RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Jimmy Carter Wins Nobel Peace Prize(43 posts)

Jimmy Carter Wins Nobel Peace PrizeJon Billheimer
Oct 11, 2002 6:54 AM
Long overdue and well deserved, in my opinion. This man will go down in history as a great American, one who has used his position and influence to make the world a better place.
I missed that...Wayne
Oct 11, 2002 7:01 AM
not really, but CNN's webpage had that as the headline for a few hours but there is possible news on the sniper so Nobel Peace prize nes has been downgraded. It's been happening slowly but surely, but CNN is now no better than your local city news broadcast.
Indeed. A great American who sadlyscottfree
Oct 11, 2002 8:20 AM
wasn't quite up to the job of being President, but sure as hell is the greatest EX-President we've ever had. History will be kind to Jimmy Carter.
Why?Eager Beagle
Oct 11, 2002 8:57 AM
What's he done since, other than farm peanuts or whatever - we don't get Carternews in the UK?
He has lived his beliefs...liberal, social consciousness, etc.MXL02
Oct 11, 2002 9:10 AM
Habitat for humanity is one of his projects. He puts his money where his mouth is. I am a repugnant republican, and was more than disappointed in Mr. Carter while he was in office. Sort of the Neville Chamberlain of his time. But he has tried to live a post presidency life of giving, leading by example.
He has won my admiration and respect. I believe this award is well deserved.
I couldn't have said it betterPaulCL
Oct 11, 2002 9:28 AM
History won't be kind to his Presidency, but will be very kind to the man.

Without a doubt, the most honest, sincerely good, man that we have had in the Presidency. Congrats Jimmy !
Yup, got a dog that I named after him. (nm)rtyszko
Oct 11, 2002 4:07 PM
Alsoscottfree
Oct 11, 2002 10:11 AM
traveling the world to hot spots, working to broker peace (remember the Korea trip?), courageously observing elections to make sure they were on the up and up. (Used to piss off Clinton that he was out there practicing freelance diplomacy, something that should appeal to you Repubs out there!) Then he'd come home to build houses with Habitat for Humanity. Quite a fellow.
yup...maybe not the best president, but a great man (nm)ColnagoFE
Oct 11, 2002 9:06 AM
An astro-physicist, gone president who can swing a hammer??128
Oct 11, 2002 9:47 AM
the 'nads. Congrats to the old boy...He really has had a great post pres. career.

Non-partisan comment: The hammer bit occured to me watching Boy Bush (and his sidekick 'Contrived Accent') swing a framing hammer as he helped to "rebuild America": holding it all choked up to the claw 'n sh*t, I just had to sigh...."You gonna use the rest of that hammer Skippy, or should I get you a shorter one?"
An astro-physicist or engineer of some kind?Wayne
Oct 11, 2002 10:17 AM
Either way a smart guy, but I thought he went to the Naval Academy and was on a nuclear sub as an engineer of some sort. Poetry isn't my cup of tea, but I think it's admirable that the guy gets poetry books published as well.
That's it: NucUlar physics degree. From Emory?? nm128
Oct 11, 2002 10:53 AM
Gotta love Jimmy! nmAugust West
Oct 11, 2002 11:36 AM
FYIJon Billheimer
Oct 11, 2002 11:44 AM
Carter graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1946 with a B.S. degree. He later did graduate work in nuclear physics at Union College, but didn't complete a degree program.

His achievements as President include negotiating a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, SALT II, and the Camp David Accords. Not a bad record for any president in the area of foreign affairs. Unfortunately his domestic policies garnered less approval and he was saddled with the Iran hostage-taking crisis. That issue alone would have taxed the wisdom of Solomon. Unlike the present administration he did not follow through with knee-jerk military aggression. But his negotiations did set the stage for Reagan to resolve the issue.

As a politician he was probably underappreciated. As a human being, an advocate for social, political, and economic justice he stands, in my opinion, as a great American statesman, humanitarian, and diplomat.
I wasn't being sarcastic, the man is cool!August West
Oct 11, 2002 12:56 PM
His only fault might be being a little toooo honest, but I've always respected him.
Actually..LO McDuff
Oct 11, 2002 2:47 PM
The peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and the Camp David accords are the same thing. Truth is, Sadat and Begin had their deal worked out before ever approaching Carter. The go-betweens being Ceausescu of Romania and the King of Morrocco. When they had their plan essentially worked out Begin/Sadat called the the White House. Why did they contact the White House? They needed someone to pay the bill.

