Jimmy Carter — you are a very bad man

MOVED UP TO THE TOP, NOT BECAUSE I HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, BUT BECAUSE THE COMMENT SECTION HAS BECOME ONE OF THE MOST FASCINATING TO APPEAR ON MY BLOG, AND I DON’T WANT IT TO GET LOST AS I PUBLISH NEW POSTS.

If you’re a Seinfeld fan, you may recall the episode in which Baboo, an Indian restauranteur, having been deported because of Jerry’s carelessness, wags his finger at Jerry, and repeatedly says “He is a very bad man.” That phrase keeps popping into my brain every time I hear anything about Jimmy Carter or, worse, actually see him speak.

We know that his most recent book about the Middle East is filled with falsehoods and that he plagarized and distorted stolen materials for his book. Cinnamon Stillwell, writing at the San Francisco Chronicle, gives a long laundry list of his policy failures, missteps, stupid decisions, and profound moral errors. Name a modern dictatorship and he’s in bed with the leader. Name a failed peace initiative that empowered the people bent on death and destruction, and he’s at the root of it. I will forever hold him responsible for the situation we find ourselves in today vis a vis the Muslim world because, when the Iran Revolution took place in 1979, it was his groveling ineptitude that emboldened the revolutionaries, not only to take on their own government, but to begin looking at the United States as a reasonable and viable target for their World Caliphate goals.

All of the splenetic feelings that guide me when I think about Carter bubbled up ferociously when I finally got around to watching Monday’s Jay Leno, which had Carter as the first guest. Although World Net Daily has come under some legitmate attack for its more loony news stories, I can tell you that its reporting about Carter’s appearance on that show is absolutely accurate:

Without mentioning the onslaught of attacks by Palestinian terrorists, former President Jimmy Carter told a national audience watching the “Tonight Show with Jay Leno” there is “horrible persecution” of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis, and he is urging a return to peace talks between the residents of the embattled region.

“In Palestinian territory, there is horrible persecution of the Palestinians who live on their own land,” Carter said.

“A minority of Israelis want to have the land instead of peace. The majority of Israelis for the last 30 years have always said [they] will exchange their own land in exchange for peace. But a minority disagrees and they have occupied the land, they have confiscated it, they have colonized it, and they forced Palestinians away from their homes, away from their pastures, away from their fields, cut down the olive trees and severely persecuted the Palestinians.”

The 82-year-old Carter was on Leno’s show last night to promote his new book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”

Leno said to the president who held office more than 25 years ago, “But when Israel gives something back, it doesn’t seem like they get anything for it. It seems like it just moves some angry people closer to them.”

“No, that’s not true at all,” responded Carter. “Israel hasn’t really tried to give ‘Palestine’ back to the Palestinians. They did give up some of Gaza. And then they moved out, and the Palestinians captured one soldier and tried to swap [him] for 300 children – some as young as 12 years old – and 94 women, but the Israelis wouldn’t swap. So then Israel reinvaded Gaza. But if Israel ever wants peace – and they do want peace – a majority of Israelis have always said, ‘Let’s get rid of the land, and let’s have peace.’ That’s what we need to have.”

What was the worst thing about watching that for me was the Mr. Bookworm, who is not the news junky I am, bought into it completely. To him, it sounded reasonable: there should be peace in the Middle East and, clearly, Israel has to make the concessions.

He was surprised when I told him there was a difference between a kidnapped soldier and 300 prisoners who were properly tried and convicted for murdering or attempting to murder Israeli citizens. He was surprised when I told him that amongst these prisoners there was Samir Qantar, who led a group into an Israeli home, and dragged the father and four year old daughter onto the beach. Once there, they shot the father in front of his child, then smashed the little girl’s head against rocks before beating her to death with a rifle butt. In the meanwhile, the mother, desperately trying to shelter her infant daughter, inadvertently smothered the child in an effort to keep her from crying and alerting the murderers. Those kind of people are in prison. Those are the kind of people the Palestinians — and Carter — demand in exchanged for a kidnapped young man whose only crime is being an Israeli citizen.

Mr. Bookworm was also surprised when I told him that, since the Israelis voluntarily left Gaza, giving the Palestinians exactly what Carter insisted would be the paradigmatic land for peace deal, the Palestinians responded by (a) lobbing hundreds of Kassam missiles into Israel (with five more this week alone); (b) digging tunnels to smuggle terrorists and arms into Israel; (c) and breaching the boundaries into Egypt in an effort to augment their munitions supply.

What was most depressing about Mr. Bookworm’s ignorance was the fact that others watching Carter spread his evil lies don’t have someone like me sitting at their side to give them the facts. All they have is that down-home Southern voiced venom trickling into their ears, filling their heads with poisonous misinformation.

The only good thing about Jimmy Carter is his age. He’s 82, which means that his maximum life expectancy is about 6 more years. That’s a long time, but the fact is, he may become infirm before then, which should keep him housebound and, more importantly, silent. Believe me when I say that I am not wishing for anything that would bring an unnatural end to his natural life. I would never, never, never advocate the assassination of a Democratically elected official, no matter how repugnant his views. I’m just happy to know that, when it comes to Carter, the Rolling Stones were right on when they sang “Time is Mine Side.”

UPDATE: David Horowitz also takes on Jimmy Carter’s manifestly anti-Semitic views. Carter vehemently denies being an anti-Semite, but I think that the shoe fits, given his pronouncements about how the evil Jewish state has destroyed the peace and peace-loving Palestinians. An opinion that deviates this far from reality has to be driven by some other force and, in this case, anti-Semitism seems as good an explanation as any. Here is how Horowitz destroys just one of Carter’s many lies:

It is a lie that Palestinians “had their own land, first of all, occupied.” This is like saying that Texans had their own land occupied by Hispanics, ignoring the fact that Hispanics were there first. The very word Palestine is a Roman appellation for the people called Philistines, who were not Arabs but red-haired sailors from the Aegean. The Jews were there as well.

In short, first of all the Jews were in the land before the Arabs.

Second of all, the Arabs who inhabited the Palestine Mandate in 1948, at the time of the creation the state of Israel, considered themselves Syrians.

Third, the Palestine Mandate was not created on land taken from the Syrians or the Arabs. It was taken from the Turks.

It was not taken from the Turks by the Jews, but by the British and the French. They took it because Turkey sided with Germany in the First World War and, of course, lost. The Turkish empire had ruled the entire region including Syrian, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan for four hundred years before Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan were artificially created by the English and the French. Jordan – a state whose majority is Palestinian – occupies 80% of the Palestine Mandate.

So it is a preposterous lie to say that the Palestinians had their own land and that it was occupied by the Jews.

Fourth, the individual plots of land that Jews now own were in the first instance bought from the Arabs who regarded themselves as Syrians and who lived in the area of Israel. The only property that was confiscated was confiscated as a spoil of the aggressive war that five Arab states waged against Israel from the day of its birth. Five Arab armies invaded Israel, a sovereign state, with the declared intent of “pushing the Jews into the sea.” The cry today of the Muslim majority in the Middle East is to “liberate Palestine from the river to the sea.” In other words push the Jews into the sea.

del.icio.us | digg it

244 Responses to “Jimmy Carter — you are a very bad man”

  1. Oh my, . . . I don’t see how Mr. Bookworm stands it. Jimmy Carter is quite possibly the most upright and honest president the US has had. You just aren’t listening. No wonder our country is in such a mess. There can never be “peace on earth” as long as people think like this. But God gets the final word, not you, not me, not even Jimmy Carter.

  2. Are you being sarcastic, Helen? Are you really saying that a man who lies, plagarizes, was the most ineffective president in modern times, cozies up to every dictatorship, etc., is honest and upright? I’m sure that I’m misunderstanding what you wrote, because writing, unlike speech, doesn’t include sarcastic intonation.

    Peace is a great little abstract idea, but it works only if both sides want it. Israel wants peace, Palestinians want genocide, the Arab world wants a scapegoat for its own manifest failures (to the point where, if Arabs didn’t have Israel, they’d have to invent it).

    It’s not peace, if like the Romans, the Palestinians make a desert, drenched in Jewish blood, and call it peace. That’s a Humpty Dumpty world where words have only the meaning the speaker gives to them. Worse, it’s a NewSpeak world, where words are carefully calculated to have in reality the exact opposite meaning of the traditional definition.

