Jimmy Carter: Man of Plains

[disgruntledtroll2]

Coward brags about his arm showing up here at 1:52? ROTFLMFAO! Buying up the books to keep his walk in closet heated! Too bad he's always a day late and a dollar or two short! Maybe his fat TARLING "friends"could flip a quarter his way!!!

[cvbn127]

gossips

[ermineermine]

CONCERNED00CITIZEN:

> Actully in VT there's a bill to allow corp to pay NO taxes.

QUESTION I:

Has it ever occured to you that what happens in VT

1 does not necessarily have much bearing on the rest of the country, much less on the rest of the planet?

2 is not necessarily an indicator of what is happening in the rest of the country, much less in the rest of the planet?

. . .

[ermineermine]

There you go again: displaying the same sense of perspective with || your puny personal gestures || vis-a-vis || everyone else's lives and the whole planet. Yes, much of the impact of 1 man 2 other living beings 3 natural phenomena are having a negative impact on the earth. . . .

[ermineermine]

But your sense of perspective regarding yourself, your kind and your area vis-a-vis the rest of the country and the whole planet is akin to

|| Chicken Little

in both impact and virtue.

1 You equate events in tiny isolated VT as a subset of the whole country and planet.

2 You extrapolate events in VT to the point of absurdity.

3 You take your token gestures as indicative of sainthood which grants you licence to be sanctimonious and blame everyone else for what is left undone.

. . .

[ermineermine]

> Who pays bonds? You and I - or corps?

ANSWER:

Interest on government bonds is paid for by tax income--both individual and corporate taxes.

(See earlier section explaining the tax burden.)

The rest of your comment is too irrelevant and absurd to be dignified with a response--in fact, too enervating for anyone to entertain.

Please, have mercy.

If you must write something, limit it to relevant points.

[ermineermine]

CONCERNED00CITIZEN: > Common hippies in VT DO miminize > they [sic] impact on earth. There you go again-- 1 void of sense of perspective 2 expecting a medal for minute effort. Akin to your view of Mr Carter 1 disastrously incompetent in the face of major crisis 2 similarly incompetent in mundane domestic tasks 3 nonetheless expecting full credit for effort. . . .

[ermineermine]

What is this, New Age School Report Cards?

> "You may get D for actual performance,

> but let me give you an A for Effort

> and an A+ for Good Intentions."

[ermineermine]

II

A few token gestures

|| limited self-sacrifice with puny impact

|| --no matter how noble the intention, and

|| no matter how sanctimonious the sentiment--

does not buy one

|| the LICENCE TO HARANGUE OTHERS.

. . .

[ermineermine]

I shun plastic bags, use only energy-saving bulbs and batteries, conserve water, walk whenever possible, carpool, minimise trash, recycle, plant trees, own vast tracks of forests which I want preserved, and all.

I do not see it as licence to feel HOLIER-THAN-THOU nor to LECTURE OTHERS ON "HOW THEY FAIL TO MATCH UP TO ME".

It is even more absurd for those who do much less to adopt the attitude which you show signs of, and the greater sanctimoniousness which you glorify in others.

. . .

[ermineermine]

> Companies will take the money and > the R's and D's favorites will get richer. III There you go again: 1 perform a few puny gestures 2 demand beatification 3 blame everyone else. It leads to neither you nor anyone else doing more for the environment or for any other cause apart from || the intoxication of the ego of the sanctimonious. Spare me. . . .

[ermineermine]

IV

> I assume you have a "GREEN" business

Our business is green and so is much of my lifestyle.

(See above for details.

(See the same section for what I take it to mean for my sense of self-worth or sense of superiority.)

. . .

[ermineermine]

> you are governments favored

The sentence as it is written does not make sense.

Try again.

> you wouldn't write such obviously false things

Spare me the drama.

Specifically list what you believe are false. Each point will be addressed.

. . .

[ermineermine]

CONCERNED00CITIZEN:

> He could've acted as CONGRESS and

> bombed innocent women and children in a holicost

> like what WE American's are doing now and

> just taken the oil for international corporations.

Don't be silly at the expense of your credibility--expressing your frustration in a manner which casts reality and rationality out the window, making a fool of yourself.

. . .

[ermineermine]

I

FACT 1:

"Innocoent women and children" did not drive The Shah out of power in Iran.

FACT 2:

The Shah himself was not America's greatest concern in Iran.

FACT 3:

"Innocent women and children" were not the ones invading an Embassy and taking American citizens hostage.

FACT 4:

"International oil corporations" were not the target of the hostage-takers.