One more thing, the reason the hostages were released so quickly after Reagan took office was a series of phone calls Washington made to Tehran basically saying "Release the hostages or else".
Yeah. "Or else the arms deal is off." (nm)czardonic
Oct 11, 2002 3:04 PM
The arms deal was 6 years later.LO McDuff
Oct 12, 2002 8:25 AM
In January 1981, the revolution in Iran was extremely fragile. The position of the new White House was "give us the hostages, or we will de-stabilize the your new regime."

I'm not saying it was right or wrong to make the threat. It was a very different approach from Carter. It worked. It brought the hostages home. Fast.

Check out an interview that PBS's Charlie Rose did with Prof. Bernard Lewis (don't have the exact date). It was fascinating.
Clarification...Matno
Oct 12, 2002 8:41 AM
You said Carter was "an advocate for social, political, and economic justice." In reality, he was (and is) an advocate for social, political, and economic equality, which is a far cry from justice. Government redistribution of wealth is not a peace-keeping measure, it is not an issue of "fairness," it is not beneficial to society. What it is, to quote Fredric Bastiat, is "legalized plunder." Jimmy Carter was a great champion of that kind of thievery. Winston Churchill said it best: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Clarification, Take 2.phacops rana
Oct 13, 2002 9:52 AM
A bit late on the response, but I feel as if your comment needs addressing. It is fully within the liberal tradition (and by that term I mean the tradition of political modernity as it has existed in the West for a few centuries now) to strongly link justice and fairness. The fact that Rawls's social theory is still alive and kicking means that justice as fairness is still a viable template for social policy. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not: the point is that when you deny the linkage you also tend to expose a fairly one-sided account of things.
Well,Matno
Oct 13, 2002 3:58 PM
I'm sure what you're trying to say. In what way is taking money from someone who has earned it and giving it to someone who has not "fair"? I fully believe in equal opportunity, equal rights, etc., but there is a big difference between allowing two people the same opportunity to get rich (as all Americans have) and forcing two people to equally share the fruits of their unequal labors. If my view of this is one-sided, I say in full confidence that it is the only correct "side" that can exist.

There are plenty of social theories that are alive an kicking. History repeats itself over and over because people do not learn that such theories do not work. (Communism is still alive and kicking. Does any educated person who values personal liberty actually thinks that it is viable in the long run? I think not.

Whatever you want to call the "liberal tradition," it is still stealing and a huge detriment to the advancement of society as a whole. It is not a "viable template" but rather an ideology that always has and always will lead to the eventual political, social, and economic downfall of the people who live under it.

Fortunately for us, the Constitution provided Americans with many protections against just such a gov't. Those built in "checks and balances" are the only thing that has allowed America to be the worlds most prosperous nation for so long. Unfortunately, with time, those protections are being eroded at an increasing pace.
More clarifications.phacops rana
Oct 14, 2002 9:00 AM
I think you miss my point. I am not saying that you are wrong to BELIEVE that justice and fairness should not be linked. This is your opinion, and I have no problem with well presented opinions. The problem is that when you state that justice and fairness have NEVER been linked, you are venturing outside the realm of opinion and offering a historical fact. Why is this problematic? Because it is not true. There is a school of social policy that directly links the concepts of justice and fairness, and that this school of thought exists is entirely independent of whether you think it is right or wrong. To take you bit about Communism: I am no Communist, but that does not give me the right to say that social justice and the communitarian life style have NEVER been linked.

Also, be careful when criticizing the "liberal tradition." From what I have read, you seem to espouse a Libertarian point of view. The problem is that Libertarianism and the doctrine of Justice as Fairness, different as they may be, share a beginning in the "liberal tradition." When you attack the "liberal tradition," you are also implicitly attacking the very foundation of your Libertarian beliefs. As an example, you gave some arguments that sound a lot like Locke and Smith. Now John Locke and Adam Smith are heroes of the Libertarian movement, but they are also part and parcel of the "liberal tradition." To appeal to them is also to appeal to the foundations of Justice as Fairness as well.