  3. *shakes head*

    I knew a German immigrant who spoke more than 5 European languages fluently, here in America, that thought Jimmy Carter was a saint as well. The re-invention benefits of habitat for humanity, catchy name I guess. Of course, he also thought the German SPD party was Golden as well, but what the hay.

    Jimmy Carter gets the final word, Book, because he is the divinely appointed executor of God himself. And Carter knows this, he has always known this.

    (to the point where, if Arabs didn’t have Israel, they’d have to invent it).

    Been listening to the Sanity broadcast, Book? One thing the dreaded Neo-Cons have in common with the 9/11 conspiracists, is that the neo-cons believe the Arabs are the one creating false flag wars and deaths, inventing an enemy called the Jews. The 9/11 conspiracists believe that the US government is doing the false flag wars and inventing an enemy, called the Islamo Fascists.

    This is great evidence that human beings are all alike! One way or another. Does this mean that peace is in the making? No. What it means is that human beings will keep on fighting because we are too much alike. It is our source of strength and our source of weakness. You ever realized, Book, that the people who fight the most, are the most similar? Sunni vs Shia. Communists vs Fascists. Dictators vs terroists. They all argue mostly about which evil is the Real Evil, and they aren’t afraid to slaughter folks in the process. Only Good can work in harmony with like minded folks, a strength, but also a weakness, again. Because while Good can work as a team, it means that they are vulnerable to infiltration and sabotage (media, Left).

    Jimmy Carter speaks with the Word of God. And we all know that none may stand against the word of God.

    Are you really saying that a man who lies, plagarizes, was the most ineffective president in modern times, cozies up to every dictatorship, etc., is honest and upright? I’m sure that I’m misunderstanding what you wrote, because writing, unlike speech, doesn’t include sarcastic intonation.

    I wouldn’t be too sure of that, Book. It isn’t about lies, Book. People percieve things that they believe to be the truth, as telling the truth. People who percieve things as false, thinks of it as lieing. It is like a joke. If you think the premise behind a joke is true, you find it funny. If you believe it false, you find it unfunny or offensive.

    If a person believes that Bill Clinton was good for this society, then do they really care about lies and legal problems? No. Just as they don’t care about OJ Simpson’s guilt or innocence. People care about themselves most of the time, and are very insular for the most part. Even America in 1937 was quite insular, and America was purpotedly the most advanced and multicultural nation on this planet. You can’t defeat human nature, no matter how hard you try.

    It is like Roosevelt. If you believed that Roosevelt was a patriot and good for this country, then it would be very very hard for you to recognize that he lied or pay attention to his actions with Stalin all that much. Looking at the good and the bad in a person, tallying up the results, and then making a judgement saying that “yes, I’ll accept the good with the bad, and yes he is still an overall good to me” takes more than just base human instincts, as I see it.

    A person has to judge history by his own experiences and his own logic. Looking at the good and the bad, and thinking to themselves, “how do I judge whether a man’s evil outweighs his good, whether a man’s charity outweighs his mistakes”.

    Some fail, some succede, most don’t try. Bad, yes, but can’t do anything about it.

  4. book,

    carter was NOT the most ineffective president in modern times (that dubious distinction already belongs to bush) and he has arguably been one of the most effective statesmen that we’ve had since leaving office.

    i’m not going to debate the merits of your arguments re carters comments since this israel is your pet cause and i don’t have the time right now to source out all of the innacuracies in your post.

    suffice it to say that the situation is a bit more “complicated” than you (and yes president carter as well) have laid out.

    peace

  5. Helen actually scares me. I am afraid that there are all too many people who think(?) as she does.

    I stopped giving Jimmy Carter any credit for honesty or integrity some time back. It has been clear to me that the only thing that matters is his legacy. The only shred of that legacy he clings to is his brokered “peace” deal. Any event, thought, word, or deed that casts doubt on the validity of that achievement must be discredited at any cost.

  6. See, proves my point.

    It’s all about perception, Book. Master perception and you will master reality. Of course, if you master reality, you can also perception. But that’s on a quantum mechanics level, don’t think you want to talk about that subject.

    i’m not going to debate

    Thank God. The Word of God strikes again, I see. All Praise the Lord.

  7. Old, it has to do with peace, in the end. There are two basic philosophies. Peace through superior firepower.

    And peace through giving concessions and making compromises.

    Depending upon which school of thought you are in, you will probably disagree with the other school’s members. *reminds me of Wuxai martial arts, martial arts school rivalries=fight*

  8. y,

    do you ever read your stuff? you make about as much sense as that backwards talking dwarf from twin peaks.

    peace

  9. Bookworm, I am serious, but in a fairness I think we can argee upon, everyone ought to note that I responded to this post before the Update was added.

    I do not believe that the Arabs ought to push the Jews back into the sea. I think the world has had enough pushing. The Jews are “God’s chosen people,” but not God’s only chosen people. It is my belief that God has chosen everyone and that we can have peace any time we decide to do so. For the Jews and the Arabs this is going to mean sharing Israel and admitting that Jews, Christians,and Muslims consider this Holy Ground. It is going to be about respecting people who are not like us and don’t want to be. Any time someone speaks this message clearly, someone else screams anti-semitism. I think that’s what’s happening both on this blog and with former President Carter. Sometimes people even die for saying what others don’t want to hear.

  10. I would like Jimmy Carter better if he was anti-semitic.

    That way, he joins the club of all the other hate mongers who have personal angsts and have to deal with it. I prefer it to thinking he is the messenger of God, personally.

    The logic dictates that if Carter isn’t anti-semitic, then he is truly on the road to hell paved with good intentions. Taking all of us with him as well, also. Far better for him to be anti-semitic and a hater, with the inner rage of Mel and Richards. Far better, far less damage to the world that way. It is true believers that kill, I have never forgotten that once I had learned it.

  11. do you ever read your stuff?

    oh, my bad, I had thought you stopped reading my stuff. I’ll do better next time, when I will know you will be reading. Higher quality, I promise.

  12. Let’s see, under Jimmy Carter’s watch–63 hostages held for 444 days. Ronald Regan takes the oath of office and voila, hostages released! I think this would illustrate that ol’ Jimmy was about as effective as nipples on a male (but he does build a mean house for Habitat for Humanity.) Until he began spouting his current round of idiocy, I was almost prepared to admit he made a decent ex-President.

  13. c’mon kevin,

    you’re a better researcher than that.

    you know and i know that you know about the machinations surrounding the hostage crisis.

    peace

  14. Jimmy Carter is a pitiful person, an angry man who wants adulation from his countrymen for his percieved moral superiority, but he is a liar and a thief. Although grovelling to dictators is his presidential legacy (and present mindset), Habitat for Humanity is his redeeming gift to America, which was part of his personal rehabilitation following his disastrous presidency.

  15. sheesh.

    so says marguerite huh?!!!!!

    what can i say? i bow down to that level of certitude.

    seriously, you guys can’t spend enough time in the political wilderness.

    thank the ‘invisible cloud being’ that your time of influence is over.

    peace

  16. Dagan, Some people just won’t accept this, but the truth is more important than just the facts.

  17. My husband reminds me that Jimmy Carter didn’t actually start Habitat for Humanity, but part of his rehabilitation in the national spotlight was to be seen promoting it.

  18. Dagon,

    I agree that there was a lot of behind the scenes activity with the hostage crisis but I still believe that it was ultimately fueled by the Iranians fear of crossing Regan. I have no doubt that the first “desert storm” would have been in Iran in the 80’s (when, incidentally, I was stationed on an aircraft carrier sitting off the Iranian coast) had they not given up the hostages.

    Marguerite,

    Correct on Habitat but I believe his role as an ex-President promoting it is commendable.

