Bring It On!

By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

I don’t know if this means anything, but Carter’s book is #93 on Amazon.com sales ranking (although it may change by the time anyone clicks on the link).  That sucks.

By Tom Baker on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

I just bought my copy. Brilliant book. Everyone should read it. Very thought provoking.

Also interesting to note that the 11 Emory professors who protested seem to be mostly if not all Jewish. I certainly can understand why they wouldn’t like Carters book and would want to debate it,  but I would also say they have the most invested in the topic. Also, is it a policy of Emory to make all guests lecturers debate another expert when they speak in order to fulfill “academic” usefulness. If so then Carter should have to as well, if not then this is just another attempt to attack the messenger because you don’t like the message. President Carter never stated HE wanted to debate anyone on the topic. Promoting debate is not the same as wanting to debate yourself.

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

SteveIL,

It’s understandable that it’s selling well. 1. It’s written by a man who is admired for many things by many people, not just in the United States but throughout the world so there are those who would buy any book of his. 2. It is a controversial book, due to the vocal detractors. Controversy sells despite the merits of the book. 3. On the merits, whatever you might think, there are a great many people who agree with Carter on his main thesis who will buy the book — not all of them Muslim, some of them Jewish — both to support Carter and his Center and because people like to read things with which they agree.

Tom,

The argument isn’t that no one can speak without it being a debate. The argument isn’t that he has to debate. The argument is that if he’s confident that his thesis is both correct and defensible, why the hell won’t he debate? This gives rise to the suspicion that his thesis is neither correct nor defensible.

The man has attached to the modern state of Israel a word that is so inflammatory as to be outright defamation unless it is arguably true. It would be only one or two steps further into the gutter to equate Israel with Hitler’s holocaust. This, in many people’s minds, creates the moral necessity that he, or at least someone from his center, defend the slur rather than just being given podiums to further spread it.

Jesus, man, Alan Dershowitz wasn’t even allowed in the same building with Carter when he spoke at Brandeis, Dershowitz could not enter the auditorium until Carter had physically left the building…like Dershowitz was a potential assassin or something. It was an embarassment and shameful, in my opinion. With the slur that Carter has written, no one should be concerned with Carter’s dignity. He left his dignity behind when he wrote that book.

Universities are for the discovery of knowledge and truth, not the unquestioned spread of indefensible crap. Unless Carter’s book is indefensible crap, he should welcome the opportunity to defend it against his detractors and Universities at which Carter speaks ought to expect him to.

Clearly we’re not going to agree on this and that’s fine. I just want it to be understood that Carter would not defend this book against ANY opponent, not just against Dershowitz (because of whatever failings people discern in Dershowitz). The man’s a moral coward in my book and this is just further confirmation of that.

Yes, all 11, so far as can be discerned, are Jewish. I guess Carter’s not the only moral coward at that University.

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

SteveIL,

I forgot a fourth reason Carter’s book might be selling well. 4. It may just be a great book and people recognize it as such. 

By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

Craig (and Tom),

I have thought about buying it to just see firsthand what it says.  That would be the fair thing to do.  I haven’t yet because I just don’t like the idea of spending money that will go to Jimmy Carter (and some will), which is the same reason I won’t spend money to see “An Inconvenient Truth” or “Fahrenheit 9/11″.

I would say that Craig has been immensely fair in his posts about this book, as he hasn’t brought in anything that isn’t in it, and only highlights what has been made public.  And all of his points about why the book is selling well are spot on.

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

SteveIL,

I’m kind of hoping one of my local Libraries will get it in so I can read it without shelling out big bucks for a book I don’t want in my own collection…but definitely read it. The thing is, I’m not qualified to critique it. Reading it won’t tell me what, if anything, is wrong factually with the book. It will however, allow the reader to form an opinion about the reasoning within the book.

The thing is, what would people think of Ramesh Ponnuru, author of The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life, if he refused all requests to debate the theses of his book? I think they’d think him a coward and they’d be right. Or what would they think of Dinesh D’Souza, author of The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsability for 9/11 if he refused to speak somewhere if Noam Chomsky were so much as allowed in the same building while he spoke, insisted that all questions be pre-screened and allowed no follow-up questions? Would they think he was right to refuse or would they think that Dinesh knew that his book was indefensible crap and, so, refused to share a stage with someone who could easily punch holes in his argument? I think they’d think the latter. I can’t, then, imagine why they think Carter’s a paragon of courage for doing exactly the same thing.