Once again, all this is independent of whether you agree or disagree with Libertarianism or Justice as Fairness. I myself cannot hold for either: Justice as Fairness cannot work, but Libertarianism itself can become indefensible and is riven with inconsistencies. All I'm saying is that if you want to argue for Libertarianism and against Justice as Fairness, you're going to have to disentangle their "liberal" roots first.
Good point.Matno
Oct 14, 2002 11:11 AM
While my politics may have some libertarian leanings, particularly in economic areas, I am by no means a libertarian. I did not mean to say that justice and fairness have never been linked. What I meant to say was that many people (including Carter) think that fairness and equal sharing of wealth are the same concept. They are not! What is fair is recognizing that everyone has the same rights to life, liberty, and property, which includes the same sharing of proper state burdens as well as the right to keep what one earns. (This obviously should preclude the implementation of graduated income tax, state welfare system, public education, etc. to varying degrees). Justice and fairness are not only linked, I would venture to say that they are the same thing. Justice and equality (or the communist interpretation thereof) have been linked, but never successfully.

I am curious as to how you think that Adam Smith and John Locke are "part and parcel of the 'liberal tradition'"? Their philosophies have virtually nothing in common with the social policy you seem to be referring to. While you're at it, in what way is the "liberal tradition" any different from hard-line communism? I submit that it is only a difference of degrees and that the first eventually leads to either the second or a total breakdown of the system.

You are right that Libertarianism is not entirely defensible. The Libertarians seem to ignore the fact that there must be, and always is, morality in legislation. For example, according to their own logic, drugs and pornography should be legalized because they are "victimless." What they naïvely ignore is that both have significant negative impacts on innocent parties. There are other flaws in purely libertarian ideology as well, but it is difficult to find fault with their concept of a free market.
Sorry I'm late on this.phacops rana
Oct 18, 2002 8:01 AM
Matno, if you're still reading this thread, my computer was out of commission for a few days, so apologies for not responding sooner.

My claim that Locke and Smith are part and parcel of the liberal tradition isn't my claim at all: it's just that historically they have been tied to liberalism. "Liberalism" here is not meant in the pejorative or even increasingly common sense of the term. It is meant in the root sense, i.e., to be free of paternalistic or monarchical or hierarchical influences. "Liberalism" is roughly synonymous with "Enlightened" and "Rational," such that when Locke or Smith claim that we have a right to claim as ours that which we mix with our labor, we have that right despite what the Church or Royalty or military force might say. That is the essence and historical definition of liberalism. It is a general political framework. You are right to say that Communism is related to liberalism, but then again, so is Libertarianism and Capitalism. They just happen to be different takes on the same general framework.
Anyone catch the dig at Bush that came with the prize?czardonic
Oct 11, 2002 2:19 PM
From the AP report:

"It (the award) should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken," said Gunnar Berge, the Nobel committee chairman. "It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."
CheapLO McDuff
Oct 11, 2002 2:33 PM
If that is one of the reasons the award was given to Carter, it cheapens the award, the honor, and the recipient.
You don't believe it is a genuine sentiment? (nm)czardonic
Oct 11, 2002 2:45 PM
Could you clarify ?(nm)LO McDuff
Oct 12, 2002 8:16 AM
OKczardonic
Oct 14, 2002 8:51 AM
Why does it cheapen the award if this particular chairman genuinely believes that Carters efforts towards diplomacy are preferable to Bush's saber-rattling?
OKSintesi
Oct 14, 2002 11:30 AM
I think he means that the award is cheapened if the "real" reason for Carter recieving it is actually a political statement directed at Bush as opposed to Carter receiving it on merit alone. The timing of the award and the comments tend to take away from Carter's achievements which the award should be honoring.

Of course, the award is political in nature to begin with perhaps it's not so inappropriate. One could argue that giving the award to Desmond Tutu was a commentary on the South African government.
LO McDuff
Oct 14, 2002 11:49 AM
Hmmmm, did the committee think that Carter's accomplishments could not stand on their own?

The quote from the Gunnar Berge, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, said: "With the position Carter has taken, the award can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current US administration has taken on Iraq."

