Palmer Events Center
Having Not Read Carter's Book, Vance Offers an Opinion
RECEIVED Mon., Sept. 24, 2007
Dear Editor,
So Louis Black contends that Jimmy Carter exhibits "reasonable compassion and genuine lack of partisan preferences ["Page Two," Sept. 21]." Oh really! Not only is Mr. Carter a neo-leftist partisan, but those in the Middle East he tacitly supports, namely Palestinian terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, are the lowest forms of humanity on earth. They are Jihadi barbarians who would tear our throats out in an instant. This is reasonable compassion and genuine nonpartisanship? Louis has achieved a new low.
This recent example of moral relativism prompts the ultimate question: How can anyone of reasonable intelligence support any group of mad Islamists such as Hamas and Hezbollah? And how can a person as bright as Louis, and Jimmy Carter for that matter, fall for this? The answer is that they are infected with a cultural psychosis induced by being addicted to impressing the social, academia, media, and political glitterati.
History is clear. Fashion slavery has always powered good or evil social phenomena. A compelling example is the crucial influence of chic in Hitler's acquiring power in Germany in the 1930s. And conversely being vogue was the fuel that drove millions to fight for the Allies to destroy the Nazis.
So fashion is a force to be reckoned with. But we had best be on the right side of history when supporting a popular ideological political movement. And that brings us back to our dynamic pair. Driven by the mavens of trend, Louis and Mr. Carter are unwittingly enabling genocidal totalitarian Islamists.
To be sure, the price of supporting any ideology based on fashion is high. So that decision must be based on wisdom, i.e., intellectual honesty and moral courage. Trendy vogue cannot be the ultimate arbiter of the ethical value of any social or political belief. Otherwise, evil can and will triumph.
So Louis Black contends that Jimmy Carter exhibits "reasonable compassion and genuine lack of partisan preferences ["Page Two," Sept. 21]." Oh really! Not only is Mr. Carter a neo-leftist partisan, but those in the Middle East he tacitly supports, namely Palestinian terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, are the lowest forms of humanity on earth. They are Jihadi barbarians who would tear our throats out in an instant. This is reasonable compassion and genuine nonpartisanship? Louis has achieved a new low.
This recent example of moral relativism prompts the ultimate question: How can anyone of reasonable intelligence support any group of mad Islamists such as Hamas and Hezbollah? And how can a person as bright as Louis, and Jimmy Carter for that matter, fall for this? The answer is that they are infected with a cultural psychosis induced by being addicted to impressing the social, academia, media, and political glitterati.
History is clear. Fashion slavery has always powered good or evil social phenomena. A compelling example is the crucial influence of chic in Hitler's acquiring power in Germany in the 1930s. And conversely being vogue was the fuel that drove millions to fight for the Allies to destroy the Nazis.
So fashion is a force to be reckoned with. But we had best be on the right side of history when supporting a popular ideological political movement. And that brings us back to our dynamic pair. Driven by the mavens of trend, Louis and Mr. Carter are unwittingly enabling genocidal totalitarian Islamists.
To be sure, the price of supporting any ideology based on fashion is high. So that decision must be based on wisdom, i.e., intellectual honesty and moral courage. Trendy vogue cannot be the ultimate arbiter of the ethical value of any social or political belief. Otherwise, evil can and will triumph.
Vance McDonald
[Louis Black responds: Again and again throughout the documentary, Carter condemns terrorism and terrorist organizations. If an interviewer concentrates on Israeli excesses, Carter addresses the topic, but he also always brings up the hideous inhumanity of terrorism. Carter is not interested in championing sides but in genuinely considering scenarios for peace in the Middle East.]