  19. kevin

    I have no doubt that the first “desert storm” would have been in Iran in the 80’s (when, incidentally, I was stationed on an aircraft carrier sitting off the Iranian coast) had they not given up the hostages.

    please don’t take offense but i would say that if you seriously think that we would have went to WAR over a hostage situation, then i think your grasp of geopolitics at the time was a little naieve.

    the iranians wanted something and it seems that via lenghthy discussions with bush senior, they got it. i don’t think fear of reagan played any part whatsoever.

    peace

  20. “It is….about respecting people who are not like us and don’t want to be.” — Thanks Helen

  21. Re comment 9: Helen, yours is a laudable view, but naive. It buys into the canard that the Palestinians want to share land for peace. If it were that easy, the Israelis would long ago have handed off land. Instead, every time the Israelis concede, more of them die. This type of negative reinforcement is certainly not going to encourage the Israelis to give more. They get nothing in return. In addition, while Palestinians talk the two nation talk to the West, amongst themselves (including in their charter) they are remarkably forthright about the one nation solution they envision: a Palestianian one and, increasingly, as they get rid of Arab Christians amongst them, a Muslim Palestinian one. Jews only have to look at Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia to know what happens to them in a Muslim country — they are killed or deported. Unless this Palestinian reality changes, to demand that the Israelis give up all their buffer land, that they allow a “right of return” drowing their population, that they free murderers from their jails, that they take down barriers that protect their citizens — all of that is ludicrous and, indeed, it’s almost evil to ask that of them.

  22. Re comment 16: Helen: How can you have truth without facts? Maybe it’s the lawyer in me, but facts are facts. Some may be disputed, and that’s always a problem, but once you’ve got the facts, you’re stuck with them. Then, the spin takes over (again, that’s the lawyer in me). As for Dagon, he knows that I think he’s big on opinion and criticism, but light on actual facts to support his opinions. There’s no doubt that the hostage crisis in Iran spun out of control on Carter’s watch. I blame him for that fact. Others may not. But the fact is the fact.

  23. bookworm,

    i source out my opinions more than ANYONE else on this board with the possible exception of you. and I always respond.

    i’d be happy to link to the myriad of threads where once challenged about the accuracy of your ‘facts’, you completed vacated the topic once I presented you with a challenge.

    and yes, the situation re israel and palestine is extremely “complex”. and in both your statements and those of pres. carter are needlessly simplistic; and will serve to accomplish nothing long term.

    peace

  24. not really what we were talking about but fair enough,

    “There’s no doubt that the hostage crisis in Iran spun out of control on Carter’s watch. I blame him for that fact. Others may not. But the fact is the fact.”

    well by that logic, the war in iraw was both started and spun out of control on Bush’s watch (not to mention 911); which has thus far resulted in the DEATH’S of thousands. i don’t think carter lost anyone.

    so, i am i to assume that bush is equally despised by you based on the logic tree that you just set up?

    peace

  25. Don’t just give me links, Dagon, which is your habit, or block quotes. Give me a fact-supported essay pointing out where I’m wrong and explaining what you’d do.

  26. Dagon,

    If a country’s citizens being held hostage isn’t a good reason, then name any good reason to go to war. Having been on what would have been the front line (Persian Gulf within 60 miles of Iran for months at a time) and having been privy to some of the military communications, I can emphatically state that we were at a high-level of battle readiness.

    However, let’s put my grasp of geopolitics aside for a moment–since when was Reagan a diplomat? He was an idealist as illustrated by the invasion of Grenada (which was ultimately just part of the rivalry between the U.S. and Cuba.) A bloody coup in Grenada, along with a perceived threat to American students on the island provided the U.S. with an excellent excuse to eliminate a Marxist regime allied to Fidel Castro’s Cuba. A perceived threat to students is significantly less than American hostages held for 444 days and Iran is hardly a top-notch military force. I don’t believe that Reagan would have allowed the world perception of America to be further degraded by allowing that condition to continue. He did have diplomatically astute advisors, however, which through negotiations allowed the Iranians to believe they had bartered a settlement rather than having been bullied. Had they not dealt, however, I still assert that he’d have cleaned their clocks and they were well aware of it.

    We can armchair quarterback on this all day long but I do have some personal experience as to the military presence there as well as time working with neighboring embassies during that time period preparing for possible eventualities. I think Reagan’s character would have ultimately overruled any geopolitical considerations.

  27. Dagon,

    i don’t think carter lost anyone

    And just after claiming you “source out my opinions more than ANYONE else on this board”

    Operation Eagle Claw, which failed and caused the deaths of eight servicemen.

  28. done and done before bookworm,

    but not this time. why hold me to a standard that you yourself never meet?

    aren’t you the one that said, “As for Dagon, he knows that I think he’s big on opinion and criticism, but light on actual facts to support his opinions

    isn’t an essay ‘opinion and criticism’? aren’t links to quotes and timetables ‘actual facts to support my opinions’?

    i really wish you would make up your mind.

    peace

  29. kevin,

    yeah, i remember that. thanks for bringing it up.

    something about proportionality in that statistic i think though. lol.

    peace

  30. Bookworm, I said “just the facts.” For example, as Kevin reminds us (comment # 12) “63 hostages [were] held for 444 days [during the Carter administration.] “Ronald Regan takes the oath of office and voila, hostages released!” Those are facts. But what Kevin surmises is interpretation.

    The truth involves why the hostages were released so soon after Regan’s inuguration. I do not think it was due to Regan’s superior presidential skills, because the fact is he hadn’t had time to demonstrate skill or lack thereof.

    We are going to have to use more than “just the facts” to get at the truth about why (not what) this happened the way it did. We can argue all night, but it is going to take opinion and criticism to get at the truth. That is, if people want it.

    There is power other than presidential in this scenario.

  31. And Bookworm, as to comment #21, it seems that in this context the word “naive” means doesn’t think like Jewish lawyer. Imagine that. :-) Yes, I’m being sarcasic.

  32. Helenl,

    We traded them parts they needed for their military aircraft (among other things.)

    I would like to propose a thought experiment, imagine the following bargaining scenario–I can kill you if you don’t do what I want but I’ll give you some thing you want if you do what I want (but don’t forget that I can kill you if you don’t do what I want.) When you choose to agree to the bargain, a diplomat’s view would be that both of us saved face but you never really had a choice and we both know it. But to those around you, you don’t look like you backed down because you got something you wanted.

    Yes mine is still an opinion BUT it is an informed opinion–not just something I pulled out of the air.

  33. This type of negative reinforcement is certainly not going to encourage the Israelis to give more.

    Olmert is giving more though, but the thing is, giving more still doesn’t work. Israel offered up a huge amount of land in 2000 or the Oslo accords, Arafat rejected it because he knew that he had to have war to stay in power.

    Unless this Palestinian reality changes, to demand that the Israelis give up all their buffer land, that they allow a “right of return” drowing their population, that they free murderers from their jails, that they take down barriers that protect their citizens — all of that is ludicrous and, indeed, it’s almost evil to ask that of them.

    of course, Book, and you already know that Olmert and past Israelis have released prisoners. It hasn’t gone anywhere, except well, back into the streets to kill more people. One murderer released is 500 Israeli body bags, and when Omert and Co release thousands of them… well, let us just say.

    But the fact is the fact.

    If you spin a fact in a centrifuge long enough, does it become opinion? I’ve always wondered about that. Because the Left seems to think that if you spin a cat long enough, he will fall down and not be a cat.

    i source out my opinions more than ANYONE else on this board with the possible exception of you. and I always respond.

    Except when Dagon met the Word of God in the form of Bookworm’s truth, and kept silent. Praise be to the Lord for that silence.

    Don’t just give me links, Dagon, which is your habit, or block quotes. Give me a fact-supported essay pointing out where I’m wrong and explaining what you’d do.

    Comment by Bookworm | December 14, 2006

    You got to weave those stories in front of the jury. Got to connect the dots, I believe. Evidence isn’t enough, it must have a credible story to go with it, to make people believe. Both lawyers and propagandists understand this basic concept. To convince, instead of to pundit or preach to the converted.

    This argument on facts seems to be mirrored over at that AP post as well, here.

    Iran Contra got the hostages released. Isn’t that plain?

  34. Kevin,

    “We traded them parts they needed for their military aircraft (among other things.)”

    A lot depends on who you think “we” is.

  35. Iran Contra got the hostages released. Isn’t that plain?

    Yes, on it’s face it would appear that way but read the thought experiment on post 32 for a more nuanced insight.

  36. re what the iranians got out of the deal, i think helenl just nailed it,

    “A lot depends on who you think “we” is.” bravo!

    peace

  37. “Iran Contra got the hostages released. Isn’t that plain?’

    And thus, Jimmy Carter is a “very bad man.” Do what?

