PDA

View Full Version : This Isn't The Real America


revgoozen
11-22-2005, 12:03 PM
Published on Monday, November 14, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
This Isn't The Real America
by Jimmy Carter


In recent years, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.

These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights.

Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with truthful information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect, state and local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.

At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from the restraints of international organizations and have disavowed long-standing global agreements _ including agreements on nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the international system of justice.

Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of "preemptive war," an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.

Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top U.S. leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.

These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation's tremendous power and influence should not be internationally constrained. Even with our troops involved in combat and America facing the threat of additional terrorist attacks, our declaration of "You are either with us or against us!" has replaced the forming of alliances based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests, including the threat of terrorism.

Another disturbing realization is that, unlike during other times of national crisis, the burden of conflict is now concentrated exclusively on the few heroic men and women sent back repeatedly to fight in the quagmire of Iraq. The rest of our nation has not been asked to make any sacrifice, and every effort has been made to conceal or minimize public awareness of casualties.

Instead of cherishing our role as the great champion of human rights, we now find civil liberties and personal privacy grossly violated under some extreme provisions of the Patriot Act.

Of even greater concern is that the U.S. has repudiated the Geneva accords and espoused the use of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, and secretly through proxy regimes elsewhere with the so-called extraordinary rendition program. It is embarrassing to see the president and vice president insisting that the CIA should be free to perpetrate "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" on people in U.S. custody.

Instead of reducing America's reliance on nuclear weapons and their further proliferation, we have insisted on our right (and that of others) to retain our arsenals, expand them, and therefore abrogate or derogate almost all nuclear arms control agreements negotiated during the last 50 years. We have now become a prime culprit in global nuclear proliferation. America also has abandoned the prohibition of "first use" of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear nations, and is contemplating the previously condemned deployment of weapons in space.

Protection of the environment has fallen by the wayside because of government subservience to political pressure from the oil industry and other powerful lobbying groups. The last five years have brought continued lowering of pollution standards at home and almost universal condemnation of our nation's global environmental policies.

Kinbote
11-22-2005, 12:20 PM
I started skimming, and shortly stopped reading, when I saw "economic and social justice." Ick!

revgoozen
11-22-2005, 01:40 PM
Our government has abandoned fiscal responsibility by unprecedented favors to the rich, while neglecting America's working families. Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the minimum wage at $5.15 per hour (the lowest among industrialized nations).

I am extremely concerned by a fundamentalist shift in many houses of worship and in government, as church and state have become increasingly intertwined in ways previously thought unimaginable.

As the world's only superpower, America should be seen as the unswerving champion of peace, freedom and human rights. Our country should be the focal point around which other nations can gather to combat threats to international security and to enhance the quality of our common environment. We should be in the forefront of providing human assistance to people in need. It is time for the deep and disturbing political divisions within our country to be substantially healed, with Americans united in a common commitment to revive and nourish the historic political and moral values that we have espoused during the last 230 years.

Jimmy Carter was the 39th president of the United States. His newest book is " Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis," published this month by Simon & Schuster.

© 2005 Los Angeles Times

Smith Comma John
11-23-2005, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by revgoozen
Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the minimum wage at $5.15 per hour (the lowest among industrialized nations).

certain states have set their own minimum wages though. like in oregon it's around $7/hr and where i live it's $6.50/hr. $5.15 is still ridiculously low though. i cant even imagine living on that little money, and i'm a poor college student.

Jackal
11-23-2005, 03:55 PM
Jimmy Carter made it possible to brew beer at home!

Mary Alice
12-03-2005, 12:21 PM
I totally agree with Mr. Carter, great article.

I want my country back.

2 issues

1)no one's going to read that article who doesn't all ready support a more democratic regime. There still needs to be a way to reach out to the other side rather than just preaching to the converted.

2)Whoever is getting elected predident will have to show the American public he (well, or maybe she, you never know) is a strong leader who can keep our nations security in check and not underestimate the necessity of a good military and defense. Also they will need to appear in control when having to make deicsions where both options suck, and when having to play the game of politics with immoral people. We've all ready had someone as moral as Carter be our president - he himself was president, remember? - and remember what happened? Chewed apart by the fucking wolves - I mean, Iranian Muslim fundamentalists holding Americans hostage. And that let Reagan easily get elected.

I admire what he is doing with his Jimmy Carter foundation (they have done more to spread democracy than Bush's wars, let me tell you) and Habitat for Humanity and other orgnaizations he is involved in. I admire him so much, agree with his stance, and love him. People need to listen because they can make a difference just in their small neck of the woods. But as far as changing politics on the presidential level, I still don't know where the answer is. I am a peacenick and idealist, and at the same time a realist and Naval Officer's daughter. A president will have to handle the immoral reality of the world because America, much less the whole world, isn't going to change overnight.

But again, that article was beautiful and I agree with eveyr word of it.

negatifzeo
12-06-2005, 11:22 PM
Great post MaryAlice. No, the world isn't going to change overnight. And I think a lot of people just blame Bush and Republicans, and rightfully so, I guess. But I'm more than a little troubled by the idea that these people are representative of what Americans are really like. Not all of course, and maybe not even a majority, but pretty close to it. As Americans, we're too busy working and shopping and taking care of out families. We can't be bothered with having to think about stuff.

