Good start. Now if they could just find a way to get him into a home for the ubiquitously tedious:
In a biting rebuke to Carter calling the Bush administration the “worst in history,” the White House on Sunday dismissed Carter as “increasingly irrelevant.”
Carter was quoted Saturday in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette as saying “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”
The Georgia Democrat said Bush had overseen an “overt reversal of America’s basic values” as expressed by previous administrations, including that of his own father, former President George H.W. Bush.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto shot back Sunday from Crawford, Texas, where Bush spent the weekend.
“I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there,” said Fratto. “I think it’s unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.”
Carter was in Arkansas promoting “Sunday Mornings in Plains,” a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Georgia.
“Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man,” said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman.
She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also “challenged Ronald Reagan’s strategy for the Cold War.”
[…]
Carter’s comments, which were published Saturday, were confirmed by his spokeswoman Deanna Congileo to The Associated Press on Saturday. She declined to elaborate.
Carter also said Saturday that Britain’s support for the war in Iraq was a “major tragedy” for the world, as he criticized Tony Blair’s unwavering support for President Bush.
Asked how he would judge Blair’s support of Bush, Carter said: “Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.”
“And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world,” Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
Blair was in Baghdad Saturday morning for what will be his last trip to Iraq as British prime minister. Last week, Blair announced that he would step down June 27, making way for treasury chief Gordon Brown.
Okay. Let’s talk turkey.
The only reason certain people continue to take Carter seriously is that he happens to share their contempt for the current administration—and because he is the last President of “progressive” vintage to hold power. But here’s the thing: you can give the guy 15 Nobel Peace Prizes, honor him with a million “humanitarian” awards, and pretend until the end of time that he is some sort of sage and world-wearied saint walking among us, reminding America of What It Should Be—and still, no amount of artificial burnishing of his “peace” credentials, or “manufactured consent” over his foreign policy wisdom, or revisionist history over his tenure as President will change the fact that Carter is a living, breathing embodiment of what is worst in the American character: the willingness to buy cheap grace at the expense of addressing difficult moral choices honestly and without predictable moral posturings; the desire to saddle ourselves with a kind of forced humility in an effort to diminish our national successes lest we begin believing our own hype about the historical superiority of a country founded on a belief in freedom and individual liberty; the ease with which we can assign bad-faithed motives to our ideological opponents; and the facile “understanding” of the human condition that has, by way of sheer intellectual laziness, led to a shallow, feel-good puddle of cultural relativism that, ironically, finds the faults of its own culture disproportionate to the collective faults of all other cultures (which, of course, it can’t presume to analyze—because doing so from our own cultural perspective does the Other the same disservice that Heisenburg’s gaze did to any object it happened to fix on).
At some point, a faction of our country decided that dissent, as an end in itself, is to be celebrated and rewarded—that the “bravery” it takes to heckle the Establishment is somehow the pinnacle of patriotism. And at one point, maybe it was—if you happened to be of the wrong race or color, or you weren’t packing the right reproductive equipment.
But times, they have-a-changed, and here’s a truth that we generally dare not speak: dissent in this country is easy. And—when done almost by rote—it is a sign of the worst kind of intellectual laziness, not to mention the rather transparent desire to bank some “revolutionary” street cred. It is, in short, no more a necessary measure of one’s morality to take an adversarial stance than it is to take a stance that agrees with the Establishment.
Because what is important is not that you stand a certain way, but why.
Calling someone “genocidal” or a “traitor” without a rigorous argument defending the accusation is hardly difficult. And calling someone a “torture apologist” and “bravely” standing “against torture,” for instance, is as easy as shouting to the world that you’re “against” puppy-cream pies, or using fluffy white kittens as lawn dart targets. What is difficult is discussing what torture is (including the difficulty in actually defining it so that it doesn’t implode under the weight of its own potential baggage), how far we should be willing to take interrogations, and taking honest stock of who we are fighting and how far we are willing to go to defeat them—a set of questions that presupposes a willingness to acknowledge that there is, in fact, an enemy beyond “ourselves.”
What is difficult is acknowledging that war is a dirty business, but that it might sometimes be necessary. From there—if one agrees with the premise—it is fruitful to discuss what constitutes “necessity.” And buried in these questions are numerous kernel assumptions that ground individual ideologies, which should be brought into the light of day and given a fair hearing.
Is preemptive war ever correct? Should our foreign policy position be fluid—moving from ‘realism’ to ‘interventionist’ based on a set of predetermined values? Or should it be consistent, based on a different set of predetermined principles?
