybe some people here have to do that.

I don't know.

Sometimes when the

And I like to get, I like to gather with the special agents and all the people who might make contributions to their problems.

And the troublemakers on one side of the room, trouble other counties in the state, what have you.

And all the people who have possible answers on technology and social science and whatnot, on the other side of us, the professionals, the lawyers, the engineers, doctors, what have you, all would do this.

But there is no common background, no common knowledge.

And I think if you could get the mayors and the governors to stop about their problems and ask for the possible answers, the answers

can be had on the other side of the group.

But I can almost hear it now, that kind of dialogue in which the proposal of a solution, say, oh, hell, we tried it 30 years ago, didn't work.

The answer is that usually the makers don't know the conditions in which all these pyramids might make it.

But at least those talking about it, with the professionals, the universities, though, they shouldn't take that into thinking.

And I just wish you could come out here.

I've never done this.

And I'm trying to get some of the people to do it.

Yeah.

When I start to do it.

That's a good introduction.

We have a question.

Why do you have to sing this song?

That's what I mean.

We've worked on a project that we've been on for quite a while.

It's kind of something that we're interested in.

It's a national significant venture where we've been able to take it on and on and on.

And we've been completing the course on the way.

We've been assigned four, sort of, four versions.

And we've assessed it.

I just hate to use the word go, because it looks as if you don't know what go is.

No, you need to come because I'm sure I'll show you an email.

based on the fact that

senior people had the feeling that at some point, business had better not ignore what was happening in the cities and other national and service hospitals.

They had to at least understand what the city had to do.

And the other was that we treated the problem not only as a rural problem,

probably not as successful as if we had some early warning systems that were ready in some way to anticipate these things.

Many of the problems could be minimized if we had an effective advance warning.

And let's say that we, I think we'll call this the Institute for National Goals.

I don't know the word goal because it looks to me like an old boy.

All right.

If you want to say something that could even put your teeth in, something to lift people a bit, so I don't know, you might call it a heritage, or maybe call it, or maybe, you know, alternative, not alternative.

Or simply, maybe a national center for the future.

that simply indicates that you're thinking ahead.

That's right.

In a very general way.

Because the moment you say, go, you're absolutely right, then you have those priorities.

And then what comes first?

Is it education?

Is it health?

Is it defense?

Is it space?

Or is it nothing?

You don't want to get into that.

You don't want to fight it.

The moment you start to pick and choose, you have that.

Right.

The last time we met, I was at the Knight House State Show, and all hell broke loose, people.

It was Florida or Florida.

It was California or Florida.

Even the other time it was Florida, and I decided to reach out to the city.

And here, with the hands of all the major foundations, please let us thank you.

it's a wonderful place

We had a discussion, and we explained this night and the day that the Easter rest of the camp, we were ready quickly as to who we were, and whether we were the appropriate sponsors.

We quickly agreed that we were vitally involved with some appropriate sponsors that we had.

But after we were back and forth with the foundation and the project and whatnot,

But I must admit, it was a serious reticence that they wanted very much to put this together and discuss it.

They all agreed it was good and questionable.

But they completely disagreed with both of themselves, and obviously he doesn't.

And I thought about it, and I thought about it, and I thought about it, and I thought about it, and I thought about it, and I thought about it,

Well, I didn't go out of that canyon to find my mom.

I think the difference is this, the treatment associated with Venice is very rarely the center of the action.

And these are people who reflect, consider, and advise,

Absolutely, that's correct.

What if you're Chief Executive Officer of a company or any organization, even a political entity is wondering if you can make decisions, you can do it, you move.

Foundations have the luxury of just talking about things and putting out grandiose decisions and all that sort of thing.

Oh, they can make decisions, or not, they just do whatever they get.

But then it's a matter of giving away some money that isn't there in themselves, which is quite a bit of a biggie.

You know, let me say it in that connection.

I shared with you a conference in this room.

description once, and the description which has applied to this man is unfair, and that's why I say I think Dean Russ was loyal.

He was loyal to his president.

I did many things, and I'm sure he didn't have much heart.

But for the last, he stood up under a ginormous barrage.

And as I believe he did the last, that was my evaluation of Amos.

But I remember when he was called to the position of Secretary of State.