Kris Klam
01-09-2006, 08:59 AM
from Frontpagemagazine, written by Ben Johnson

8. Jimmy Carter’s Opinion (On Anything)



Jimmy Carter released Our Endangered Values this fall, and it has already become one of the top-selling books of the year. No wonder: gauging the media coverage, one would think Moses had delivered another tablet of stone. Most of the headlines focused on Carter’s newfound belief that the Democratic Party was too associated with abortion and his opposition to partial birth abortion, which, oddly enough, are not in the book. After the preliminaries, the interviewers allowed Carter to get to the real theme of OEV: a rambling diatribe equating Southern Baptists, the Pope, “Neo-conservatives,” and anyone who supports the war in Iraq or capitalism with Dixie lynch mobs and the Ayatollah. (No, I’m not exaggerating.) He claims we were lied into a war in which U.S. troops “decided to violate” the Geneva Conventions and “torture” detainees, because they saw Arabs as “subhuman.” Then he showed his keen grasp of the War on Terror, writing, “The fact is that, unlike during other times of national threat or crisis, the United States of America is not at war.” (Emphasis his.) He gives advice on how to deal with Iran’s nuclear mullahs – who wouldn’t be in Iran in the first place if it weren’t for him. He advises Bush on how to deal with nuclear North Korea – which wouldn’t be a threat if it weren’t for his 1994 intervention. He discusses ways to lower gas prices – which were higher during his presidency than they are today. Jimmy Carter is the worst president of the 20th century, perhaps the worst president ever. He has no business giving anyone advice on anything, period.

Herr Lipp
01-09-2006, 09:10 AM
I was expecting to see something about the Kyoto treaty, but he kept his gob shut as I'm sure his administration didnt give a flying fuck either about pollution. I hope America feels the brunt of global warming, god knows you deserve it.

negatifzeo
01-10-2006, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Herr Lipp
I was expecting to see something about the Kyoto treaty, but he kept his gob shut as I'm sure his administration didnt give a flying fuck either about pollution. I hope America feels the brunt of global warming, god knows you deserve it.

I was under the impression that global warming was global. Either way, I wish it would hurry up. (But not before I move to the center of the country)

Nak Nak
01-10-2006, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by negatifzeo
I was under the impression that global warming was global. Either way, I wish it would hurry up. (But not before I move to the center of the country)

Global warming is global. However, the usa is still one of the perpetrators. A fact that surprised me when I read about it was that the UK has kept up to the standards set by the protocol.

Herr Lipp
01-11-2006, 05:49 AM
Because out Governemnt isn't totally retarded. It has respect for the world, not like fucking 200 year old America, probably couldnt give a fuck. I hope one of you're dumbass generals falls over and hits "THE RED BUTTON" and you blow yourself up, can't think of anything from/in America that I'd miss.

Herr Lipp
01-11-2006, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Herr Lipp
Because out Governemnt isn't totally retarded. It has respect for the world, not like fucking 200 year old America, probably couldnt give a fuck, feels it's too young to care about the glove. I hope one of your dumbass generals falls over and hits "THE RED BUTTON" and you blow yourself up, can't think of anything from/in America that I'd miss.

Kris Klam
01-11-2006, 06:05 AM
Uh....America does more for the world than any other country.

Herr Lipp
01-11-2006, 06:07 AM
such as?

Herr Lipp
01-11-2006, 06:08 AM
keeps it safe? no.
keeps it clean? no.
comes up with sooper-dooper micro chips and kepyboards? yes, but the japs are still better.

Kris Klam
01-11-2006, 06:08 AM
Whenever there's a disaster in the world, who usually helps out first and eventually helps out the most?

Hell, we're even helping those stupid paki's at the moment.

Herr Lipp
01-11-2006, 06:10 AM
they do help from time to time, as most UN countries do. but the world could still function just fine without them.

I'm just in a shit mood man. dont worry.

Kris Klam
01-11-2006, 06:13 AM
no prob.

Herr Lipp
01-11-2006, 06:16 AM
but paki's are stupid ha. they've been given millions of dollars now, and still try and blame other people's shortcomings on their shoddy organisation and shit.

Still, they'll probably be living near me in the not to distant future, bare pakis in Kent, and not decent pakis like shop-owners, just bums that smell of curry :D

racism always cheers me up.

revgoozen
02-08-2006, 06:13 PM
keeps it safe? no.
keeps it clean? no.
comes up with sooper-dooper micro chips and kepyboards? yes, but the japs are still better.

safe is a relative term. Nato and the UN do not dare jump until the US tells them how much money they will be willing to contribute based on how how they are willing to jump.

clean is also a relative term. much of the technology that allows people to make such distinctions was developed in the usa... having said that, there are some things we could do better, not that it would make much difference in the face of major league offenders like china.

the japanese barely have skin in the game at this point... quanta is the largest supplier in the world, and they are a chinese company. the fact that they can exploit cheap labor to make a less expensive product aside though, the fact of the matter is, that the quality of workmanship isn't there... this is evidenced by the fact that american tech manufacturers cannot rely on their oems to offer reliable repairs to the products that they designed...