Many of us are willing to have these discussions—and indeed, we believe them imperative. But instead, what we get all too often are backdoor efforts to bring about the “correct” social order by way of subterfuge, dissembling, and all manner of manipulation.
For Jimmy Carter’s part, it is easy enough to say that Bush has overseen an “overt reversal of American values”—because the phrase itself is meaningless. It is easy to point to international opinion and use that to “prove” that Bush’s foreign policy decisions have alienated the US—while the more difficult question is, is he right to buck international opinion? Or does the importance of international consensus—or at least, an international “understanding”—trump an idealistic vision, in the name of long-term good that may come with putting up a united ideological front?
And if that is the case—and perhaps it is, else pragmatism would have no staying power—how does adapting such a worldview jibe with the willingness of those who take this position to ignore the potential desirability of the factions within a single nation putting up a unified front in a time of war, so as not to embolden one’s enemies? Because this, too, would be acting pragmatically at the expense of idealism—though with the political tables turned.
All of which is just an overlong and disorganized way of saying I’m tired of hearing from people who aren’t willing to have a conversation, but who would just as soon will their beliefs into power because they happen to hold them.
So, I’ll leave these questions open for those willing to accept the challenge: if you believe the war in Iraq is wrong, explain why, on a philosophical level (and without resorting to tired talking points about being ‘misled,’ because this was never the case, and everyone knows it—even when they pretend not to).
If you believe “torture” is wrong, define it. Are we torturing our own men and women by subjecting them to waterboarding? At what point would you trade the moral high ground for the life of a loved one? Is saving our “national soul” more important than saving the lives of individuals? Because it seems to me that this argument is always made only in the abstract, by those who reasonably conclude that there is but an infinitesimal chance that they’d ever be a position to have to make that kind of complex moral decision.
If you believe the US should keep an open border policy, or should have a fence, explain how your vision balances security with the “American values” over which Jimmy Carter seems to think Bush is overtly overseeing the destruction.
If you believe gay marriage is a civil right, or hate crimes are Constitutional, or race-based affirmative action is a necessary and ameliorative policy, explain your position. Because simply calling your opponents homophobes, or racists, or the patriarchy and making vague references to “power” is not the same as making a rigorous argument.
In short, try to be the anti-Jimmy Carter (who now says his remarks were “careless” or “misinterpreted”—not, of course, wrong or shameful) and trade easy pieties and political bromides for some sort of articulated vision.
Or else don’t, and take the easy way out—secure in your chamber of group-think and positive reinforcement, destined to stare forever at the Emperor’s wrinkled beanbag and pretend its a covered in the finest silks, adorned by the finest jewels.
And yeah, I think I crammed a 250-word sentence in there.
Because I felt like it.
Jeez, Jeff, you write purty, but I don’t think any peanut farmer apologist will follow the logic after about word four.
Jimmah lives in Opposite World. About the only thing left to do is for somebody to pin a note on him and drop him at the dog track.
At some point, a faction of our country decided that dissent, as an end in itself, is to be celebrated and rewardedâ€â€that the “bravery†it takes to heckle the Establishment is somehow the pinnacle of patriotism.
“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”  from Stuff Jefferson Said, 3rd Ed.
Unless of course, you’re dissenting against the “consensus” on Anthropogenic Global Warming, in which case you’re in the pay of Big Oil and a hater of future generations.
What is difficult is acknowledging that war is a dirty business, but that it might sometimes be necessary.
Neo-neocon wrote a good one on “The price for keeping our hands clean.”
I don’t think that the bleaters are really that incensed about torture or “keeping the high moral ground” so much as they are about bashing Bushco. If there were no accusations of torture, no stories about it, and nothing resembling torture going on, do you really think the lefties would be praising our military for their Superior Morality?
For Jimmy Carter’s part, it is easy enough to say that Bush has overseen an “overt reversal of American valuesâ€Ââ€â€because the phrase itself is meaningless.
I’ve noticed a decided avoidance of saying exactly what those American Values when that accusation is tossed out. I have a feeling that if Jimmeh and I were to write our own lists as to what American Values are, there’d be little overlap. And it would be hard to find his idea of American Values in the Constitution or in the writings of any of our founders.
And yeah, I think I crammed a 250-word sentence in there.
You don’t know how much that excites me…
Sullivan::Carter = insanity::senility
I would really and truly like to hear the arguments for the things that Jeff mentions.
Take affirmative action for example. Despite time spent at my local university in “Race and Ethnic Relations,” all I was able to find were vague mumblings about whites having “all the power” and thus can be, from a practical standpoint, the only “true racists.”
Insert a little crypto-Marxist sentiment in there and you have three easy units of required general ed.
speaking of dissent, I’ve got a project for you guys.