  38. “Iran-Contra got the hostages released.”

    I am sorry but that represents breathtaking ignorance of history.

    I know that many people think that Ronald Reagan was omnipotent. But, even he could not have set up the deal to sell parts to Iranians; make delivery of the parts; collect the funds; then turn the money around to the Contra, all in the 2.5 months or so between the November election and the hostage release, which occurred on the eve of his January inauguration. There may have been overtures to the Iranians before the inauguration; but, to link the hostage release to Iran-Contra is simply erroneous.

    For instance, I will go check after I log off here, but I seriously doubt that Admiral Poindexter and LCOL North, the “villains” of Iran-Contra, were even in the Whitehouse to work their nefarious schemes before the hostage release. (TIC)

    The scheme to fund the Contra with Iranian funds was hatched long after the hostages were free.

    But, back to Jimmy Carter. The simple fact is that the attack and occupation of a U.S. Embassy is a direct attack on the United States. The Government of Iran became complicit in this instance when they permitted the continued occupation of the Embassy, and failed to exert every measure to protect American Diplomats. The Government of Iran’s complicity escalated the situation to a de facto act of war. President Carter’s only acceptable response was to warn the Iranians in a timely and convincing manner; then to bring the full weight of United States power to bear if they did not take corrective action. By not doing this, he was derilect in his duty.

  39. Hi Oldflyer,

    So Jimmy Carter is a very bad man, because he didn’t start a war?

  40. BTW some cursory research reveals.

    Admiral Poindexter entered the White House as a Military Assistant in 1981 after Presient Reagan was inaugurated. He became Assistant National Security Advisor, his first policy position, in 1983.

    I did not find a date when Oliver North was assigned to the White House.

    The Boland Ammendment which was the motivation for the Iran-Contra deal was not signed into law until 12/21/82. Prior to that it was perfectly legal to fund the Contra movement.

    The affair known as Iran-Contra which involved the diversion of funds from Iran to the Contra is considered to have occurred in 1986.

    I hope this information disabuses anyone of the notion that the hostage release and the Iran-Contra affair were linked in anyway.

  41. oldflyer

    “I hope this information disabuses anyone of the notion that the hostage release and the Iran-Contra affair were linked in anyway.”

    you’re kidding right?

    personally, i don’t think the hostage release had anything to do with iran/contra either. but just because some of the principles weren’t immediately in play doesn’t prove anything. bush was there from day one remember? and bush was intimately involved in not just the hostage scenario but also iran/contra.

    from the walsh report:

    “The OIC learned in December 1992 that Bush had failed to produce a diary containing contemporaneous notes relevant to Iran/contra, despite requests made in 1987 and again in early 1992 for the production of such material. Bush refused to be interviewed for a final time in light of evidence developed in the latter stages of OIC’s investigation, leaving unresolved a clear picture of his Iran/contra involvement. Bush’s pardon of Weinberger on December 24, 1992 pre-empted a trial in which defense counsel indicated that they intended to call Bush as a witness.”

    http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/execsum.htm

    peace

  42. Helen.

    The war had started. We just did not acknowledge it. Jimmy Carter was derelict in his duties for not responding appropriately to an attack on the sovereignty of the United States–and protecting the status of American Diplomats serving abroad.

    To be accurate, it was not I who stated that Jimmy Carter was a bad man.

    I did state that I do not believe that he is presently motivated by honesty and integrity. Make your own value judgement on that.

    To go on record, I have stated in the past that President Carter was an excellent “Ex-President” (note the emphasis on EX) because of his humanitarian activities. I obviously do not feel that way any longer.

    He may or may not be a bad man, but he is a disgrace as a former President.

  43. As a pacifist, I think what President Carter did was admirable. And since leaving office, he has helped negotiate whenever possible. I think history will be kinder to this statesman than we have ever been.

  44. Somebody had to say Iran Contra. But it is nothing to me. The thing is, a lot of people on the Left believe Iran Contra was the reason they released the hostages when Reagan got in. Not because Reagan was “tough”, since the Left doesn’t believe that “toughness” is really effective. This includes the Baker Boys too, btw, for the right.

    Jimmy Carter is a very bad man because he is a true believer concerning the wrong and destructive things in life.

    History will judge Carter as they judged the peacemaker Andrew Johnson.

  45. As a pacifist, you should be angry at Jimmy Carter for writing a book that only serves to inflame the situation instead of using his stature to actually *promote* peace. And you should be equally angry that the Palestinians time and again turn down genuine offers of peace in favor of more senseless violence.

    Peace between Israel and the Palestinians cannot be achieved by laying all the blame on the doorstep of one side or the other, by demanding that Israel make concessions to the Palestinians without requiring the Palestinians to give something back (say, an end to blowing up buses, or recognition of the Jewish people’s right to a homeland within the 1967 or even 1948 borders). By smearing Israel as a bunch of racist goons and painting the Palestinians as a defenseless people who are not responsible for the situation they find themselves in today, Carter feeds the fire and proves himself to be a complete and utter jackass.

    Say what you will about Israel’s failings, the Palestinians would be celebrating the 20th anniversary of their independence soon had they chosen non-violent resistance over suicide bombings.

  46. I suspect history will regard him as a blithering idiot, personally.

    Since leaving office he’s helped negotiate whenever possible, but what’s he accomplished? North Korea going nuclear,while at the same time being fed and fueled by us?

    Locate a corner of the globe where anything has improved by virtue of him dropping and “negotiating.”

    He and Kofi Annan will enter the history books together, no doubt. But it isn’t going to be a positive entry.

    And as president he was easily the most ineffective of the century - easily. 18% interest rates on the home front, a dead economy, and through his ineffectual dithering he almost single-handedly resuscitated the Soviet Union and gave it another decade and half of life.

    WHAT an idiot.

  47. Bugs make a good point over at Neo’s site. The thing is, the Palestinians can’t make peace, because they don’t control their militias and terrorist camps. There is no one leader you can negotiate with, because that one leader does not represent the Palestinian people. They CANNOT agree to peace, because they are not empowered to make such deals. One group of terrorists or another will disobey and keep attacking Israel. So what is the point to “negotiations”? There is nobody to negotiate with, people.

  48. Say what you will about Israel’s failings, the Palestinians would be celebrating the 20th anniversary of their independence soon had they chosen non-violent resistance over suicide bombings.

    Come on, Kettle. When a revolutionary kills, a tyrant dies and a free man is born. /sarc

  49. The Palestinians can’t make peace because they don’t want to make peace. They want to eliminate Israel from the map and kill Jews.

  50. Dagon,

    I am not kidding. Read my lips.

    Hostage release=January 1981.

    Boland ammendment which made official U.S. funds to the Contra illegal=December 1982.

    Iran-Contra scheme=1986

    First, there was no reason for the convoluted Iran-Contra scheme before the Boland ammendment. Funds were flowing openly.

    You can spin things all you want. But you simply cannot turn history on its head to make event which did not occur until 1986 the cause for events that occurred in 1981.

    Perhaps you are using the media generated term Iran-Contra carelessly and inappropriately as some catch all for the negotiations that led to the hostage release. I don’t know–don’t really care.

  51. Pacifists can live free only when others are willing to fight to protect their liberties.

    Fortunately, at least to this point, there have been sufficient numbers of citizens willing to do just that.

    Now, I know you will have a response to that Helen– and that is certainly your right as a free American. And as an American who enjoys more freedom than any individual throughout human history, you might, in your response want to thank not only the troops serving today; but especially those who have sacrificed at critical times in the past to assure that freedom.

    For my small efforts I say in advance, “You are welcome”.

  52. Pacifists are the free riders of history.

  53. Dear JJ and Oldflyers,

    Pacifists are willing to die for what they believe. Freedom is not free; “it costs everything all the time” to quote Maya Angelou. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed (martyred) for his views on the Vietnam War. How exactly is that a “free ride”?

    We have liberties because we use them; not due to the deaths of soldiers. I have the freedom of speech because I am speaking, not due to someone fighting in Iraq. War will never bring peace, only through peaceful (non-violent) confrontation will peace come to pass. And it will come to pass, but only when “we,” which is everyone, decide to make it so. To say we will always have war is to admit that people are not willing to have it otherwise.