And, uh, I was talking to an old friend, an old friend, I'm not telling the name of the number, Bill Bullock, who, Bill Bullock used to be a bachelor of Russian, so, you know, Bill had an engineering degree, and he was there to talk.

And I said, what do you think of Russ?

He says, he's brilliant and so forth and so forth.

Then he says, he won't be the Secretary of State.

I said, why not?

Because he comes from the marshmallow world of the Foundations.

That's beautiful.

You know what I mean?

Yeah, that's the only question they would say.

Russ Gates, Russ turned out to be a stealer.

I mean, because that son, Kendall, was a pretty strong man, but telling Steve, foundation line, I would recommend it to many of my friends who lived with him, that's what the term was, foundation line.

It doesn't require a tough decision to make, but you wouldn't lose it all.

And that's what you guys have to turn around.

You've got to put it on the line every day.

You've got to make sure you're right together.

We're a very emotional group, those of us who are in the position to be technical officers, because, you know, only the next few hundred can ever be that.

And it doesn't mean you should look upon others as the same.

Period.

It's not as if they're different.

That's right.

And they're different and very necessary.

But you're not making people.

You must never take better care of them.

And for what it's not the case, you've got to be done.

Because usually it isn't worth a thing.

They will never face up to things.

They don't really.

They need to study, study, study, study, study, study, and come up with working different things.

That's the lawyers.

Yeah.

There are two of them.

There are one.

There are two of them.

The one thing that I would say, when I saw you, you were coming in, and I told 100 people to hurry up and I said, you know, here's...

Bob Anderson and Mary Johnson, two good friends, two eminently successful men.

And here they are, they're plunging into this spongy, no-man's-line in which people plunge for a year, plunge for a purpose, and then plunder around, and do their very best, and prepare great and plundering their stuff, and feel terribly frustrated because they are men of action.

rather than words.

That was my reaction.

And then I said, well, there's an awful lot of people in this country, you know, going around talking about this problem.

Where should the United States go?

And I thought Pete Peterson was doing a lot of thinking about where we go to democracy.

You know, you have the groups, you know, all that.

And it's very interesting.

And if you want to talk to him, he could be a moment that you should talk to.

You've got to get his.

But actually, he's pretty kind.

Ted Foy goes a little bit closer.

I had to write a piece for Blocking Magazine for their son-in-law or sister-in-law who had a 50-year anniversary or something like that.

And it's about national purpose because I wrote about it 10 years ago.

and believing in this the most, I got the word from his mother, Judy, and so forth.

You see, the thing we have to realize, you are not that.

We live in a time when young people, the college professors, the editorial writers, the opinion makers,

They say they're interested in action, but they're really not.

They're not deep down in action.

They repulse it.

They hate decision-making.

They hate cues.

But they love words.

They love idealism.

They love how God matters.

The point of the truth of the matter isn't any bold.

You've got to have the words, the lofty words, and what people are.

But to have all those words, which raise high expectations, which was the record in the 60s, and then no action, no action can be done, is the worst thing you could do to a little country.

And it's a fantasy for young people.

We've got people that have a name, but everybody else is young.

Believe me, I know what it feels like, what turns the monster cut out.

Talking lightly for hours about how you deal with something, you know, not serving your country, not serving yourself, that business is wicked, and all the rest.

If you want to be out, you know, working on cesspools, or cleaning out the tin cans, or something of that sort, or working in a tea store, all of this, it's very beautiful.

When you come right down to it,

Take a young person, whenever he, as he grows older, and he sees all these high blue plans, and all these ideals spread before him, and then a dull thug with regard to what he's done on them, he is going to turn on

uh, can live almost a violent reaction.

Because the idealist is that way.

Uh, the pragmatist has a view of business under pragmatism.

Let's put a little idealism on it.

But the pragmatist basically is a man who, uh,

who does not become frustrated, who does not give up, who does not throw up his hands and say, oh, I tried something that didn't work, so the system is bad.

The idealist is one who, if something doesn't work, says, this hand doesn't throw it out.

Now, what you need is a combination.

And let's hear it for a reason to what you folks are doing.

What you need are pragmatic men with idealistic vision,

That's what builds great companies, that's what builds great countries.

But if you do not have, if you just, if we have a country run by idealists alone, I would say, on the other hand, if you had a country run by pragmatists alone, you wouldn't have a lot of money, you wouldn't have enough inspiration.