Reuters did their part to burnish Carter’s truth-against-poweryness:
That Thomas Jefferson quote, the whole “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” thing, I don’t believe that he actually said that. However, when you have the rabid progressive toss that one up there, it’s fun to counter with this one.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ~ C.S. Lewis
It makes the moral high ground progressives try to claim into the pedistal of tyranny. Nothing more fun than reversing the whip and calling the well meaning hippie a tyrant
C’mon, happyfeet. Can’t be for decorum and following procedure in former presidents, if we’re against it in current AG’s and Chiefs of Staff.
I agree with you on the merits here though – Carter’s behavior and some of the behavior that Clinton, and Ford dabbled in, are highly unseemly in an ex-pres.
It’s Pakistan 21, TW:england36, and what’s this… the Pakistani coach is making a choking gesture…
Irrespective of Carter’s climbdown, it’s inevitable that NPR will be heavily recycling this weekend’s anti-Bush soundbites in their coverage the week we finally put this sad little fella in the ground.
Mr. Maviva, I don’t like Comey. I can’t help it – his theatrical girlishness is just repellant. I just don’t know what else to say, but I’ll try to keep an open mind if more becomes known. When do you think someone will ask Ashcroft what HE thinks of Comey’s testimony? Reconstructing a record based on this one guy’s fraught recollections seems like a not very sturdy platform on which to base conclusions about national security issues.
I would have been much more excited if the headline had replaced “irrelevant” with “a scrotum with teeth”.
The aptness just slammed into me. Gad. Sheesh. Yech.
…and what’s more, my scrotum just told me that it resents being compared to Carter.
I’m not strictly against this. What would Sullivan (or Jimmah) say about that?
A $20 whore can’t be that pretty…
SSG Pooh, pat yourself on the back, you made me laugh harder than JG did today.
About the only thing left to do is for somebody to pin a note on him and drop him at the dog track.
I have no idea what the hell that means, but it’s darn funny.
Me, I’d rather he’d shut up in a retirement home, with no access to telephone or INTERNET.
Or maybe in an insane asylum, next to the guy who thinks he’s Napoléon Bonaparte.
That Thomas Jefferson quote, the whole “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism†thing, I don’t believe that he actually said that.
That’s why I attributed it to the fictitious tome Stuff Jefferson Said, which is an in-joke over at Ace of Spades. Refers to a hilarious thread that I can’t link because I’m at work and they block Ace over here.
I guess cross-blog humor doesn’t always wash.
Jeff,
Long run for a short jump. Carter is a whore–he is bought and paid for by the Saudis. But let’s be fair. How would you act if you are staring down the barrell of a history that will make you not only the worst President in the history of the United States but also the lynchpin leading to the decline of Western Civilization? Stalin can’t even claim that lofty post of infamy. So he gets up every morning, yawns, farts, goes to the bathroom, and for one nanosecond looks himself in the mirror and thinks clearly and coherently “I might be the antichrist.” What else is left to do for the rest of the day but lie and blame Jews. I mean after breakfast.
Truth, brother.
One of my earliest memories is my mother taking us along with her on Election Day 1976, rather than leaving us with a next-door neighbor, so that we could witness her voting against Carter. She wasn’t that keen on Ford, and didn’t think at that point that he’d win, but felt very strongly that we had to see that at least our parents were not taken in by all the post-Watergate emotionalism to actually go and vote for this goober-grabber.
Ever since the Carter presidency, I’ve been suspicious of men in cardigans.
James Taranto does it again.
Much more comely than a $10 one, I suppose.
Speaking of elevants, the GOP is really going to have to get another mascot–something that’s not afraid of rats.
A mongoose?
No, no, no. Mongeese are unafraid of snakes, which is an excellent trait for anyonw running against Hillary, come to think of it.
My count was 247—and that was giving you the hyphenates as two words.
I FEEL CHEATED!!!
While we’re on the subject, here’s a good round-up of the “Jeffersonian” quote by Mark Steyn via the folks at Volokh C.
Er…there’s a link in there somewhere. Sorry.
Really, Karl? I was taking a wild guess.
Not too shabby.
For a Jew.
Fixed it for ya, LD.
Carter translated: “Instead of assuming a fetal position, Bush lied to avenge his Daddy’s thing, or…whatever. And now “noone” likes us. Because, remember, Chirac said he was an “American,” but Bush squandered that surplus and now [John] Kerry says we’re a Pariah!”
It’s plain America was supposed to surrender to the left’s dogma after 9-11. Carter’s just telling this truth.
Zut alors!
