Jimmy Carter Calls Snowden Leak Ultimately "Beneficial" 424
eldavojohn writes "According to RT, the 39th president of the United States made several statements worth noting at a meeting in Atlanta. Carter said that 'America has no functioning democracy at this moment' and 'the invasion of human rights and American privacy has gone too far.' The second comment sounded like Carter predicted the future would look favorably upon Snowden's leaks — at least those concerning domestic spying in the United States — as he said: 'I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive, so I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial.' It may be worth noting that, stemming from Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, Jimmy Carter signed the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 into law and that Snowden has received at least one nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize."
Privacy act & Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily (Score:5, Interesting)
"Respondents, a student newspaper that had published articles and photographs of a clash between demonstrators and police at a hospital, and staff members, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against, among others, petitioners, law enforcement and district attorney personnel, claiming that a search pursuant to a warrant issued on a judge's finding of probable cause that the newspaper (which was not involved in the unlawful acts) possessed photographs and negatives revealing the identities of demonstrators who had assaulted police officers at the hospital had deprived respondents of their constitutional rights." source [findlaw.com]
On a side note, when explaining the Privacy Act to the general public, Jimmy Carter is probably the only president ever to make this statement: "We have reduced the size of these Government files by more than 10 percent."
Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate agreeing with Carter.
Why?
Looking back on history, I never got the dislike towards him. He was handed a bad deck into his presidency (inflation from Viet Nam, Oil embargo, stagflation, Iran hostages, military incompetence, and a couple of other things he was blamed for).
One of the most ballsy things he did was Tip O'Neil was elated that "one of them" was in the White House and Carter wouldn't play ball. And as we have seen many times, when one party controls both the Whitehouse and Congress, the pork flies and the budget sinks!
He was also one of our smartest presidents and one of the few who had some sort of science training - he was a nuclear engineer (BS, US Naval Academy).
So, why the dislike?
Re:+5 Insightful for (Score:5, Interesting)
As other have said, Carter was a complete disaster for the US.
Yes, many others have said that. It doesn't mean it's true. Why do you think Carter "was a complete disaster for the US"?
Re:Two Other Outspoken Politicians (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article [huffingtonpost.com] you cited:
The best thing to do with the Cheney quote is forget Cheney said it about Snowden. Re-read the quote, and imagine somebody else said it about Cheney. Which version rings more true?
Re:+5 Insightful for (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's because he was an engineer. He was interested in facts and solutions, not maneuvering. He assumed that when he had the right answer, he could implement it, because other people would see that it was right and would agree with it.
To put it a different way: "Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, and Jimmy Carter were good men, honorable men. But they disdained the game, and those who play it." - Varys
Precisely. He honestly thought the best ideas would simply win out on their own merits, no convincing or horse-trading required. So he didn't bother, and came off as an aloof political idiot.
He couldn't even get along with his own party, let alone the opposition. Not to mention the Oil Crisis and a giant friggen volcano blew up, and the US had no power to prevent either, he just had to muddle through with the shit sandwich fate gave him.
Re:Some years ago (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing is... he wasn't one of our best Presidents. He might well be very smart and well intentioned, and those are good things, but they don't by themselves make you a great leader.
I'm not a big fan of FDR, but I can tell you that if it had been FDR in office at the end of the 70's and not Carter, Ronald Reagan would have died an ex-Governor of California. FDR knew how to get stuff done, Carter, not so much.
Obama is sort of coming in the same as Carter, although as our first black president, he's already made the history books. There's nothing wrong with Obama as a person, he's just not a very good President. Presidents who are good at their jobs don't just have good intentions, they get shit done. It doesn't matter if they were dealt a shit hand by the past administrations. FDR inherited a Great Depression. Lincoln inherited a Civil War. They took care of business.
Aside from Carter being in love with leftist dictators, I actually respect him as a statesman, but let's not start re-writing history here.