They don't, particularly they don't, I mean,

To them, inspiration is to manage that.

They gotta be inspired.

They gotta imagine what they do matters.

And what I've had to see come out of this is a sort of a feeling of getting people on the mountaintop.

Let them see where we go, what we have to contribute, and so forth and so on.

In other words, it actually kind of made a very good foundation for that, didn't it?

Because I wouldn't, I'd like to stay away from all these practical gadgets.

Now, we have today, I think, the first time we've taken the ability in this country to build a computer model of

with the entire world he's now assisting the world principal and this would be the

kind of system.

In other words, if we could bury any pleasure in the property of Imperial Valley, we wouldn't have to turn jobs or this and that.

This can't be done.

Everybody agrees that this is doable.

It would take some time to learn the other jobs and get along with them.

But you have that in a career, just looking at where you are, where we have to some extent our business, which is a long-range planning tool.

We get the best answers we can, and a lot of credit service that we get through that.

But I should think for any of those presidents, or even just congressmen, or corporations that have

Where do you want to be if you do this?

And the other is, where would you like to be if you have a chance to get there?

That's the other one.

We really don't know that.

We've got, we're going to have to come up with the same thing.

Smooth down, you know, a world peace that came up, and we had an unconstitutional prosperity.

But we'd like to do it.

Yeah.

Start thinking now, not waiting there.

You're sitting, drifting around.

In other words, do you expect Bill to sell more and more cars?

No.

Or is he good, strong, sturdy?

Or is he going to come up with a solution?

Count the glass, Ken?

Or is he electric?

I don't know.

Or mobile transportation?

And what's the display of social displacement involved with each of these?

What are you going to do with more and more cars, more and more highways, more and more oil and gas production all around?

Is that the answer?

I mean, for certain it's not really the answer.

I mean, what is purely, you know, well, not purely, but a great portion of which is sensationalism and just distraction.

The answer is, you've got to question.

Is more always the answer?

is more always the answer to a problem, and he is.

But they're basic, but they're a job.

Maybe you know, I noticed in New York they're very proud of the fact that they've now built two buildings downtown that are taller than, like I said, we used to say they were, but they're now taller than that part of the street.

So it's not easy to find them.

I think they've gone bad.

That was stupid.

but that's another story.

I'd like to tell you a little of the things I've lived in the last five or six years, and worked for, and I would like to persuade you that there are some things here that are both completely useful in the way of setting up targets that are reasonable, accessible, reachable,

but sometimes different, though.

A little of the idealistic, you know.

But many people want to go to see if they can get there.

And what I found myself doing when I was new at the job was just simply responding to emergencies and reacting.

I wasn't doing what I'd done all my life in business, which is trying to think in terms of 20 years from now, what would we be doing?

What would be, what kind of products would people use?

And why, how can we design and get them into production and go ahead with both those who are going to buy and who must know they want them and need them?

So when you do this, when you, for example, transistor radio is the one that really kicked us off in a big way with transistors.

There's a question of taking a product that was then selling at $60 apiece and taking the first pass, maybe losing your share, selling it for two and a half a piece and you could afford to build something that would sell.

We took that risk and we built a plant that borrowed money

No products have been designed yet by processing the national flux through the estimated costs of Earth.

Find the sky, find the rest of us, too.

I mean, there's everything we have.

And the fact that we were smart enough to work that out, durable enough to work that out, made it go.

It did go.

Now, in that kind of world, we worked out devices for 11, 12 years ahead, and goal setting, and making all of the plans, and devising means to

Take advantage of the years when things went all our way, and when things went all the bad, we had plans on the shelf for that, too.

So no may have, we weren't completely surprised.

Very rarely were we, we knew what we'd do if we were troubled, or if we had a chance to really go.

So this, I think, was what occurred to me after about six months.

Get off the corner of a boy and think this through.

I know that if I said we must use a system to approach our problems tempered by the human things that no system can handle,

and that no one could know what I really was talking about.

So I said, we're going to have a program called Goldstrand House, and we're going to set up the broad philosophical concepts of what we'd like the city to do and be 25, 50 years from now.

What kind of a heritage would we like to leave to our children?

How would you, sir, define what this town of yours means to you, what you'd like to see the government do, what private people should be doing?