If they the terrorists weren’t making them up, the Morally Superior would be. See, for example, the accusations of “chemical warfare” against US troops.
Rob B, quoting C. S. Lewis:
Speaking of which, the Ohio state government has made quite a run on being the textbook example of this. Last year they loudly, with great attention, banned smoking in just about every public place. This year, with great attention from the press, they’ve spent the last couple months “working” on “regulating” strip clubs.
Friday I found out what they did with NO attention last year. They outlawed grilling.
OK, not completely. It’s now a $100 fine if you grill on a flammable structure, or within 10’ of a flammable structure. There’s not enough room behind my condo to get 10’ from the deck; I doubt I’m the only one in the state with that problem.
Heck, it’s not even legal to store a propane tank in your deck…
happyfeet: I am not worthy! I am not worthy! I am not worthy! You learn something new everyday.
Although Gore is only a former VP, it sounds as if his new book will be quite Carteresque.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3195676&page=1
According to this article, the main thrust of the book seems to be how we were misled into believing Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
At least Carter is consistent in his beleifs, as repellent as they may be. Former hawk Gore, on the other hand, is the biggest phony in America.
Rob C,
It’s sad because liberty used to be defined as the freedom of arbitrary rules from government and now it’s defined as your government defined rights.
Talk about letting the debate get framed. But don’t worry because it’s for your own good…
Man, there are a lot of black helocopters out today.
I know that Maviva isn’t interested in the truth about Comey’s testimony because it would spoil his “not following procedure” bedwetting, but the rest of you might find this analysis interesting:
From http://www.powerlineblog.com:
Attorney General John Ashcroft had certified, over and over, that the NSA program was legal. Suddenly, Ashcroft was taken ill. The next thing that happened, according to Comey, was that Comey notified the White House that he would not sign the certification that Ashcroft had signed some 20 times. Comey did not say–amazingly, no one asked him–whether he ever told the White House that Ashcroft had agreed with this conclusion on the very day when he was taken to the hospital.
So it is hardly surprising if, confronted with sudden intransigence from a brand-new, acting attorney general, Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card thought that the problem lay with Comey’s staging a sort of palace coup. It may well have been reasonable for them to go to see Ashcroft to get the same certification they had gotten many times before.
When they got to the hospital, they found that Ashcroft seconded Comey’s legal concerns, based on the review that had just been completed. That caused some confusion, no doubt, but it led to the White House meeting between Comey and President Bush, followed by a meeting between Bush and FBI Director Robert Mueller. The upshot of those meetings was that Bush, apprised of the results of DOJ’s legal review, told Comey to do what he thought was right.”
Bush reauthorized the NSA program, but immediately thereafter, Comey says, the program was revised in some unspecified way to satisfy the DOJ’s new concerns. Subsequently, the program continued to be reauthorized and recertified by DOJ every 45 days.
So if you put the whole sequence together, it may well be that no actor in this admittedly lurid drama did anything wrong. Ashcroft and Comey apparently decided to go along with the conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and insist on changes in the program. Nothing wrong with that. Gonzales and Card may well not have known of Ashcroft’s changed opinion, arrived at on the same day he went to the hospital–this is a key fact we don’t know–and thought that Comey was trying to reverse his boss’s judgment. So they went to see Ashcroft personally. Nothing wrong with that, as far as we know. Ashcroft set them straight; nothing wrong with that. (It’s worth noting that Comey described Ashcroft’s performance as a demonstration of physical and moral strength that was unprecedented in his experience.) President Bush then got into the act, learned the facts, and told Comey to do whatever he thought was right as acting Attorney General. Nothing wrong with that; on the contrary. The NSA program was revised to satisfy DOJ’s concerns, and continued in effect, protecting Americans from terrorist attack, to the present time. Nothing wrong with that, to say the least.
When do you think someone will ask Ashcroft what HE thinks of Comey’s testimony?
According to a Wash Post article on Ashcroft on Sunday, he was asked but declined comment.
You are correct that Comey’s testimony was a bit overwrought, and that’s a ding on his credibility, but knowing how Olson and Goldsmith were treated by the WH senior staff (Card, Spellings, Rove, Gonzales and others), and knowing Comey by professional reputation, the story struck me as basically credible. The usual procedure is for competing decision memos or evaluations to be produced, which the decision maker then reads, and buys off on or rejects. The idea is to let open dispute and mooting of arguments (among the executive departments and WH) strangle bad ideas, and to prevent arbitrary decision making and bad results. That NY Times series could have been a lot worse had Comey, Olson and Goldsmith not won their argument.
