American Experience: Jimmy Carter

[HeXp£Øi±]

I watched part one tonight. This was a really interesting film. Part two on cbs tomorrow night.

Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter traces the ascent of an ambitious country boy from a peanut farm in Plains, Georgia, to the Oval Office; it examines the failings of Carter's political leadership in the context of the turbulent 1970s; and explores the role religion played in his career.

Jimmy Carter ran for president as an outsider. He rode into power on the post-Watergate disaffection with Washington politics. But his inexperience resulted in an ineffectual and fractured administration. Inflation, recession, and a humbling hostage crisis blew his presidency dramatically off course. The crowning achievement of his one term in office, the Camp David Accords, which established a framework for peace in the Middle East, was the inspiration for his life after the White House.

In the years since, Carter has recast himself as a giant of moral leadership. He has struggled to bring peace to war-torn countries; fought for the eradication of life-threatening diseases; and dedicated himself to housing America's poorest citizens. The film features interviews with many close to the Carter administration, including his wife Rosalynn, son Chip, Press Secretary Jody Powell and Vice President Walter Mondale.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

Dare i ask...

I'd love to hear some of your opinions on Jimmy Carter. I've always had a certain respect for the man but i was tytks(to young to know shit) when he was in office.

 

[greenfreak]

I'm with you--I don't know much either. I always equate him to peanuts though. It's strange. I hear Jimmy Carter and I think of peanuts.

 

[HomeLAN]

Great man. Great ex-president. The worst acting president since either LBJ or Grant, depending on your perspective.

Complete lack of direction, pushed around by every international leader who got an opportunity, total economic chaos, interest rates the highest in recent history, the man was a one man demolition team while in office.

Then he got voted out, and became a great man again.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Great man. Great ex-president.

I agree with your assessment of his presidency, but I disagree that he is, or ever was, a great man. I loathe Habitat for Humanity, and I think his peacemaking amounts to appeasing dictators at the expense of the world's democracies.

 

[PT]

I have to disagree with that, what is your problem with Habitat for Humanity? I've volunteered over 120 hours to working for them, and am glad I did. Perhaps it's a local thing?

 

[Ardsgaine]

I have to disagree with that, what is your problem with Habitat for Humanity? I've volunteered over 120 hours to working for them, and am glad I did. Perhaps it's a local thing?

It's the idea of it that I loathe, not the policies of any particular chapter. A free economy works to provide the necessities of life to all people at affordable prices. No able-bodied person should have to subsist on charity. Unfortunately, there is no free market in housing. We have numerous building codes that prevent the building of inexpensive homes; zoning laws that drive up the price of land; competition from the government, which hires builders to create ghettoes and subsidizes rent payments with taxpayer money at a level no private landowner could compete with. As a consequence, those who don't qualify for government assistance, are left with only one low-income alternative: mobile homes.

Into that scenario steps Habitat for Humanity, and rather than identifying the real problems that prevent the creation of low income housing, they act as if the problem is due to builders actually expecting to make money off of their trade. Their solution is to ask construction workers to come out and work for free-- the very people whose incomes put them in that middle ground between qualifying for government help and being able to buy an entry level home, the people whose taxes are already subsidizing government housing, the people who are prevented by law from coming up with free market solutions to the problem of low income housing.

No, thank you! I've got better things to do with my time.

 

[HomeLAN]

So don't participate.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with a self-funded charitable organization doing this. It's not coming out of tax dollars. That's the way "welfare" is supposed to work.

 

[PT]

I agree with HomeLAN, I think it's a great program, it's getting people out of the trailer parks and public housing, and making them responsible for themselves. A person that gets a house through Habitat for Humanity has to do a share of the work on the house themselves, and they don't just get the house, free and clear, they still have to pay for the materials, which for some low income people is still a good chunk of money every month. I will gladly donate more time to this organization.

 

[Ardsgaine]

I have no problem with private charity, and I agree that it beats the hell out of government-forced "charity". It's not like I was saying that the organization should be forcibly disbanded. I was just explaining why I don't care for them. It's the context in which they operate, and the underlying philosophy that I dislike. The government creates a crisis in an industry through intervention, and this organization steps in and says that the way to solve it is for people to recognize that they have a duty to sacrifice their time and labor to help others. If they were advocates of a free market in housing, and if they did not appeal to altruism as their ethical justification, I would think differently of them.