    Don’t get me wrong. Soldiers are not the enemy. We are our own worse enemy, because we love war.

  54. Ymarsakar has made an excellent point (see #47). “The thing is, the Palestinians can’t make peace, because they don’t control their militias and terrorist camps. There is no one leader you can negotiate with, because that one leader does not represent the Palestinian people.” So why negotiate? Because it is the right thing to do.

  55. I sometimes wonder what history you read, Helen.

    You in fact do not have free speech because you exercise it, you have it because it was fought for. George III did not want you to have it, and - peculiarly enough, I suppose - he didn’t go away because somebody politely asked him to. His armies had to be physically defeated. Then he went away.

    Had we not emerged victorious from WWII, to bring it forward a few years, do you seriously posit that the heirs of either Tojo or Hitler would now be allowing you free speech? Had we not prevailed in the Cold War, do you seriously suppose that the heirs of Stalin would be allowing you to engage in free speech, because you are speaking? You’d be speaking in a cell, Helen - until your cellmates got tired of listening to you.

    Peace will not come to pass because people will refuse to fight. That’s been tried - oppression has always resulted.

    Regrettably (and it is regrettable) we live in a world that is and has always been ruled by force of arms, ever since the first hand was closed into the first fist. The only time peace has ever resulted has been when someone was beaten into submission, and physically compelled to stop fighting by being rendered unable to continue. Then peace has resulted. But peace does not grow spontaneously: it has always had to be imposed, either directly or through the threat of war.

    The cold war never heated up into a direct confrontation for one reason, and one reason only: the USSR knew we’d level them if they tried. As it was, every time they had a clown like Jimmy Carter with whom to deal, they advanced in their surrogate states, and subjugated new territories. Faced with a Reagan, whom they knew would have no hesitation, they retreated.

    10,000 pacifists willing to die for what they believe can expect to die; the world is short neither of bullets, nor bombs, nor gas - nor people who disagree with them and are willing to kill them. But - when that same 10,000 band together, and announce that they constitute a division, and they may indeed die but they’ll go down fighting, well: that gets respect.

    And it may be a sad commentray on the world, it may be a sad commentary on the human condition - it may be anything you wish to call it. But it is also incontrovertibly true. That’s history. That’s how it is.

    And if you don’t think there are plenty of people not in the least willing to have peace - without first getting their way - then you aren’t paying attention.

    Nobody “loves war,” (except those who do, and I would put the Middle Eastern religious fanatics right there) including those of us who know something about it. But it’s part of the deal, and has been since there was a deal. There have always been those out there who want what you have, and they will damn well fight to get you either (a) dead, or (b) seeing it their way.

    Go tell Putin you won’t oppose him. Or bin Laden or any of his cohorts. Or Hezbollah. Or Hamas. Or… well, it’s a real long list.

    They’ll all be pleased you won’t oppose them. And shortly you won’t have anything, and you damn sure won’t be speaking freely.

  56. JJ, you just don’t get it.

  57. In a society, as I see it, we need pacifists as well as warriors, engineers as well as sappers. (or one and the same for that matter)

    The thing is, to all things there is a purpose. The purpose of artists is not to make peace or win wars. The purpose of a diplomat is not to create objects of beauty. And the purpose of a soldier is not to prepare for peace.

    Balance in all things, as I believe, should be the goal. If you have a society with too many artists and pacifists, like Hollywood, then you will lose whatever you might have gained. Too many warriors, and you tend to have a breakdown in engineering infrastruture, electricity, and roads.

    Humanity will always have war because humanity will always grow and come to accept newness and strange concepts. As people see it in nature, nature does not progress without death and destruction. Death and destruction balances out life, renewal, and ever lasting creation. It is just the way things are. To have perpetual life is just as stagnant and imbalanced as having omnipresent death is chaotic.

    The problem comes when pacifists try to steal the role and purpose of warriors, to end wars. Pacifists cannot end wars, and they cannot fight them, so they cannot end them or help end them. Peace is for pacifists, wars are for warriors. To all things there is a place and a purpose, war just isn’t the purpose of pacifists.

    We can get rid of war, but we would cease to advance as the human species if that were to occur. We can freeze technological advances as well in order to make war less painful, with mind controlling substances and tech, but we would also eliminate human creativity and advances. Everything has a benefit and a cost, peace as well as war.

    That is the ever lasting truth behind “Balance in All Things”. Neo wrote about the concept of war bringing peace, here. Recommended reading for the military historians and military philosophers (Total War advocates) here.

    Neo does it again

    Peace will not come to pass because people will refuse to fight. That’s been tried - oppression has always resulted.

    You have to admit that it did work in India, JJ. But of course, as Neo noted, only because the British weren’t willing to execute the non-violent guys. Non-violence relies upon the non-violence of the guys with big guns.

    The only time peace has ever resulted has been when someone was beaten into submission, and physically compelled to stop fighting by being rendered unable to continue.

    Or when both sides believed that they would not win the war, if they engaged in one, since that would create a deterence. A feeling that the war isn’t worth it, because you will lose more than you will ever gain.

    10,000 pacifists willing to die for what they believe can expect to die; the world is short neither of bullets, nor bombs, nor gas - nor people who disagree with them and are willing to kill them. But - when that same 10,000 band together, and announce that they constitute a division, and they may indeed die but they’ll go down fighting, well: that gets respect.

    In the 21st century, human shields and non-violent protest do work, JJ. So helen has a point. But the counter-point is available readily, which is, non-violence only works against non-violent groups such as the United States, not Iran though.

    So the point I am making, JJ, is that humans operate on the Pavlovian principle. Which is that we will do things that we are rewarded for doing, and avoid doing things that we will be punished for doing. The pacifists and the non-violent protestors, have seen that it works in the West, so can we really blame them for being unable to believe that it won’t work at all against the Islamic Jihad?

    When the United States wages war to reduce civilian and human shield casualties, when Israel refuses a bombing run because of Palestinian shields, does this not send a message to the pacifists that non-violent protests work? Should we not then, JJ, start removing the previous training reflex and start instilling new ones? I at least, believe it is time.

    In peace, negotiations and mercy have their place. In war, ruthlessness and taking off the gloves are required. Many of the relevant arguments have been made more or less on the link to Neo’s site I put up above.

  58. Gee Helen. You really make me laugh. Why don’t you try exercising your free speech in China? How about North Korea? Maybe Afghanistan under the Taliban? There are innumerable examples I could cite of places where people who tried paid a heavy price. Maybe you can think of a few. Even cliches are rooted in at least partial truth–”Freedom is not free”.

    I don’t know about you, but I have traveled through a fair bit of the world. Americans cannot even fathom what life is like in many countries that we consider more or less free. No thanks. I also know that there are a lot of people who don’t really care if you are a pacifist or not. They will kill you in a heartbeat, and never think twice about it. They will kill you because you are in the way; or because you have what they want; or in many places just because you are an American and they have been taught to hate you. When Jimmy Carter goes across the world and feeds the hatred–and surely you cannot deny that he does this–he makes Pacifism even less tenable for Americans.

    I won’t be around to see how history treats Jimmy Carter. As the euphimism goes, I am approaching the twilight of my years. But,I do remember the 1970s very well. This was a very dispirited country; increasingly viewed as weak-willed and vulnerable by many of the predators of the world. It is problematic to consider what would have happened if the seeds he sowed had been allowed to take root.

    But, we are so far apart in our thinking that there is no point in continuing.

    So, go ahead; you can have the last word.

  59. Helen: You need to confront the fact that there are people in this world who would gladly kill you in between the salad and the entree, and never miss a bite. They don’t care about anything you think, or what you want, or your idea of right and wrong. I hate that they are out there, but they are out there just the same. They have clearly demonstrated what they are willing to do, and do proudly. There is no talking with them, and no finding a pathway to peace with them. Concessions only bring us closer to our own destruction at their hands. They might as well be the cockroaches under the sink, for all the good negotiating does.
    I believe you come from a place of good will, and that you fervently wish for peace and understanding among all people. But BW is right in calling that naive. Evil people exist in the world. We have seen them in action. And like cockroaches, the only sane response is to crush them. I wish it were otherwise. It isn’t.

  60. Goodnight Oldflyer. Goodnight John Boy. Goodnight Billy.

  61. This was a very dispirited country; increasingly viewed as weak-willed and vulnerable by many of the predators of the world.