Its like saying to a winner of a music competition; "You played magnificently, and you are an inspiration to musicians everywhere, and besides the fiddle player from Prague wouldn't sleep with me.

If Carter's activities were 100% responsible for the prize, the committee should say so and leave it at that. Making a portion of the prize (as they said it was) a wedgie directed at Bush cheapens Carter's accomplishments.
Ah, Jimmy Carter. Great talker, Lousy thinker.Matno
Oct 11, 2002 9:06 PM
I won't argue that he is not sincere, as I believe he is. However, I think he may possibly be the biggest miracle ever to happen in our country. How he got elected is truly unfathomable. I don't even think Bill Clinton told as many blatant lies during his campaigning (i.e. he told each group of voters exactly what they wanted to hear, regardless of whether he had any intent of following through with it. He would literally give one speech saying one thing to one group of people, union workers for example, then turn around the very next week and spew the exact opposite to corporate decision-makers). The sad thing is, I honestly don't think he did it on purpose most of the time (although I also find it hard to believe that a complete fool could get elected president). If I were to characterize him, I would have to say he had a good heart but a total absence of wisdom. Or maybe he just needed to learn to think first, then speak. Anyone remember his gaffe in Mexico regarding "Montezuma's Revenge"? What a moron.

As for getting the Nobel Peace Prize, that's one of the greatest insults a great person could receive. The Nobel Prize has become (or maybe has always been) a means of recognizing and rewarding strong advocates of socialist policy. Not praiseworthy, in my opinion. If Nelson Mandela can get a Nobel Peace prize, why not Mao Tze Tung or Lenin, or any other communist leaders with similar political philosophies and goals?
Nelson MandelaFr Ted Crilly
Oct 14, 2002 8:54 AM
So are you suggesting that what Nelson Mandela did to bring South Africa from a racist, apartheid government to a multi-cultural democracy, and the hope that he brought to millions during those years of apartheid, wasn't worthy of an international award for peace? If not Nelson Mandela, who would you suggest as a worthy recipient of an international peace award?
Don't get me started...Matno
Oct 14, 2002 11:26 AM
You make it sound like Nelson Mandela single-handedly turned a living hell into a political paradise. On the contrary, South Africa today is much less stable than it ever was under Apartheid. I'm not defending Apartheid as a perfect system, but it certainly was the reason that South Africa is the most economically advanced country in Africa. What Nelson Mandela did was use classic communist destabilization tactics (guerrilla terrorism) the same as has been done in every country where communism has taken over. Not only that, he did it openly as the head of the African National Congress (South Africa's violent communist party) and with Soviet funding. What people don't seem to understand is that hateful racism would exist in South Africa even if the Dutch had never settled there, and would probably be far worse. On the other hand, had the Dutch not settled in SA, they would now have racism AND complete poverty. It still exists between powerful competing tribes, and probably always will. All Nelson Mandela did was try to change the government to one that was more in line with his communist ideology. Peace in South Africa cannot accurately be attributed to him.

As for who I think would be a more worthy recipient of a peace award, I would nominate Ronald Reagan (from that era). Disarmament does not equal peace, nor will it ever so long as there are evil people in the world.
I can't tell if you're trolling or just confusedcarnageasada
Oct 15, 2002 4:14 AM
Neither. I'm just pointing out the facts.Matno
Oct 15, 2002 7:45 AM
Just because I don't believe the liberal media does not make me confused. It really makes me mad when people praise someone who has done a lot of bad things and not a single good thing, especially if they get credit for things they didn't do. Everything I said is well documented history. What part of it was news to you? Let me know and I'll send you some articles...
Well, you seem sincerecarnageasada
Oct 15, 2002 9:29 AM
So I'll try and be the same. The point of yours I'd like to contest: "As for who I think would be a more worthy recipient of a peace award, I would nominate Ronald Reagan (from that era). Disarmament does not equal peace, nor will it ever so long as there are evil people in the world."