. . .

[ermineermine]

FACT 5:

The Embassy was occupied and American citizens were held hostage for FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR DAYS--more than a quarter of an American President's term of office--during which the incumbent showed no signs of performing the duties or displaying the virtues expected of a man who wants and holds the position.

. . .

[ermineermine]

THE CAUSE: Was James Earl Carter

[A] outright stupid?

[B] outright incompetent?

[C] "prolonging the hostage crisis because it helped him beat Ted Kennedy in the primaries (the crisis made the president seem more presidential)"?

[D] an impossibly-uncompromising Benevolent Man?

With each possibility disastrous, the question of which becomes academic.

Because the fact remains that among many other incidents both foreign and domestic, Mr Carter proved to be unfit for office.

. . .

[ermineermine]

> back then the country wouldn't have given him the crown and the American people would've impeached

For the sake of your own credibility, temper the dramatics--it only makes you as desperate as Mr Carter in salvaging his reputation in defiance of facts.

Contrary to your dramatic scenarios of woe-betide-me, Mr Carter's incompetence led the American people to drive him out of office.

. . .

[ermineermine]

> I'm not sure why you hate Carter so much

Try expanding the range of possibilities which your mind is capable of conceiving--instead of 'hatred', try 'contempt'.

CONTEMPT for

1 the incompetent

2 the unrepentant incompetent

3 the sanctimonious unrepentant incompetent.

. . .

[ermineermine]

> when it comes to the environment

See the section above on

1 how big the crisis is

2 how puny the man's response to it was.

[concerned00citizen]

He tried to get us off oil! HE tried to make us independent in our homes by giving direct tax writeoff to individuals by going greeen before green was popular....

[ermineermine]

CONCERNED00CITIZEN:

> He tried to get us off oil!

What specific Carter Policy would you be referring to?

[concerned00citizen]

The policy that required vehicle to get higher gas milage. Individual tax rebates for going solar. Folks were asked to shut off un-necessary lights - might have been policy of state and not federal. Use less power was a wide spread policy during his administration. FPL even turned the lights off in their headquarters if I recall correctly. Now we gov that is going to give out taxes to keep us hitched the grid. NE Reliability Project - billions for corporations

[ermineermine]

Evidently, you have mistaken--confused--'cause' with 'effect'. (And the matter is not quite akin to the question of "which came first--the chicken or the egg?".)

I

1 gas mileage

2 solar energy

3 energy conservation

were a RESPONSE to the 1979 ENERGY CRISIS, not a pre-emptive policy which was proven right by later events.

. . .

[ermineermine]

II

Rational people would argue that Mr Carter's incompetence --his unconditional benevolence unmoved by reality-- worsened, if not partly-caused, the 1979 Energy Crisis.

. . .

[ermineermine]

III

In a real-world crisis as serious as the one in 1979, leaders with a sense of reality and proportion would explore policies more dramatic than 1~3 above.

Alternative energy, tapping domestic reserves, whatever--anything more robust thus more effective than the half-hearted half-measures from the Uncompromisingly Benevolent Man stubbornly clinging to his Utopian Ideals in defiance of the suffering which the country and its citizens bore as a consequence.

. . .

[ermineermine]

IV

Even the whole country turning off street lights after eight does not solve the problem of dependence on fuel from a region perpetually at risk of being seized by Religious Fanatics. (A task in which it must be admitted no American President has yet succeeded.)

Better-than-nothing not only has limited benefits; in the face of the scale of the crisis and the seniority of the position of President of the United States of America, better-than-nothing does not deserve credit.

. . .

[ermineermine]

V

It is the nature of oil companies that whatever the company and whatever the country, profits flow in though prices skyrocket or nosedive.

Mr Carter was not a victim of the 1979 Energy Crisis--neither of the mullahs nor of the oil companies.

For once before he dies, we should hear him admit responsibility and take the blame.

[concerned00citizen]

He could've acted as CONGRESS and bombed innocent women and children in a holicost like what WE American's are doing now and just taken the oil for international corporations. Oh, wait, back then the country wouldn't have given him the crown and the American people would've impeached.... I'm not sure why you hate Carter so much but it is for the wrong reasons - when it comes to the environment.

[concerned00citizen]

I'm not sure the it matters. Currently our gov will be giving individual's taxes to corp and our earth will still die. The tech exists but until the right politically connected folks own the rights we will be forced to pollute the air to get to work and our applicances will just as energy ineffecient as the corp that built with the stamp by the groups tied to CONGRESSperson's up for re-elections. Same R's and D's that got us where we are will continue to allow for polluting companies pollute

[ermineermine]

I

The question of what actually happened and what the person(s) responsible--both for the cause and for the solution--matters.