    I am someone that believes that if you take an American hostage, we will find you and three of your friends and drop them in a acid vat, video tapped and sent to the AP. If you actually kill an American while hijacking something, I believe that we need to kill 100 people, associates or friends of the one who did the killing. If you can’t find 100 people, then the statue of limitations can be extended until the 23rd century, terminated by the next generation at the least.

    The American government is there to protect the people of America. They aren’t there to worry about international laws, international peace, international agreements, they are there to ensure the safety of Americans. The one criticsm I have against representative republics and democracies is that their leaders are too weak and soft spined to do what is necessary for the greater good. They aren’t dumb, they know, but they are too weak to do what they know must be done. They procrastinate, they rationalize, they delay and talk.

    I hate that they are out there, but they are out there just the same.

    Then it shouldn’t be hard to find them for the execution scaffolds, correct? So long as they are there and numerous, they can be found. When they are small and hard to find, then the problem becomes less serious, like the Nazis. Hard to find, small, little problem.

    Evil people exist in the world.

    What is evil though, Judy?

    And like cockroaches, the only sane response is to crush them.

    What about the people who collect roaches, though, Judy? Are you suggesting that they are insane ; ) ?

  62. He was surprised when I told him that amongst these prisoners there was Samir Qantar, who led a group into an Israeli home, and dragged the father and four year old daughter onto the beach.

    One reason why I don’t prefer to hold terrorists as prisoners, Book. Unless it is to use them as body pieces to force the release of American hostages, of course.

    Those are the kind of people the Palestinians — and Carter — demand in exchanged for a kidnapped young man whose only crime is being an Israeli citizen.

    I believe in exchanges. I believe that if I exchange the eye of a criminal, you should exchange the entire body of an American, unharmed, back to us.

    These are demands I believe, we can reason with.

    Believe me when I say that I am not wishing for anything that would bring an unnatural end to his natural life.

    The bad Presidents never get assassinated, Book. Only the good ones get it. Reagan, Lincoln, JFK.

    It is a rule of thumb that evil knows that which helps evil, and so avoids the useful idiots, for they die last.

  63. It didn’t work in India, Y. Gandhi was perfectly willing to be peaceful - but the Muslim population of India wasn’t. Eventually Gandhi had no choice but to forcibly deport them: thus Pakistan. And, it should be noted (though generally it isn’t, because it would screw up the Gandhi legend) that in the process of creating Pakistan, the sainted Gandhi cheerfully allowed over 1,000,000 Indian Muslims to die during their deportation. A million. That’s a big number, for a guy who wouldn’t swat a fly. Altogether saintly.

    I do not recall an episode in history when both sides simultaneously quit, because neither felt they could win.

    Human shields and non-violent protest work - with us. With western Europe. You are quite correct. But - try it in Iran. Try it in China. Try it on Putin. Try it in Syria. Try it in North Korea. Try it, in other words, where it’s most needed. Good luck.

    It wasn’t me who coined the saying the peace comes out of the barrel of a gun.

  64. Oldflyer-

    Iran-Contra scheme=1986

    Just as a point of interesting historical reference, I was in Honduras working with Nicaraguans on the border in ‘84.

    I don’t think the Iran-Contra scheme was ever hatched as a specific/complete plan more than it just evolved over time from various programs. I suspect the term Iran-Contra was just a convenient moniker to reduce a fairly nebulous group of programs into a sound bite for television.

  65. One last word on JC, from Victor Davis Hanson writing at National Review: “Jimmy Carter, silent about Iran’s latest promotion for its planned holocaust, is hawking his latest book — in typical fashion, sorta, kinda alleging that the Israelis are like the South Africans in perpetuating an apartheid state, that they are cruel to many Christians, and, as occupiers, are understandably the targets of suicide bombers and other terrorist killers. Sadly, all that shields this wrinkled-browed, lip-biting moralist from complete infamy is sympathy for a man bewildered in his dotage.”

  66. [...] [Discuss over at the Bookworm Room] [...]

  67. A definition from Wikipedia:

    “Naïve

    may refer to:

    Naïveté, a French loanword indicating the state of lacking experience, understanding or sophistication”

    My “lack of experience” earned me a MALS degree from Wake Forest University in 2000. My thesis was entitled “Making All Things New: The Value of Unmerited Suffering In the Life and Works of Martin Luther King, Jr.” I spent two years studying non-violence in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. During that time I became a pacifist. So please pick an adjective other than “naive” to describe me.

    Some who leave comments here are so busy defending their current position that they forget to learn. My education will be over when I die. Until then, I search for truth wherever I find it. Is that truly naive?

  68. I’ve searched the article and comments and the word “settlements” does not appear.

    Israel captured the territories in the 1967 war. Israel signed the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1948. This prohibits settling your citizens on land captured in war.

    Military occupation by a democracy’s army, especially by an army of a different religion, inspires desperation and suicide bombing around the world. For example Hindu Tamil Tigers against Buddhist Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. This is documented by Prof Robert Pape of U. Chicago in “Dying to Win”.

    The settlements are therefore illegal and have inspired anti-Western sentiment throughout the Muslim world.

    Carter correctly perceives that they are at the root of terrorism and must be emptied as part of the two-state solution supported by US policy.

    Finally, all this about plagarism, errors, etc. are an ad-hominem attack. Perhaps we may soon be treated to stories about Carter being unfaithful to his wife. Stick to the issue.

  69. As an aside, I have to admit that I’m not very knowledgeable on a MALS degree so I did a quick check and found the following list of courses for the degree at WFU. They also state:

    These programs offer adults an opportunity to explore the full range of liberal arts on their own terms. The courses are interdisciplinary and interactive. Adults who enroll in these programs gain new information, new perspectives, and new insights. Mostly our students are people who are motivated by a desire to know and understand more about the world and themselves than they do now. The goal of the Liberal Studies program is to facilitate the development of a truly educated mind.

    MLS 811 - Wars, Just & Unjust: A History of Interpreting Conflict
    MLS 812 - Utopia & Its Discontents in Literature and Film
    MLS 813 - The Goddess in Myth and History
    MLS 815 - What’s Up, Doc? Ethics of Health Communication
    MLS 774 - History & Culture of Venice (Travel Course)
    MLS 816 - LIfe on a Small Planet: Environment, Science & Politics
    MLS 817 - Living in Mortal Time: Clinical & LIterary Approaches
    MLS 818 - The Image of Shaman as Healer in a Global Perspective
    MLS 819 - Virginia: Stories and Histories
    MLS 801 - Changing World, Challenging Decisions: The History of Bioethics
    MLS 804 - Health, Environment, and the Active Lifestyle
    MLS 703 - Seeing Us as Others See Us: The U.S. and U.K. Compared
    MLS 802 - Shakespeare: His Comedies, Tragedies, and Their Sources
    MLS 728 - Prose Fiction Workshop
    MLS 766 - The Life, Teachings, and Method of Mohandas Gandhi
    MLS 805 - Isle of Saints & Sinners: Ireland’s Literature & Culture (Travel Course)
    MLS 806 - A Delightful (re)Past: A History of Food & Drink in Europe and the U.S.
    MLS 807 - Mathematicians as People: Clearing the Myths
    MLS 782 - Mother Love: The Genesis of Emotional Attachments
    MLS 809 - Modern Legends of Troy
    MLS 727 - An African Atlantic
    MLS 711 - Global Population & the Environment: Moral Choices & Public Policy
    MLS 768 - Love, War, & Wisdom: Hebrew Literature from the Bible to Today
    MLS 731 - The Cultural Politics of American Presidents
    MLS 775 - Twins & Doubles: Carbon Copies in Literature & Science
    MLS 783 - American Paths to Freedom
    MLS 734 - Classical Music in the Twentieth Century
    MLS 712 - Literary Classics of World Religions
    MLS 774 - The History and Culture of Venice (Travel Course)
    MLS 735 - Theatre as Political, Religious and Cultural Protest
    MLS 736 - Architecture, Memory, & Meaning: The World Trade Center & Memorial Architecture in America
    MLS 777 - Paradise or Prison: Utopian Novels of the 20th Century
    MLS 701 - Culture & Spirituality in Contemporary Native America
    MLS 702 - Daughters of the South
    MLS 728 - Prose Fiction Workshop
    MLS 704 - Science, Values, and Culture
    MLS 703 - Seeing Us as Others See Us: The U.S. and U.K. Compared
    MLS 706 - German Culture Clash: Modernity and Tradition in Conflict, 1890-1940
    MLS 709 - Italian Opera
    MLS 705 - Myths of Creation
    MLS 766 - The Life, Teachings, and Method of Mohandas Gandhi
    MLS 707 - Women’s Political & Social Activism since 1776
    MLS 714 - Hearing the Divine Voice: Pilgrimage and the Act of Reading
    MLS 717 - Shakespeare Unbound and Rewound: Adaptations in Literature and Film
    MLS 708 - The Culture and History of Vienna (Travel Course)

  70. thanks robert,

    i really didn’t have the energy.

    peace

  71. Students in the MALS program at Wake Forest take a minimum of four special MALS courses plus theis research and others courses from the offerings to graduate students in any discipline. They may take all MALS seminars. I did not choose to do so. My courses concentrate in African American studies and creative writing. (Some course numbers have been changed since I took the classes.)