Well, we used the technique of the American Assembly of taking 87 people away for three and a half days and having them know this after having forced them into a pattern of reading briefs of the inventory of where we were at that given moment given the 12 most basic things that we faced, education, welfare, recreation, long government, the design of the city center.

We did this and we came back and we realized that 87 people were now in positions to write a book that told people what they ought to have, but that wasn't a representative sample by any means.

So we took this into neighborhood meetings and in 30 days we saw a damn near 10,000 people and made them go through the agony we went through on a small scale just attacking one or two of these girls in the meeting.

And in the process, they found out what we had, which was that if you put the far-left liberal labor leader in the same place as the far-right conservative industrialists, these guys don't want to talk to each other, but after you let them spout in their hearts content, they find out the other fellow is completely crazy.

And you can't bring them to a consensus, and we did.

Now we have, in 10,000 people, we have a valid statistical sample of three quarters of a million people.

So we then said, okay, now we've recorded all that you've said, in these words of you 10,000 people, we're going to alter what the 87 said to fit what the consensus of valid samples is.

And out of that grew a lot of serendipitous things.

It was the work I just loved, the strong, the simple, the educated, you know.

But we got hated out of that, too.

I know.

We found out, for example, that we could bring the government to the feet.

So we brought town hall meetings to every section of town, even areas that were completely black, and somebody hated our guts.

We wanted to.

We got a consensus out of them about what was really on their mind, what was making them so damn mean.

And the next day, we began hearing some of that.

And in my cases out of town, sir, the problems on their minds were small, inexpensive, and didn't take much time to heal.

There were one or two, there were two big forests that belonged to the state of the federal government.

Weren't our vision to build a levee, for example, or change the course of the river?

But Ernie, he was pointing out that if we were just tackling it the same way that the bills probably would have been tackled, that there's no way we could hold it.

It's a sponge.

You just can't have a complete thing with a

the computer devices available to handle variables in infinity and memory capacity, that today we could build a tool.

I'm not going to say it's the perfect answer, but we could build an effective tool that would be infinitely better than the way we're going at it, because neither of us could run our company without some of these radar tools or

forward-thinking devices that we really would hope that we don't, we're afraid, we really think we might as advocates in this current because we don't want to be laid off to the industrial community.

Shouldn't be laid off to the people in prison.

That's an extremely high validity that hasn't happened.

Not a great probability it's going to.

Mr. Anderson, you've seen all of Rockwell's models.

They were in a proposal about a year ago.

We spent quite a lot of time here at Rockwell for the Rockwell people and their consultants, their company.

And it's a very interesting proposal.

We had some outside people take a look at it.

The cost is enormous.

It's just astronomical.

And there are just a lot of flapping loose ends as to which they have no answers.

And if you could help them to get down some of the corners of that, it might be a very progressive thing to do.

When I asked last night, I had thought on the way down, why we should have Bill Rockwell or one of his people in this council, and the amused Bernie Gaber who grew up that post.

I saw him last summer, and we spent a day going through what he thinks he's doing and what I thought had an input to it.

And Mr. President, this thing is doable.

I've checked it with some of the best scientific and engineering and business minds in the country.

They all say it was doable.

The only two questions that remain is how long it would take and how much it would cost.

And I can assure you it would cost money and how much time it would take and how deeply it is entered and to what degree of refinement you want to bring it.

But it is doable.

And what it would do for you, I used last night an analogy that occurred to me that might be a quick and easy way to understand what we're getting at.

Now, the weather managers used to make a prediction, and then it was pretty loose, and maybe it worked, maybe it didn't.

Now, your weather data from the satellites takes something like 16 hours to process.

By that time, it's all different anyway.

So they use what they can out of judging quickly, and they come out with some pretty reliable forecasts.

The weather is different, and people now see these satellite maps on TV, and they begin to understand the phenomena associated with weather.

We built a computer now that's working in Austin, Virginia.

This has been delivered in August.

And this one is more than a barter magnitude faster and bigger than anything that exists in the world today.

And I'll process that same information in about 16 minutes.

So you can really take all the data, get it through in time to make a forecast that is meaningful.

Now this means that you've changed the forecasting business and you've changed the business of all the people who use weather forecasting.

I'm saying to you that that is a model of the weather around the world that you look at.

And if you could model your alternatives and the decisions that you make, and we think you can, because we're doing it in business every day, and Phil McElroy over at NSF is modeling whole areas now, and if you can model a town, you can model a whole area, you can model a nation.