It answers the question of whether Mr Carter deserves credit for what happened--or should be man enough to admit responsibility.

And admit that in the real world and in an office with responsibilities as enormous as that of President of the United States of America, benevolence alone is not enough--uncompromising benevolence can even be disastrous.

. . .

[ermineermine]

II

> gov will be giving individual's taxes to corp

Dramatic but inaccurate thus misleading portrayal of reality.

The same corporations you demonise

1 pay the salaries of millions of hardworking citizens

2 tax cut or no tax cut, pay a greater bulk of public expenditures than individuals.

. . .

[ermineermine]

No, in the real world, tax cuts for companies or even rich individuals do not necessarily mean tax increases for poorer individuals--if a deficit results, then government only borrows, until it all becomes so unsustainable that a tax increase is inevitable.

And only if the resulting tax increase is ACTUALLY on private income and on small businesses can one say that these two parties are burdened.

Dramatics and demonisations move people. But they do not reflect reality.

. . .

[ermineermine]

III

> our earth will still die

Yes, sadly. And something needs to be done.

But even individuals will not react without economic incentives. Even self-described environmentalists--from Gore to the common hippie--will only alter their lifestyles minimally, notwithstanding the volume of their moans and chants.

Companies will react to economic incentives even more.

. . .

[ermineermine]

Individual or corporate, sometimes government prodding is indispensable--subsidies, tax breaks, legal requirements. Sometimes, corporations reacting to economic incentives do it on their own.

Take

1 efficient rechargeable batteries

2 energy-saving lightbulbs

--Japanese companies invented them as new products which can be sold for a higher price (albeit for much greater savings and value), without Japanese government subsidies, tax breaks or legal requirements.

. . .

[ermineermine]

European governments followed by promotion. The Australian government followed by banning the manufacture of old-techonology lightbulbs altogether. The American government has yet to do anything significant.

ENELOOP efficient rechargeable batteries:

|| 3x the price of disposables

|| same as or less than the price of old rechargeables

|| rechargeable up to 1000 times

|| ready-to-use

|| does not drain off stored energy during storage

|| consumes less electricity during recharging

. . .

[ermineermine]

PREMIUM series lightbulbs by Panasonic:

|| 100W brightness, 20W consumption (1/5)

|| 10,000hrs life / can be switched on and off up to 20,000 times

|| 1/5 heat emission (heat damages the bulb itself, cutting its lifespan)

Unfortunately, contains minute amounts of mercury.

There are washing machines which recycle water. Some governments subsidise solar panels or extra insulation. Many limit trash collection or charge for it.

. . .

[ermineermine]

IV

> The tech exists but until

> the right politically connected folks

> [who] own the rights we will be forced to

> pollute the air to get to work and

> our applicances will just as energy ineffecient

1 See above.

2 America has consumer groups with muscle, while Japan's are toothless. Yet their companies--run by individuals and driven by profit--managed it.

American consumers can do it if they are willing to suggest and prod rather than just complain.

. . .

[ermineermine]

Further, American companies can get further if their workers--individuals--were more willing to work more and demand less.

Why do you think Japanese cars made in America by American workers sell for much less, last longer and have much higher fuel efficiency than American cars made in America by another group of American workers?

. . .

[ermineermine]

If American citizens see every government restriction as 'a violation of our sacred rights', then change must come from the individual.

Be prepared to

1 pay for energy-saving lightbulbs which cost at least 10x more to initially purchase but cost you much less during its lifetime

2 work for bodies which will utilise your ideas, as opposed to simply complaining to newspapers and on internet fora

3 buy fuel-efficient cars, and refuse to buy fuel-inefficient cars even if American.

. . .

[ermineermine]

4 refuse to accept plastic bags and excessive packaging

Believe it or not

1 purchasing power works

just as

2 boycotts work.

Companies will manufacture only what they can sell. And part of the work needs to be done by individuals forgoing INITIAL cost and comfort for the sake of long-term concerns--like you say, to save the earth.

. . .

[ermineermine]

V

> Same R's and D's that got us where we are will continue

> to allow for polluting companies pollute

Donkeys and Elephants are individuals, too--no matter how much their political funds supplied by companies and lobbyists, they gain office or lose office through votes.

Americans need to be concerned enough--angry enough--for those who never vote to start doing so.

Enough of the "Government should inspire me to vote" excuse--vote to get rid of what bores or disillusions you.

. . .