    I took
    REL 366 Gender and Religion
    MLS 432 The Medieval World
    HIS 610 Slavery - Viewpoint of Blacks
    MLS 486 Directed Study (African American Religious
    Experience)
    MLS 486 Directed Study (The Search for Freedom in the US and South Africa)
    MLS 437 Art and Craft of Writing Poetry
    HIS 415 Slavery in History
    ENG 684 Advanced Poetry Workshop
    MLS 728 Fiction Workshop - Creating Your Own Voice
    MLS 791 Thesis Research

    I audited HIS 610 African American Biography while I was working on my thesis.

  72. The HelenLs and Dagons of the world mean well. In their proto-marxist view, people are basically good but society, through the creation of artificial inequalities and the disproportionate allocation of power between groups, creates the conditions for conflict. To them, there is no evil, there is simply “social” injustice. Therefore, simply mediating away the economic and “power” differences between individuals levels the playing field, ergo resulting in peace. This is one reason why their hatred of Republican conservative values is so virulent - Republicans and conservatives extol self-determination and the ability (and right) of individuals to differentiate themselves from the mean. The rest of us, however, understand that the world doesn’t work that way. There are wolves, there are sheep and there are guard dogs. Good and evil coexist - in all of us. Although the moral vanity of the HelenLs and Dagons will tell them that they do good simply because their intentions are good, they (like Jimmy Carter…although I am no longer quite sure of goodness of his intentions)become the enablers of the wolves and, therefore, morally complicit. The road to Hell really is paved with good intentions. There is no convincing HelenL or Dagon because, to do so, would collapse their entire moral universe and leave them staring at an abyss they could not bear to contemplate.

  73. Finally, all this about plagarism, errors, etc. are an ad-hominem attack.

    *snickers* You hear that, Book. Saying someone committed an action is an attack on his character, and therefore not admissable in court. Time for Sharia, I’m sure it will fix the problems of requiring evidence and actions to be used as proof in court.

    It’s like a negligent homicide case. The defendant is accused to have lied and known the dangers of his lie, and based upon this lie, caused the death of a person. The defense lawyer says “objection, you have made an ad hominem attack against my client, it has nothing to do with whether he is guilty of negligent homicide if he neglected to tell the truth”. Deeper and deeper down the hole we go, Book. Where it petters out, nobody knows.

    Stick to your settlements, Hume. The Israelis will either win the war by annihilating their enemies, or they will be annihilated one way or another. Either way, the issue of settlements will be decided by whoever survives.

    Two points concerning MLS.

    One, the topic of research (MLKJ) has nothing to do with Palestinians or the Islamic Jihad resistance of occupations. Two different elements, cannot be interchanged.

    Two, naivety is a question of a lack of wisdom, not a question of data or knowledge or intelligence.

    It does reaffirm the point I made before. Here in the West, people flock to pacifism because they mistakenly believe that it will always work. And they base this belief upon data and facts from the Civil Rights and Ghandi’s life. It is not that the facts are wrong, non-violence did work against the West, the British, and the US. It is that the interpretations that the pacifists spin upon these facts, are grossly distorted compared to what goes on in the rest of the world. The West is only a small portion of the world, and you expect civil rights campaigns to succede here. But this is not true in the rest of the world, simply because the rest of the world is not the United States. People have a tendency to believe that the world is a mirror image of their town, village, city, state, and nation. It is the natural parochialism of humanity, that we cannot imagine what is beyond our horizons. This is a limitation that cosmopolites seek to surpass.

  74. Danny dilineates one of the problems with a lack of war. War keeps humans humble. In our vast omnivoracity and overall dominion of the Earth, humans tend to elevate themselves to god like status. When there is no war, as there has a deficit in the West, you will see a decay and a decadence in people’s lives and beliefs. I mentioned before about balance in all things. Not having any war is just as bad and destructive as always having war. Because without war, you have pacifists and those who believe that non-violence works always. Without peace, you have a bunch of war mongers that can destroy but cannot create anything of lasting value.

    Pacifists are already imbalanced in the terms of human behavior and virtue. The Palestinian War Machine is the example of the other side of the pendulum. America, of course, lies smack dab in the middle of moderation and balance.

    Dealing with problems won’t be easy if you maintain balance, but it will be easier than if you do not maintain balance.

    There are two consequences to too much pacifism and lack of war in a nation and people. Firstly and most commonly, the lack of a warlike defense leaves the nation open to barbarian invasions. Those barbarians invade, conquer, and then settle in the cities, and renew the cycle of civilization. The second consequence, is much much less common. The second consequence is the Elf Syndrome, as I call it. Where people live for a looonnng time, and party all day and night, thinking of nothing and nobody except themselves and their pleasures. Why does this happen? Because without war, people no longer are able to bond as a community, in defense of the common good. Without war, people can no longer prove to themselves that they have what it takes to be a defender and protector, decreasing the pool of active defenders, and thus creating an imbalance automatically. Without war, people lose their purpose. They begin to ask themselves, why are they alive, to what should they devote their lives to. Peace is already here. So they devote their times to hobbies, parties, having fun. Not a care in the world, elves dancing in the moonlight. Advanced medical technology assures them that they will not age, that they will not grow old.

    The reason why the second consequence is so very very rare is because usually you don’t survive long enough to get to that level. We have begun on the road to the Second Consequence because of the American military maintaining stasis in this world. A stasis that can no longer be held. The American military is so mighty, that the people they protect (Japan, SK, Germany, Europe, America, Canada, Mexico, Latin America) no longer appreciates or even understand the purpose to which a military is for. Their entire lives, were lived in peace, but a peace that they did not earn, a peace that was only brought to them by the dominion of the United States Armed Forces. And like all teenagers, they will rebel against the authority and their protectors, just because. It is genetic.

    True fullfillment for the human being derives from hard work and individual accomplishments. A person has to know, in their genes, that they and they alone were responsible for their success or failure. Otherwise, they will drift aimlessly in the sea of stars, always wondering, always questioning “what is the purpose of my life”. Those without purpose will live unhappy and unsatisfied lives, and humans being humans, will tend to try and spread the misery around.

    I am writing this piece because what Danny wrote about, instigated a question to me. Which was one I had begun to ask myself quite a long time ago, the question being “why do people act the way they do, and become pacifists or warriors”.

    I have tried to take the logic to its logical conclusion. Meaning, let’s say that pacifism worked, that you could get rid of armies and get perpetual peace. Let’s assume that no Ghenghis Khan will appear in the human race, for the next 1000 years, just because. When you have perpetual peace, what will you do with it though? That is not an easy question to ask. Because the one thing that has always motivated humanity to push past our limitations, was war, was internal strife, was combat against nature, ourselves, and others. When we have the technology to dominate nature, and to increasingly become supreme over nature, as well as getting rid of internal strife and wars, to what then will the human race be motivated by in order to improve ourselves? And even if we assume that the human race can maintain stasis for a 1,000 years, I promise you that invading alien races will screw up your plans for cert. Because a cosmopolite cannot restrict his or her horizons to their own parochial settings, a cosmopolite must always look beyond the veil of limitations.

    Eternal peace is not in the destiny of mankind. Although looking at Israel, eternal war may be if you don’t do what is necessary to End it.