It's many times more complex, more difficult, more expensive.

And you can take a choice.

You can make a quick pass at it and begin to learn the techniques for very little.

You can begin.

And our word to you is that we think you cannot afford not to begin.

Now how far we go, we'll share that risk with you.

We'll do anything that we think will make this thing useful.

to you, the institutions you stand for.

That's what we're here for.

All we ask is some real thought to get into it.

If we're wrong, all right.

We lose that game, but we're very sure.

I can show you so much that comes out of it.

In a political sense, I would like to mention one thing.

I knew I had something that would be hard to attack by the sentient citizens.

So I could build in my support with this.

What I found out was that I had discovered a new kind of military, and I was not.

I was pretty nice because everybody who I found, for example, in a group like this, if we sat talking about goals for Dallas, there'd be six different opinions.

But before we got through, somebody took the rough edges, knocked off of each one of us a little bit, and we took the consensus.

And each one looked back off a little properly, conclusions to get drawn earlier, and the views to be so firmly held.

And we found this even more true in a million black communities than we did among well-educated people.

This is why I think it will work.

And if you then have these people make their consensus of goals,

and they know that the input is accepted, not to be taken without any temporary, but to be part of the total input and carefully considered, then they'll take that temporary and it becomes not your plan handed to them as they must.

But their plan, that they're not going to deal with, I think that's the way it must be solved.

And in the Revolution Bicentennial Commission, and I talked to David Mahoney this morning, and I hope he will talk to you because he's a little discouraged.

They need you.

But this operator has no money.

They have decided that in the horizons part of the concept,

that they will encourage every city and state in the country to set its goal by this process.

Now, all of them can't do that, but at their own expense, not subsidize the grants as a voluntary thing, and many of them are already doing it.

I can show you, for example, the beginnings of the state of North Carolina, which came a few days ago.

They're thinking in terms of the state, and very well,

We've reached a point, I think, as far as the senior executive council can go on this.

What's the next step?

That's where we are.

We have a meeting in the council.

We have a meeting next week.

We would make it appropriately as should that the archivist would be sponsored in some way, by God, under your auspices.

Um, whether it should be half bed and half private, I don't know.

I would honestly prefer that this not be too beholden to the main connotations.

Like, for example, I don't know why I would have that opinion.

Uh, you would get corporate support for it, I suppose.

You know, it's a big thing to talk about.

I know.

No, I'm American.

I've worked in the streets.

I would like very much to leave it in your hands and your people to decide what role, if any, you might want to play in this.

I know you have this 1990 account that's coming up.

In that next book, my name is Lee, and I'm working for the House of Representatives.

I think it would be great credit to your administration if we could effectively develop such a device that would probably be successful.

But to some extent, you're going to have to tell them that.

In an elective society, we just have short-term things to do.

Use your own power.

That's right.

And tear it off the next time, or the next, and all that stuff.

We have a, in our system, sure, we're flexible enough and smart enough to figure out how we can get out these, how we can make people make these problems, instead of waiting for crises to arise, and then treatment doesn't happen.

But we are taking more of it.

If you don't know, this is very important.

Well, then, if you'd like, if the Lord likes you, you'll need a message to carry to the meeting.

Well, I support the idea.

The question is to what the government participation is.

I couldn't agree more.

I mean, if they have to send along little jackasses, you know, that are very expert, forget it.

because otherwise the tail waved it off.

They were the inventors.

The foundations are basically that everything else, they have their little bureaucracies and the rest, and they'll want to come in and do this and that.

You know, the Tate-Rockwell Foundation is one of the best.

They've given these five-year-old studies to my knowledge in the last 20 years.

I mean, he's not Nelson Brand, that makes a lot, you know?

Of course they should.

I mean, they have every right to.

And so, if you have them as a deal, naturally, they've got a lot of experts over there who paid far more than you'll ever be able to pay them or the government can pay them.

No one is a deal.

And the whole point of this, when you finally get down to it, it doesn't.

You see, and you cannot, and that's not good for the staff.

It gets you to also, I must say, the parent is now, maybe we don't have much time for, or too much time.

We're called bureaucracy, and this and so forth, and we want to be on first.

But what we really need is

You just want to be the study of an organization that can do the job.

You can have government assistance, no question about that.