[ermineermine]

We have two duties in a democracy

1 to vote

2 to persuade others to vote as well--if possible, to vote they same way we believe is wisest.

I trust that you are the kind who votes. You and I need to persuade others--fire them up--to vote.

REMEMBER: decisions are made by those who show up.

[ermineermine]

(ERRATUM: 'vote the same way')

[ermineermine]

(ERRATUM: 'get farther')

[ermineermine]

(ERRATUM: '(whether) individual or corporation')

[concerned00citizen]

Common hippies in VT DO miminize they impact on earth. Companies will take the money and the R's and D's favorites will get richer. I assume you have a "GREEN" business and you are governments favored or you wouldn't write such obviously false things.

[concerned00citizen]

Actully in VT there's a bill to allow corp to pay NO taxes. Look up EXXON/MOBIL. Media lies. Taxes on:gas, rooms and meals, sales and use affect corp or individuals the most? They r corp write-off. In VT has business tax stabilzation and subsidized health care for corporations. In VT we have GRANTS for businesses. In this tiny state of only 630,000 we were taxed to the tune 100 MILLION for business this year alone. Our bonding is out of sight. Who pays bonds? You and I - or corps?

[ermineermine]

(ERRATA:

'what the person(s) responsible ～ did or did not do matters'

'admit responsibility for')

[fieroken88]

I will jimmy rap to that song on the trailer?

[zangorn]

To anyone who thinks he is anti-Israel or anti-Jewish, realize that bringing peace to Israel is his goal. The way to bring peace, he says, is to withdraw the occupation and settlements. Whether or not you agree with this, by calling him names you are distracting from the conversation and thereby perpetuating the problem. Let me be clear: calling Carter an "anti-semite" is part of the problem.

[ermineermine]

> calling Carter an "anti-semite" is part of the problem

QUESTION:

How exactly does labelling Mr Carter an 'anti-Semite'

1 block peace in Israel

2 further the occupation

and

3 prevent the withdrawal of the settlements?

[zangorn]

I cant remember ever leaving a film feeling so good about America, how we're viewed around the world, and really feeling proud of what our President does in the Middle East. Strange feeling.

[ermineermine]

I can't remember either. But in my case it is because

1 I don't rely on movies to "make me feel good about America",

and

2 I don't define America's merits based on "how (it is) viewed around the world".

Carter achieved something in the Middle East in 1978 and nothing after. Clinton worked harder and for longer, and achieved more, than Carter. And Clinton could have achieved more if Arafat were as brave as Sadat or Begin.

[playaconga]

For more information about this conflict watch on youtube the documentary called "Palestine still the issue".

Why don't we hear more about the Palestine situation in the main stream media? This country is thirsty about this topic.

[scottyoung]

I have so much respect for this man. He truly cares about the world and changing it for the better!

[ermineermine]

I have no reason to doubt Mr Carter's good intentions.

I just wish he actually had the ability to be more effective beyond building houses, and that he stuck to areas where he actually is--it keeps his critics from yet again reminding everyone how ineffectual, naive and oblivious he actually is.

[DavyJacobs]

does anyone know the rap song somewhere in the middle of the trailer...? Can't find it...

[noi5e]

the rappers seem to be life convicts, from palestine... but i can't find the exact song title anywhere.

does anyone know where that instrumental came from?

[TERRAN1212]

Looks great

[ermineermine]

Peace requires two men of courage--the mediator being a secondary factor.

Without both a brave Begin and a brave Sadat, it would not have mattered if the third man was named Richard, James, Ronald, George or William.

. . .

[ermineermine]

Anyone who thinks

1 that he is to peacemaking as Midas is to gold;

2 that it is the shortcomings of Ronald, George and William which failed to make Menachems out of Yitzhak, Shimon, Benjamin, Ehud and Ariel, and Anwars out of Yasser and Mahmoud;

is more deluded than his worst critics have hitherto described him.

. . .

[ermineermine]

I There was no James in 1 Libya 2 South Africa 3 Northern Ireland II Camp David has not been replicated in 1 Rwanda 2 East Timor 3 Haiti 4 North Korea 5 Darfur . . .

[ermineermine]

The farmer should take a hint from I and II above.

And everyone should learn from Mitchell and Ahtisaari--achieving much

(i) without subsequently thinking they were Midas, nor

(ii) without subsequently lecturing their successors and peers elsewhere.

[ermineermine]

(ERRATUM: '(Midas), and')

[ermineermine]

That's quite an indictment coming from someone as 'productive' as you have been hitherto--let's hear your constructive argument.