Oh, I especially loved this part of Tapper’s love letter to Gore:
If the MSM had anything to do with it, that might well be true. That wouldn’t change what Abu Ghraib really was:
Only throught the lies of omission by the likes of Algore and Eason Jordan can this phony image be propagated.
This is a deeply mendacious, disturbed individual.
Well, that’s kind of the deal here… How is this process supposed to play out when Comey waits until two days before the deadline to mount his objections?
The Geezer wrote:
Sullivan::Carter = insanity::senility
With my C++ hat on, I read this as “Sullivans have a member called Carter and it’s being set to the senility value found in insanity”.
Ick.
What is it with Democratic presidential candidates, messianic complexes, and writers who fellate them?
We’ll explore the issue on the next…Jerry Springer Show.
A mascot by any other symbol wouldn’t erase that fear. Better to start a new party to replace them and let them wander off with their elephant to an ivory pasture somewhere in Africa
Smoke, Powerline’s argument boils down to “all’s well that ends well.†That isn’t an argument, it’s a cliché. It doesn’t excuse bad behavior, it says, “in spite of the bad behavior, we very fortunately evaded the probable consequences.â€Â
What if Gonzales and Card get their way, keep Bush from hearing DOJ’s position, and get what they wanted? I believe that instead of being able to defend the monitoring program (as amended, per Comey’s and others’ advice) on its merits as a lawful and helpful program – as the Director of National Intelligence has done – the NY Times headline would be, “DOJ Officials: FISA Program Illegal, DOJ Warnings Ignored.†The subhead would be something like “Gonzales Ignored DOJ Chiefs; Visited Critically Ill Ashcroft for ‘Permission.’ Ashcroft Doesn’t Remember Visit.â€Â
Oh, and quit pickin’ on people who wet the bed. You keep it up, and you’ll single-handedly wipe out the tequila industry, and terrify the shit out of the Armadillo. Jeff doesn’t need that.
What if Comey hadn’t had asked Ashcroft’s chief of staff to spy on Ashcroft for him? What if Comey had never gotten tipped off about Gonzales and Card’s phone call asking Mrs. Ashcroft if they could come by? What if Comey had never gone to the hospital that night? Show me from his testimony how anything would have been different.
The American people decisively rejected Jimmy Carter’s failed administration in November 1980. He has never forgiven them. He has spent the last quarter century kissing up to every antiAmerican dictator he could find. He has certified such “democratic” elections as Chavez’ in Venezuela. He has tried to undermine our security with North Korea.
I’d say he hates this country but that wouldn’t be quite right. He doesn’t hate America, he just hates the American people.
Synonym: Idiot:Carter. (Nuff said)!
Man, I was just thinking about dissent- you said it better. The best I got was that dissent can be patriotic if it’s motivated by the good of the country, but there’s nothing inherently patriotic about it. You can dissent from bad motives.
OK, I can take up the challenge of disagreeing with some ‘conservative’ positions.
Gay marriage- why divide society needlessly? They’re not going away, so why not bring them into the fold instead of excluding them? Is there any reason why we should permanantly ostracize an otherwise productive group?
Affirmative action- getting a kid out of the ghetto is worth the cost of a white suburbian kid having to chose a different college. Again, anything to integrate the most alienated part of American society should be looked at. Too often people tell black Americans to solve their own problems, then are surprised when they act like they’re a seperate nation. If we’re all Americans, then we should help each other. Yes, I know that this is not how it tends to work, but this is a justification.
Hate crimes,uh… it’s a bad idea.
I hate name calling. I run into a lot of it, and it’s just a substitute for taking the time to understand an opponent’s argument. It’s much easier to shut down the debate than take the risk of being proven wrong. I picked up the above arguments through discussiion with others- I’m pretty conservative- and thought they were good.
WWhat are the chances that one side is right about everything from the death penalty to the war to abortion? Isn’t that unlikely? Best to listen.
Roughly twice as much so, would be my guess.
No. The relationship is exponential—inverse exponential, in fact.
The difference between a $10 whore and a $20 one is much greater than the difference between the $500 and the $1000 level. Trust me on this.
Regards,
Ric
I like calling Comey names. Dicklick, mostly. But I guess in general you have a good point.
Jimmy is 83 and my mother is 84. She is getting kind of crazy. She now goes around the house finding pictures of my father (her only husband for 47 years who died 15 years ago) writing obscenities on them and then cutting them up. The doctor says that he is going to try some new medicine on her, and maybe that will help. Otherwise she is clearly headed around the bend.
I think Miss Rosalind needs to take Jimmy to the doctor. Maybe some of that medicine would help him.
That’s kind of poignant.
