[ Attachment content not displayed ]
noon8window.pdf (36 Bytes)
Derek,
I certainly agree with you about the worthlessness of the Nobel Peace Prize (at least judged by some of the people who have won it). But I noticed that in your list of Mikhail Gorbachev, Yasser Arafat, Le Duc Tho, and Jimmy Carter, you call Carter a traitor while attaching no similar description to the others. My question is, why would you list someone you consider a traitor among such unsavory company? After all, treason is a crime against the state, not against any individual, and if libertarians are against state power, shouldn't we generally *welcome* crimes against the state -- at least when they are committed in a relatively humane fashion? Boris Yeltsin was a traitor against the Soviet state, and I found his treason highly inspirational (especially compared with his lackluster terms as Russian president which followed). Trying to undermine the U.S. government by refusing to pay taxes is also treasonous, isn't it? Or maybe "traitor" and "treason" are such stigmatized terms that we shouldn't attempt to make positive terms of them, and instead we should stop applying them to actions against the state, and only apply them to crimes against the libertarian movement or against freedom. What do you think? Of course some of this paragraph is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I hope you recognize that I am also making a serious point.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Phil:
No problem. Many people think my old professor - Eugene Fama - won
the Nobel as well, although it hasn't happened yet. With the recent
trend toward awarding the prize to behavioralists and social
economists, I think Fama's time may have passed. My old physics
professor at Harvard - Roy Glauber - just won it this year though.Personally, such things as the Nobel are irrelevant to me, especially
the Peace Prize. Just look at Gorbachev (who won it right before he
rolled the tanks into Lithuania), Arafat, Le Duc Tho, and that
traitor Jimmy Carter.You might find this attached US weekly economics briefing of some interest.
-Derek
> Derek, Thanks for correction. Gosh, I
> really got that fact wrong. I guess there
> was some talk of it when I was at wash
> u in the seventies and it gelled as fact
> over the sweep of time. As they say on
> snl, better to look good than to think
> good.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>--
View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.comSPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Derek,
I agree that if Carter had been reelected, the chances of the Soviet Union still being around would be significantly greater (though by no means certain), and I don't like him hobnobbing with dictators like Fidel Castro either. I am glad that Reagan got in and denied Carter another four years. I also have mixed feelings regarding the wisdom of handing over the Panama Canal to the Panamanian government, but whether that action was "treasonous" or not doesn't really matter, does it? Would it have been treasonous for the Panamanian officials in power at the time *not* to press for such a transfer? Why should libertarians care in either case? Surely not out of concern for the consequences that assisting a "foreign" government at the expense of the U.S. government might carry for the American people? While I believe that many governments in the world are worse than the U.S. government, I believe they are worse because of what they are doing to people who live under their jurisdictions, *not* because of what they are doing or threatening to do to Americans. I don't know of any other government that is doing, or credibly seeks to do, anywhere near the harm to the American people that the U.S. government is doing. The worst enemy that the American people have in the world is clearly the U.S. government. So when I hear an American complain about someone committing treason against the United States (meaning, in reality, against the U.S. government), I find it darkly ironic.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Starchild:
I do understand your point. I don't however necessarily welcome crimes against the "state", especially if one is assisting foreign powers that would aim to do harm to the US. Although I wouldn't go so far to call his actions in returning the Panama Canal to Panama treasonous, I think it was a serious mistake. And I'm not too fond of his hobnobbing with Fidel Castro. I honestly believe if Carter had won in 1980, there would still be a Soviet Union today.
(some of the following was cut and pasted from another author)------------------------------------------
The book "Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism " by Peter Schweizer contains a few interesting accusations against Carter. Schweizer combed through once-secret KGB and Communist Party files. What he discovered about Jimmy Carter is very disturbing. Documents show, according to Schweizer, that in the closing days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter "White House dispatched Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy for a secret meeting with Ambassador Dobrynin." Hammer told Dobrynin that Carter was "clearly alarmed at the way things stood in the election campaign." Hammer asked for Soviet help, especially to help Jewish emigration, which would have helped Carter's standing in key electoral states. Hammer promised, "Carter won't forget that service if he is re-elected."
Carter once again sought the Soviets' help in 1984. Carter was out of office then, but he still felt the need to visit Ambassador Dobrynin at his Washington home. According to the Soviet document, Carter came to complain about Reagan and his defense buildup. Carter told Dobrynin that if the Soviets didn't do something about Reagan, "there would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power." Carter's intention was clear. He wanted the Russians to intervene in some way to help get a Democrat back into the White House.
------------------------
Derek,
I certainly agree with you about the worthlessness of the Nobel PeacePrize (at least judged by some of the people who have won it). But I
noticed that in your list of Mikhail Gorbachev, Yasser Arafat, Le Duc
Tho, and Jimmy Carter, you call Carter a traitor while attaching no
similar description to the others. My question is, why would you list
someone you consider a traitor among such unsavory company? After all,
treason is a crime against the state, not against any individual, and
if libertarians are against state power, shouldn't we generally
*welcome* crimes against the state -- at least when they are committed
in a relatively humane fashion? Boris Yeltsin was a traitor against the
Soviet state, and I found his treason highly inspirational (especially
compared with his lackluster terms as Russian president which
followed). Trying to undermine the U.S. government by refusing to pay
taxes is also treasonous, isn't it? Or maybe "traitor" and "treason"
are such stigmatized terms that we shouldn't attempt to make positive
terms of them, and instead we should stop applying them to actions
against the state, and only apply them to crimes against the
libertarian movement or against freedom. What do you think? Of course
some of this paragraph is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I hope you
recognize that I am also making a serious point.Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>> Phil:
>
> No problem. Many people think my old professor - Eugene Fama - won
> the Nobel as well, although it hasn't happened yet. With the recent
> trend toward awarding the prize to behavioralists and social
> economists, I think Fama's time may have passed. My old physics
> professor at Harvard - Roy Glauber - just won it this year though.
>
> Personally, such things as the Nobel are irrelevant to me, especially
> the Peace Prize. Just look at Gorbachev (who won it right before he
> rolled the tanks into Lithuania), Arafat, Le Duc Tho, and that
> traitor Jimmy Carter.
>
> You might find this attached US weekly economics briefing of some
> interest.
>
> -Derek
>
> > Derek, Thanks for correction. Gosh, I
> > really got that fact wrong. I guess there
> > was some talk of it when I was at wash
> > u in the seventies and it gelled as fact
> > over the sweep of time. As they say on
> > snl, better to look good than to think
> > good.
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
> --
> View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
<image.tiff>
>
> <usweekly_101405.pdf>--
View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
[ Attachment content not displayed ]