It was my understanding that Carter won the Nobel Prize primarily for his hard work with Habitat for Humanity after his spotty presidency. Wheras Reagan was incapable of doing much, good or bad, after his spotty presidency because of his unfortunate medical condition. So saying that Reagan deserved the Nobel Peace prize more than Carter seemed like either a troll or a basic confusion as to why the prize was awarded.
Oh, that...Matno
Oct 16, 2002 4:46 AM
It didn't even occur to me that that's what you were talking about. Sorry. If you're talking about lifetime achievement, you're right. Reagan didn't do much after leaving office. I was thinking of what he did while he was in office. I guess my ideas of peace are vastly different from those of the Nobel committee. I'm very interested in maintaining national sovereignty for several reasons. The two biggest reasons are (1) because I think our gov't already has a hard enough time trying to legislate for such a diverse population, to legislate for the entire world would inevitably be unfair towards some groups (Some might argue the same about our current system, but when it was set up, basic moral values were the same across the population. Anyone who has moved here since has done so voluntarily and should be willing to accept that); and (2) because I strongly believe that we have the best system of gov't in the world (even if it has been somewhat degraded from it's original form). We have more protection of basic human rights built into our Constitution than any other country by a wide margin.

What does this have to do with the Nobel Prize? Not much, except that it is generally awarded to people who have far different goals (i.e. one-world government) than our founding fathers did, and I don't think that's a good thing. Due to the unfortunate nature of man, whenever there is disarmament, somebody will step in to assert control over those who are disarmed. That's why I said that disarmament has never equaled peace, and that's why I think that Reagan did much to promote actual peace during his administration. Though it was coined for personal firearms, I like the motto: "An armed society is a polite society" and I think it applies to this situation as well.
If you don't mind, I'd like to continue the discussioncarnageasada
Oct 16, 2002 7:07 AM
I still question a small part of what you're posting. So before I get into that I'd like to say I do agree with several of your points. Namely, that our government does have a hard time legislating for a diverse population. It's true. When you think of Sweden or Norway, it's easy to see why social programs have some success. Compared to the US, those countries are as homogenous as whole milk and you can govern them accordingly. Secondly, I'd like to say that our system of government is the best in the world, although, frankly I think we both feel, it's still nothing to brag about. To me, America is like this great nobel stallion galloping freely across the prairie covered with adds for dish detergent. Anyway, to further the discussion. One complaint I have about Reagan was the whole mess down in El Salvador and Nicaragua. In El Salvador, we were responsible for training what were essentially death squads. In Nicaragua we helped bomb villages. Some with women and children in them. Although I love Gandhi, I do see the need for a military. Without it, I think we both know that a Saddam or a Qaddafi would be on our door step by tomorrow morning and wouldn't be too worried about following this or that UN convention. But I think bombing civilian villages and training death squads is going too far.
That's the problem with having Allies...Matno
Oct 16, 2002 3:22 PM
You often don't know if someone you support will turn out to be worse than those you depose. It has surely happened enough times in our country's past! Personally, I think we ought to stay out of foreign affairs alltogether, although I can see the argument that other countries pose a threat to us. The inherent problem with American supremacy is that other countries will always be jealous of our success. The timeless fight between the haves and the have-nots. On the other hand, it's not hard to see why countries with any sort of religious regime would be offended by the filth that we export from Hollywood. Not everyone has become as desensitized to smut as we have (myself not excluded)...
Agree with you for the most partcarnageasada
Oct 17, 2002 8:20 AM
Thanks for discussing the issues in a fair, honest manner.
sort of the Neville Chamberlain of US foreign policyDougSloan
Oct 14, 2002 8:49 AM
No doubt Jimmy is a good, decent guy. I just think his foreign policy positions, during and after his term, were a bit idealistic and naive, sort of like old Neville (peace at any cost...).

Maybe they give peace prizes to that who want peace, not necessarily those who save lives and secure freedom.

He'd be great diplomat, neighbor, or friend, just not a great commander in chief.

Doug
define "save lives" and "secure freedom"ColnagoFE
Oct 14, 2002 10:19 AM
These sound like some typical right wing buzzwords. Ever heard the saying "killing for peace is like f*cking for virginity"? Personally I'd rather have a prez try to find a peaceful solutions to problems rather than resort to the military as a first option. Then after all peaceful/diplomatic means have been exhausted AND there is clear and present danger to US citizens, I have no problem invoking the military.