Al
The point of the powerline analysis is NOT “all’s well that end well”; it is that there was no “bad behavior” in the first place.
I know that makes it hard to self induce an attack of the vapors.
This is facile stretch. What does gay marriage accomplish that civil unions don’t?
Even if the school lowers the academic bar in order to do so? This helps society how? And what about Asians and Hispanics? Tough luck?
Reasonable people can debate reasonably. Funny, though, the only side I see wanting “shut down the debate” on these issues is the left. Oops, I meant “progressives”.
Heh. I actually had an AGW believer slam me and all AGW-nonbelievers in a comment on my blog, for—get this—contrarianism.
So much for “Question Authority.”
Someone needs to get Murtha on those meds too.
Nice post. Jimmy Carter remains history’s greatest monster.
Rosalind: Jimmy, time to take your medicine.
Jimmah: Not now babe. I’m on a conference call with Vlad Putin, the George Bush I agree with, Kim Il Jung, Yasser Arafat, and Jesus Christ himself. We’re on the verge of establishing peace on earth.
Rosalind: Tell them to wait a minute, you’ve got to take your medicine.
Jimmah: But the world needs me, needs me wants me craves me. It’s hard over me.
Rosalind: Your medicine Jimmy.
Jimmah: (Tearful) Rosalind, you’ve turned Jew on me.
hey maggie
thanks for the link…. just ordered my “free” bumpersticker …
When I get it, I’m going to take a pic of it as I toss it into the trash…
heh
Are you assuming all ghetto kids are black and all suburbanite kids are white?
Don’t get out much, do you?
I’m still uncertain what we are supposed to pretend the wrinkled beanbag is. I don’t want to guess wrong.
Sorry, but this may take research to establish. Got $1500 I can have?
[G]etting a kid out of the ghetto is worth the cost of a white suburbian [sic] kid having to chose a different college. Again, anything to integrate the most alienated part of American society should be looked at.
But it should be looked at with an eye toward results, not toward good intentions or nice-looking stats on paper.
I used to teach as a grad asst. at Cornell university, and it was easy to tell who the affirmative action kids were (and the legacies, for that matter). The AA kids would sit there with glazed-over eyes, not because they were stupid or anything, but because they weren’t prepared to be there. The class material was way over their heads, and they knew it. They were willing to try to do well, but they flat-out weren’t equipped to deal with Ivy-league level classes.
(The legacies just hung out, bothering to come to class only occasionally, then showing up the week before finals to see if there were any “extra credit” they could do to make up for having missed 95% of the classes.)
When I had black kids in my classes, they were either at the tip-top of the class or dead last. The kids in the former category didn’t need AA, and the kids in the latter category needed a boost much earlier in their education than college, for the sake of Pete.
But inner-city schools suck, you say? Why yes, I believe they do. And the reason they do is because most of those kids have such chaotic home lives that paying attention in class isn’t exactly a top priority. Or they’re terrified of losing their street cred if they “act white” by actually learning. More money won’t solve that problem: intact families  especially fathers in homes  will solve that problem.
But because that solution requires that society tell young men that they have to grow the hell up and take responsibility for their offspring and their offspring’s mothers  or in other words, that they have to inconvenience themselves  it won’t happen.
Easier to throw money down rat holes and call it good, you see. AA doesn’t have to actually help people, it just has to claim that it does.
What is difficult is acknowledging that war is a dirty business, but that it might sometimes be necessary. From thereâ€â€if one agrees with the premiseâ€â€it is fruitful to discuss what constitutes “necessity.â€Â
That’s a fair premise, but it’s not the only fair premise. One could base an equally fruitful discussion on a different premise: that war almost always leads to unforeseen consequences that often make things worse than they were before, or, if not worse, just as bad in a different way. From there—if one agrees with that premise—one can go on to fruitfully discuss alternative ways to resolve conflict, that do not involve war.
Such as?
That is dippy. An alternative view, if we could agree upon this premise, is that that is dippy.
Cliff May at NRO talked about his run-in with the “Dissent is the highest for of Patriotismers”:
So my question is, if Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism, and the left is shutting down the dissent, can we now question their patriotism?
Or perhaps another way to say it, shouldn’t THEY question THEIR patriotism?
happyfeet, dude, you’re ruining my attempts at being all Socratic and shit. Knock it off already…
Sorry. I eagerly await the fruit. Save me a nanner.
oh, this should be good.
but couldn’t one also argue that not going to war often leads to unforeseen consequences that often make things worse than they were before, or, if not worse, just as bad in a different way.
but then I guess I can’t get all morally sanctimonious and i know that’s important to some people.
Happily. With peanut butter. Or did the troll run away?