Re:+5 Insightful for (Score:3, Interesting)
Those economic policies were necessary as the nation transitioned away from being an industrial power under the bretton woods system to an Empire that extracts money from the global economy through wall street and down to the peasants via the "service economy". His failure, if there was one, involved not using our military enough to scare the world into using USD for international trade. Subsequent presidents, regardless of party affiliation, have not had this problem. In fact, Obama might be the best one yet.
Politicians in the 1970s were still by and large honest. Even Nixon pails in comparison with Obama. Carter's failure was not believing the true horror of America - that it has a very small productive economy and thrives exclusively on plunder.
Re:+5 Insightful for (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the few times I've broken my "third party rule" is to vote for Clinton. He was an effective politician and genuinely seemed to have our best interests at heart. He's the only president I've ever voted for that won. I am not sure what that says except that I generally vote third party.
Re:+5 Insightful for (Score:5, Interesting)
I have always said that Carter was the best man we’ve had in the white house in my life time.
I’m more convinced than ever.
we would be lucky to have someone of his caliber today.
Re:+5 Insightful for (Score:5, Interesting)
as for losing to Reagan, while I admire both Presidents, the contest of the 1980 election was very much the shy smart kid vs the popular jock. Not that Carter was really that shy, but he got bogged down in details, and seemed afraid to use his position as The President at times but rather approached things "as a regular person". When you are President, and trying to get things done, that makes it rather harder to win any political conflicts.
Re:+5 Insightful for (Score:5, Interesting)
Oil prices relative to historic norm is a quite good predictor of both economic growth in the following year and people's assessment of presidential performance, much more so than the paritcular politics, policies, brain power, or charisma of the man in the White House. As single factor analysis goes, it is vastly better than one would expect. Strangely enough, most political analysts largely ignore it.
Carter was left holding the bag when oil prices hit historic highs. His policies were not fundamentally different from Nixon/Ford, who also suffered in the public's eyes.
Reagan was liked...after the oil prices came down. Perceptions of his competence were not particularly good before oil finally dropped below 50 a barrel.
HBush was actually rather well liked but oil trended upwards during his term, then trended down for Clinton's term.
WBush and Obama are presidents after the rise of China -- we are never going to see the kind of low oil prices we enjoyed in the 90s or 60s again. Never. Thus it would not be surprising if 2-3% growth is the new norm for the good years, into the foreseeable future; as a consequence, Obama and whoever takes office in 2016 are not likely to be greatly popular, even if they walk on water or raise the dead.
Things can change. If China's economy craters, oil price might drift downwards for a while. Whoever is in the White House in 2016 or 2020 might get a free bump there. Also fracking might put some significant downward pressure on energy prices. We shall see.
Re:+5 Insightful for (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I study all of this in rather significant detail. Your 1/5 estimate, by any reasonable measure, is completely false.
I would encourage you to look at the GDP breakdown by industry sector, conveniently summarized in this wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
As you can see, the aggregate manufacturing output is 12% of the GDP, less than that attributed to real estate. The aggregate value of industrial production in the US is $1.7 trillion dollars. If you honestly believe the aggregate value of all manufacturing in the world is $8.5 trillion, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
The US does have some industry, but it is not relevant to the employment and purchasing power of the average citizen. Back in 1960, a substantial portion of the populace earned a solid living employed in these sectors.
The question becomes how do we have a country when so little of our economy involves the actual basics of economics - production of the necessities of life? How do we import so much crap from China and simply trade rice, wheat, and trash in return?
The answer is financialization, summarized in my previous post. I would recommend Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism: Origins and Fundamentals of US World Dominance to understand the exact mechanics of how this works.
PS: Your 1/5 number was probably true in the 1950s and 1960s. I'm not going to lookup that data however.
Re:Damn it! (Score:4, Interesting)
Go find Carter's interview with Jon Stewart. If you still don't like him after watching that, you should seek help.
Re:+5 Insightful for (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah Reagan was the turning point for all we see today. Fool even removed the Solar Panels Mr. Carter put on the White House, that should tell you where he stood. He was a good actor though, the sheep fell in line with him. Definitely Oscar worthy.