By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

I would also add that even a man I despise, George Galloway from Britain, came to the States to debate one of my favorite writers and a true liberal (in every sense of the word), Christopher Hitchens.  The debate was, to put it mildly, a verbal slugfest.  But at least there was a debate.

By Paul Watson on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

SteveIL,

I’m not sure if debate covered it. A contest of insults, possibly, but I don’t think either actually debated the issue much (and we agree on something at last: George Galloway should be despised). 

By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

Well, Paul, that’s I prefaced my assessment as mild.  However, your’s is more correct.  It was also one other thing: great entertainment.  At least for me.

By Jersey McJones on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

Carter will debate the subject matter - not vitriolic stupidity.

JMJ

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

Um no, Jersey. Carter will not debate anyone about anything. Nice touch, that though, calling your opponents’ criticisms vitriolic stupidity as a justification for not debating.

By Jersey McJones on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

The Israel/Palestine debate is filled with so much froth and vitriol, insanity and innanity, and just plain nastiness, that Carter has to be careful with whom he engages.

JMJ 

By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

Why Jersey?  Carter doesn’t live in the region, and he isn’t running for political office.  Many of those that want to debate him were, and perhaps still are, past supporters of his Presidential policies or his activities since leaving the White House in 1981.

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

Carter has to be careful not to debate because he doesn’t want to be embarrassed by having his arguments collapse like a house of cards in front of an audience. This is nonsense. These are academics, not Cindy Sheehan.

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

These discussions are getting under my skin and I’m disengaging lest I cause the discussion to devolve any further. I’ve made my point.

Carry one, folks. I’m taking a break.

By Jersey McJones on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

You just proved my point.

JMJ

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

No, Jersey, I have already debated the thing in this one post more than Carter has debated since the book came out and this is about the third time I’ve blogged on the issue, debating each time.

I debate every day, sometimes for hours, sometimes for much of a day, sometimes on two or three threads at a time. I put myself out there constantly to be trounced upon by critics. I stand up and I face them and I defend my theses. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, sometimes I draw but I do it.

And that’s MY point. Carter’s a coward. He wants it safe. He wants no one to be able to assertively advance the case against him. He wants control. He wants to advance his own vitriol without being called upon it.

There’s no relationship between my deciding that I was getting heated and, after actually making my case and defending it to my satisfaction, saying enough. Carter has never done even that much.

By Jersey McJones on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

Carter?  Vitriol?  Do you know of whom you speak???

I agree with Carter.  Too many people turn into fuckin’ screaming, irrational, vitriolic assholes when the subject of Israel comes up.  People blow themselves up.  They blow other people up.  It’s on all sides of the debate too.  Hell, someone actually attacked Elie Wiesel the other day!  Elie Wiesel!  And he’s even more civil and peacable than Carter!  Crater will debate anyone who isn’t a loon, I’m sure.  A bunch of angry Jewish academes sound like trouble to me.

JMJ

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

Well, yeh. I suppose he could have been yet more vitriolic. He could have equated Israel with Nazi Germany but that’s probably the only way.

Jeez. You really don’t get how assinie and, well, vitriolic that that is, do you? 

By Jersey McJones on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

I haven’t read the book (frankly, I’m sick to death of the whole issue and wish the Jews would just pack up and leave Israel) but I have read snippets, and it seems to be the usual low-key diplomatic Carter.  Vitriol is not something he’s known for.  Really, if it weren’t for the title, I don’t think the book would’ve caused all this stir.

JMJ  

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

Well, yeh, the title and all the specific omissions, errors and bs that’s been identified from the book.

By Jersey McJones on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

I haven’t seen anything regarding errors beyond cheeseball semantics.  As for omissions, that’s more complex and it would be tough to be specific about such things.

JMJ

By SteveIL on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

Jersey said:

(frankly, I’m sick to death of the whole issue and wish the Jews would just pack up and leave Israel)

You know, this is just too sick to rationally comment on (but not to point out). 

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

Yeh, well, what you call “cheeseball semantics”, I call significant problems. Of course, that was the last debate that you and I had regarding Carter’s book. No point going back over that.