Only if one is a war-mongering neocon.
(Hey, did you run into the truck the other day, or did it run into you? You weren’t hurt, were you?)
Even so, Rosie O’Donnell gives fat pig-ugly dykes everywhere a bad name.
ding! ding! ding!
(I’m fine, truck ran into me and I dropped my car off this morning for his insurance co to fix it. thanks)
oh, and a certain troll has been here before a while back and was kinda tenacious, so it could be an interesting evening. ;D
FRUIT!!!
Good. I couldn’t tell much from the picture. Failure of imagination on my part…
I just tend to think of the regulars here (well, the sane ones, anyway) as friends of sorts, so I was curious if you were alright.
Is that sort of like screaming your own name while masturbating?
Not far off…
Easy to explain. The rest of us were expecting “English”, and Jimmeh was clearly speaking “Moonbat”.
What do you suggest? Binding and/or nonbinding arbitration? Red rover? A healthy round of paintball? A contest to see who can take more custard pies to the face, George Bush, John Howard, and other western leaders, or Al-Qaeda and other terrorist leaders?
‘Cause I’m sure Al-Qaeda would love to know.
Kathy —
You are right. There are other fair premises equal in value to the ones I brought up. I simply listed some I found obvious—and the corollary to one I listed could certainly lead to the discussion you mention.
—the corollary to which would be, even were war to give us the law of unintended consequences, is the risk therefore not worth taking, even if we agree that the cause is noble?
War should be a last resort. But that doesn’t mean the stage of “last resort” can’t be reached rather quickly, in certain circumstances, or under certain threats, real or implied.
And Bunnies. Jimmy really, really hates American Bunnies for some reason.
yar
Alright, Kathy, and the rest of y’all that think like that out there, have you ever considered the costs and unintended consequences of our inaction? Consider Saddam and his boys still running the show. Consider Abu Ghraib still being a torture facility, rape rooms, and murder being a matter of routine. Consider Al Quaeda continuing their free and unfettered access to Iraq. Consider Ansar Al-Islam continued training facilities. Consider Saddam continuing to pay the families of homicide bombers. Consider the unintended consequences of America turning tail and running when times are tough.
So, yes, your position is one to consider. And, I would be more willing to go into it in depth were I to have a reasonable belief that you and your ilk would do so, in good faith.
Jeff,
Even when or if the cause is noble, war causes such immense suffering, and on such a vast scale, that it seems to me we are better off finding a way to achieve that noble end, or those noble ends, without resorting to war.
I also want to tell you that I very much appreciate your civil and thoughtful response. It’s so great when people can disagree, even strongly, and still respect each others’ points of view. I know that hasn’t always been the case with you and me, so again, thank you.
Saddam was also building missiles capable of striking Saudi petroleum infrastructure. Could these missiles have lead to unforeseen consequences that would make things worse than they were before, or, if not worse, just as bad in a different way? It’s a head-scratcher.
Kathy, I can almost agree with you, and I do in fact fully agree with the principle you state. But I have seen no evidence whatever that you, or any of the others I’ve met who claim to espouse that principle, are willing—I won’t say able—to meet a fundamental requirement. In order to resolve a conflict, whether by war, by diplomacy, or by twillering the glurbs, you have to have a full understanding of what the conflict is. A conflict is resolved when the requirements of all parties to the conflict are met, and not before. If one or more of the parties have their requirements misunderstood or misrepresented, those requirements cannot be satisfied regardless of the method of “resolution”, and therefore the conflict will not be resolved.
One of the most outstanding features of the events of the last decade or so is the degree to which soi-disant “pacifists”, mostly of the left, are willing to ignore or distort the wishes of the other participants. In particular, the Islamists give us their complaints, their hopes, their aspirations, and their intended tactics in words of few syllables in sentences of simple structure; and no sooner have they sat down than up pops one or more representatives of the Left, explaining to us that what we just heard was false, the meandering approximations of someone unfortunately not familiar with Western discourse, and their real motivation is Oppression, Imperialism, and the remainder of the pseudoMarxist litany of economic complaints. We then proceed to satisfy the Leftist version of the requirements, and are astonished (well, maybe you are) when the Islamists complain that their requirements are not satisfied and renew their efforts.
This conflict cannot and will not be resolved by reference to “Liberal” (as the word is today understood, i.e. pseudo-Socialist) dogma. The complaints do not arise from economic issues; the question of Imperialism, to the extent it exists, is being directed in the wrong direction; and the party you insist is being oppressed is, in fact and by their plain words, demanding the status of oppressor and the privilege of oppressing those who oppose them. As long as you continue to refuse to recognize these facts, the conflict will not be resolved and therefore will continue to escalate.