You've got the National Science Foundation, you can find out.

There may be other areas where this can be done.

Government assistance, government cooperation.

You have presidential interests that can be treated.

Now whether or not, the key point is whether it goes to far as to say this will be the presidential committee.

My guess is that would not be a good idea for the reason that it would look so good at this time of the year.

There's no presidential interest in finding out that this is for the period ahead, and the president's will support it to the extent that I can, and the participation, all that you may have. .

You see, you set it up as a presidential commission, and you're resizing ourselves to the Gold's Commission.

Hold on.

Every 10 years, we have a Gold's Commission.

That would be just as boning as a, you know, don't you agree?

Well, I agree.

So then I think this comes from you.

This is a great idea.

It's a great idea.

We throw away, formerly, the National Science Foundation by financing lousy professors in second grade or sometimes third grade universities, and I can possibly imagine

We would be more than happy to work in that place.

They know that this has been tried repeatedly and judged.

If they're trying to judge us, are we having to be the winners?

We're the winners.

They want to get this money on the phone.

That's right.

And isn't that cold blooded?

That's right.

They want to be the first and also they want to be the first to print it.

Because they can then go back to their original privilege and say this is what we did.

Mr. President, thank you.

If we can get it done, because they put the money in for a lot of insurance, we don't want it.

All of our insurance, by the credit, they want the credit.

And that means they want the very little more of this young man running.

uh...

It's terrible when you say it.

It's just in a great, great match with all that money and all the rest.

No responsibility, all automatically staying on the rest.

I've seen more people with balls put a foundation to come out of this.

And, uh, intellectually.

You've got to prove it.

Intellectually.

You have the National Center for Environmental Research?

Yep.

We've got it all over the place and some of our people have become addicts too.

Did that vehicle be used as a test on that?

Of course it's naturally going to be one of your primary concerns.

I don't think we've got any great brains working on the environment around here.

I don't see a crack that comes across this desk.

It's pretty sad.

The environment cannot be separated from the social environment.

And if you look at the environment right now, it's the whole human environment.

I wonder if I could suggest this, that we continue to ask the question that we have established here and pursue this and develop it a little bit more to answer some of the questions that we still need to answer.

Well, what we need to answer, you've heard what I've said, I'm interested in the idea.

I think it ought to be done.

I like to think that the foreign policy people might have to do the thinking.

So we've got to build a new structure of peace.

So this is about that.

But in this area, we're not really comparable to .

in their time, and the rest, they're not deliberately not even conscious of the fact that it's real, or it's perhaps not.

But my point is that what we get here is at least an active on the part of dedicated people who have no astrogram, who think they have something to offer in this field, and an approach that has not been made before.

The model had this soft head approach to the foundations, which is important to have done.

Drew it off.

He had the Percy part, which was a white-out.

He also was Percy, but because he used foundations for it.

and the second graders that we had in the garden at that time.

And frankly, at this point, I don't think that the whole fountain of wisdom is in business now.

You may not have any there.

My point is that this approach is worth trying.

It's hard.

It's pragmatic.

It has a nice little dose of idealism in it.

And so my job, while the government can participate, while presidents are supported to get presidential participation to the extent that they want it, can however not control and not in a way where I am effective and say, well, this is my thing.

This should be yours, we help, and we give you the loyalty signal and say, mark our key, anybody that can come up with some good ideas, you're the key.

How's that sound to you, Mr. President?

Mr. President, just one thing that I didn't get to finish, and I think it's an important thing.

In the United States of America, we see

We plan to add about 15, you're safe, perhaps, in regions around the country, teaching the people in the cities how to go about setting these goals and how to do it by consensus.

Now this is not going to cost much, because the cities and the states will pay their own expenses.

The only thing you have to have is those schemes for teaching and for promotion of the reading materials.

I'll do it.

We've done a lot of that work.

It's already ready.

If a long-term choice to get together on a tough budget for next year.

This is the total budget for the inter-city for next year, as I recall it.

For that project, it was about $2.5 million.

So it's not a, it's not a tremendous risk.

If you would tell Schultz to look at that with a piercing eye, get with Mahoney, I know he's got evidence, we get that he's going for it.

And that's part of it.

He'll see.

And that shows information that has never been available to any president.

Because he now will hear what the people think they need and want.

And I know this is part of the intent they need at the moment.