    To all things there is a beginning and an end. All things that live, must die. The cycle of war to peace and peace to war, cannot be broken. Because humans are not Gods, we cannot violate Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. For as much power as human beings hold over this small marble blue of a planet, we are still infants in the larger universe and the rules that bind the physical world.

    Parochialism is about looking around you in a 10 feet circle, and declaring that this is how the universe functions, according to the principles and behaviors that you categorized in that 10 feet circle. Parochialism is the plague of humanity. It has brought about racism, wars, cultural misunderstandings, and many many miscalculations that have lead to death and destruction. Not ignorance, not stupidity, not corruption, not even evil, have brought about as much death and chaos as parochialism.

  75. Helenl,

    Way off the subject but one course seriously begs the question–what is a black’s viewpoint on slavery? If I had to make an educated guess, I would say “it sucks.” Next (just for curiosity sake) did the scope of the course address the black on black slavery that is currently occuring in Africa or did the class only address white on black slavery in America?

  76. To clarify a point made in my first sentence of the first paragraph.

    I mean only that people with too much power tends to see themselves as outside of mortal limitations. They believe themselves exempt from rules, laws, and the laws of physics. It is not true, this delusion creates hubris, and as the Greeks foretold hubris will cause you to fall. The more hubris you have, the higher you will fall from.

    Wars keep humanity humble, by pitting strength against strength, (US vs Nazi Germany vs Imperial Japan vs Communist Soviets) so that no one may argue after the fact who was more or less powerful, because it would be obvious. Whoever survived was the stronger. This forces a standard of objectivity and reality upon human beliefs and ideas. It keeps us humble, so that we don’t float up to the heavens and start crafting up utopian beliefs like communism, and thinking that this will make us angels or something.

    The Islamic Jihad have not been humbled, as people well know. War is to humble humanity. Without war, humanity will become a bunch of egotists and utopian philosophers. Useless and worthless.

    The world we live in is composed of many parts, just as our body is composed of many parts. Each part has a purpose. And while you may remove a few cells here, an appendix there, and an eye here and still function, there is a LIMIT to which you cannot surpass. As human beings create more and more technological progress, we push at these limits and enlarge them, surpass them. But there will always be new limits. Those who wish to remove war are as irrational and illconsidered as those who wish to remove peace, from the human experience.

    People are not gods, regardless of how highly they elevate their social consciousness.

  77. i’m curious about where you’re heading re the question about slavery kevin,

    i’m a black man. i’d be happy to give you my views on slavery if you’re at all interested.

    but if you’re going to open up a discussion on black on black slavery, you might as well talk about it in generalis rather than trying to equate it with the american experience (which was very different).

    currently there are forms of slavery on all continents, from white slavery in slovakia and lithuania to the centuries old practice of indentured servitude that is on exhibit in every chinatown in world.

    peace

  78. exempt from rules, laws, and the laws of physics

    Show me one example of someone with so much power that they believe they are exempt from lets say, gravity. Indiscriminately dropping the word physics doesn’t make one appear any smarter–in fact, it does just the opposite.

  79. Dagon,

    It was more of a question on the basis of the class (HIS 610 Slavery - Viewpoint of Blacks.) No offense was meant; I would just think that there would generally be a monolithic viewpoint on the subject (i.e. show me one black in America that believes slavery is/was good.) And yes, I would be interested to hear your viewpoint.

    The reason for the second question was to see if the class really addressed the subject of slavery or was just the current liberal teaching that whites should all feel ashamed for slavery in America. I believe slavery was wrong but I also refuse to accept guilt for a crime for which I am not guilty.

  80. Kevin, Slavery from the Viewpoint of blacks meant looking at primary (rather than secondary sources) that were written or dictated by slaves and former slaves. We use letters, speeches, biographies, etc. in our study.

  81. HIS 610 Slavery - Viewpoint of Blacks dealt only with slavery in the US. HIS 415 Slavery in History dealt with history in the US, Europe, Africa, and Asia.

  82. Ah, I see. I assume that this would be along the lines of Frederick Douglass’s writings. Did it cover slavery in Africa? (since it’s the Black point of view being examined) I’m curious because I had an excellent Nigerian undergrad history professor who made a point of discussing slavery from and African on African perspective and he would make the point (as Dagon has) that is is significantly more than an American experience. He would point out that because it is currently going on in Africa, it isn’t some esoteric historical artifact as we usually view it in America. Typically slavery discussions I hear on campus revolve more around guilt than an acknoledgment that (again as Dagon points out) currently there are forms of slavery on all continents.

  83. sorry, you responded first.

  84. kevin

    “The reason for the second question was to see if the class really addressed the subject of slavery or was just the current liberal teaching that whites should all feel ashamed for slavery in America. I believe slavery was wrong but I also refuse to accept guilt for a crime for which I am not guilty.”

    well, this liberal doesn’t view the fallout over slavery as one of enforced multigenerational guilt and i don’t know many blacks who view the situation that way either.

    most of the concerns center around the refusal of some people and entities to own up to the ramifications of american apartheid, which existed well past emancipation.

    that is to say, that a caucasian should not be expected to feel guilt over the actions of people he/she had nothing to do with hundreds of years ago but it is to say that our society should acknowledge the cyclical toll of exploitation that it has visited on african americans; an experience unique among minority groups in this country which saw a systematic DENIAL of opportunity rather than an ambivalence towards it.

    i don’t see this a situation of what whites should or shouldn’t do but one of what AMERICANS should be about and want to do.

    while it is true that no black american was born a slave, it is also true that many of us or our parents endured the american apartheid which has helped create a cyclical cycle of undereducation, state dependence and exploitation at the hands of predatory institutions.

    a failure to acknowlege this as a society and encourage dialogue or legislation that addresses it does a disservice.

    you know the phrase, ‘you broke it…you own it’. while unfortunate in word choice, the meaning still holds. AMERICA broke and exploited the africans that it brought here for free labor and it still owes their descendents (who still bear the marks of that damage) some debt, small or great.

    a great country realizes this and does more to make amends.

    peace

  85. In HIS 610 we used mostly documents compiled by John Blassingame in “Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, Interviews, and Autobiographies” (Louisiana State University Press, 1977).

    I wrote on female slaves and had my paper published in “The Journal of Graduate Liberal Studies,” while I was student.

  86. Preach!

  87. I have posted a poem “Faces Tell That Story” on my blog. Please go to http://helenl.wordpress.com/2006/12/15/faces-tell-that-story/ if you are interested. It is far too long to post as comment on Bookworm’s blog.

  88. Why do I get the feeling that when someone always ends a posting with the word “peace” the word is meant as a personal declaration that they are smarter, deeper, and more wise than anyone else?

    greater peace

    mikey

  89. No, it is mere affectation. Means nothing.

    war (just)

    zhombre

  90. Means there’s a heck load of pasting and typing. If he devoted that much effort to coming up with good arguments, we would all be at peace.

  91. The thing is, if you look at blacks from Ethiopia, they have smaller physiques compared to blacks born in the US from traditional slave descendent families. Why is that, one wonders? And how many Ethiopians blacks grow tall enough to get the big bucks for professional basketball?

    People will never recognize the good and the bad, they will simply choose what they wish to see and that is it. The failure to acknowledge the detriments and the risks in proportion to the rewards, only emphasizing the bad, ends up simply as hackery in the form of Main Sewer Media reporting of Iraq and the Saudi madrasses.

  92. Perhaps, it has to do with nutrition. In the US, we’re a bit over-fed, black and white. :-)

  93. Dagon,

    Thanks for the reply, you bring up some good points and I have a greater understanding of your viewpoints.

    Now I’m curious, what do you think of Bill Cosby’s assertion that it’s time for blacks to step up and assume responsibility for much of their situation? You’re obviously educated so do you listen to gangsta rap? (I don’t want to assume anything but I would guess no.) Do you see a problem with people making a fortune calling each other N****r, and referring to women as hoes and bi****s and that a significant portion of a generation of kids want nothing more than to emulate them? Yes there was an apartheid in America but that has changed significantly. What did that change bring about though? Where I believe you and I have a certain amount of understanding (and interestingly enough agreement) on an intellectual basis, I honestly share nothing with would-be gangsta’s (be they white or black and a sig