There also exist conflicts which cannot be resolved because the requirements of one party cannot be satisfied if those of the others are. A homely example is the schoolyard bully. You counsel the bully’s victim to give in to the demands; the victim does so, and you consider the problem “peacefully resolved”: his requirements satisfied, the bully will go away content. That’s a lie. The bully wants the lunch money only as a trophy; what he is extorting is power, the ability to coerce satisfaction of his desires. By adding your force to his to compel the victim to cough up, you have become the bully’s ally, as complicit in his violent threats as if you had produced a weapon yourself—you are merely too fastidious to perform the outrage with your own delicate fingers. I don’t take moral instruction from such people.
Despite her kind words, Kathy just breezed by and ignored the unintended consequences of not taking action, opting for the “war is icky” types of platitudes. Long on style, short on substance, in direct contrast to our esteemed host’s 247 word sentence.
Kathy
Would you hold the same counsel between a spousal abuser and his/her victim?
Kathy and her morally instructive dissent will, if fruitful, immeasurably undermine future attempts at diplomacy.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that we should have resolved this through diplomacy. Sure, Saddam ignore the first 23 resolutions through the UN, and thumbed his nose at his cease-fire agreement. But damn, I am now certain that if we had just tried 7 or 8 more resolutions, I am sure that he would have come around.
Or not …
A conflict is resolved when the requirements of all parties to the conflict are met, and not before.
Do you mean to say, … when ALL the requirements of all parties to the conflict are met? Because if so, I disagree with that.
I would argue that a conflict is resolved when each of the parties to the conflict is willing to give up some of what they want, and in return, get what is most essential to them. The willingness to compromise is the key to resolving conflict.
You counsel the bully’s victim to give in to the demands; the victim does so, and you consider the problem “peacefully resolvedâ€Â: his requirements satisfied, the bully will go away content.
This statement reveals a misunderstanding of what conflict resolution means. It does not mean giving in to someone’s demands. The choice you are presenting here—between giving in completely to someone’s demands, and going to war—is a false choice. And it’s certainly not what is meant by finding solutions to conflict that do not involve war. The opposite of war is not paralysis, or passivity.
To paraphrase, war is a a bad thing, but it isn’t the worst thing.
Only the morally blind can’t see that.
Kathy – Diplomacy of this type is not a freaking mediation. Saddam had practically limitless opportunities to meet the demands of the US and the international community. He failed, at every turn, to meet his obligations.
How would you suggest that we conduct diplomacy with Al Quaeda? Which one of their stated complaints, which trangressions of ours will they be willing to compromise on?
FYI: Drive-by link to great appreciation of Carter by Joshua Muravchik at Commentary:
“War is unhealthy for children and other living things”
So is kicking the door of a crack house down when there are kids inside. The parents get hauled away and the kids are traumatized and the handed off to the foster care system where the new trauma begins.
Who is at fault?
Police?
Mayor?
Governor?
Congress?
Supreme Court?
President?
No one is saying the children (or any other of the victims of unintended consequences) are necessarily at fault.
Life sucks that way (see Darwin… or the Bible).
The establishment of order has secondary costs. Avoidance of secondary costs will eventually result in more disorder.
The process of establishing order confronts and temporarily inflames disorder… a condition the left has no stomach for.
Okinawa
Yes. All the requirements have to be met.
A huge part of the negotiation process—arguably all of it, or the conflict wouldn’t exist in the first place—is devoted to convincing one or more parties to reduce their requirements. If the requirement is not or cannot be reduced, problems ensue. If lunch costs a dollar, and all the bully’s victim has is a dollar, the conflict cannot be resolved so long as the bully demands any payment and the victim is still to get to eat—a nickel is the same as all of it, since a person with only 95 cents goes hungry.
And life goes on, and any successful tactic will be repeated. The victim has $2; you add your demand to the bully’s, with the proviso that he only take $1. Successful resolution!—except that there is no reason for the bully not to repeat his demand, and every reason for him to do so; after all, he got a dollar last time, and sees no reason not to get another. Which brings us back to the first case.
There is no solution to conflict, no resolution, unless all the parties’ demands are met. Yes, that includes negotiation to reduce the demands.
There exists a school of pacifism that declares that the correct way to deal with a shark attack is to feed it your leg. It is possible to respect, even admire, such people for their willingness to stand by their principles—but the shark is still hungry, and the victim won’t be tap-dancing much any more. And if the bully’s victim goes hungry, you haven’t resolved the conflict; you have made it worse.
Regards,
Ric