Jimmy Carter Is Still a Moron, At Least

I'm old enough to remember Jimmy Carter in his original incarnation. The only question is whether he's just an idiot or downright malevolent. He spent most of his term trying to make the country look like "a weak, pitiful giant." His subsequent career, however, suggested that he was more evil than stupid: the incorrigible America bashing, the repeated siding with intolerant theocracies and dictatorships and murderous terrorist groups.

Carter's most recent lunacy swings the needle back toward "just really stupid:" According to Carter, the Civil War was un-Christian:

Here's the latest outrage from Jimmy Carter, the ex-President so many Americans love to hate: He claims the Civil War - which he calls, Southern-style, "The War Between the States" - was un-Christian and could have been avoided.

The comments come in a new book, "In Lincoln's Hand: His Original Manuscripts With Commentary By Distinguished Americans." Carter comments on a passage by Lincoln in which Lincoln writes: "I am almost ready to say this is probably true - that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet."

Carter writes that he finds the Lincoln writing "very troubling." Continues Carter: "He ignores the fact that the tragic combat might have been avoided altogether, and that the leaders of both sides, overwhelmingly Christian, were violating a basic premise of their belief as followers of the Prince of Peace." He concludes: "A legitimate question for historians is how soon the blight of slavery would have been terminated peacefully in America, as in Great Britain and other civilized societies."

I discussed this a long time ago.

Thanks to LGF for the lead.

Jimmy Carter Says "Ouch!" Again

Christopher Hitchens on Jimmy Carter: now there's a match made in heaven (whoops: sorry, Chris)!

In the Carter years, the United States was an international laughingstock. This was not just because of the prevalence of his ghastly kin: the beer-sodden brother Billy, doing deals with Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi, and the grisly matriarch, Miz Lillian. It was not just because of the president's dire lectures on morality and salvation and his weird encounters with lethal rabbits and UFOs. It was not just because of the risible White House "Bible study" sessions run by Bert Lance and his other open-palmed Elmer Gantry pals from Georgia. It was because, whether in Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq—still the source of so many of our woes—the Carter administration could not tell a friend from an enemy. His combination of naivete and cynicism—from open-mouthed shock at Leonid Brezhnev's occupation of Afghanistan to underhanded support for Saddam in his unsleeping campaign of megalomania—had terrible consequences that are with us still. It's hardly an exaggeration to say that every administration since has had to deal with the chaotic legacy of Carter's mind-boggling cowardice and incompetence.

Jimmy Carter Says "Ouch!" Again and Again

At the Volokh Conspiracy: "Did Jimmy Carter Endorse Palestinian Terrorism?"

And Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit flags stories in the WSJ and elsewhere reporting that "[f]ourteen members of a Carter Center advisory board, who worked to build support for the human rights organization started by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and his wife, have resigned in protest over Carter's latest book."

Jimmie Carter Says "Ouch"

Let's face it, the man is a disgrace. Alan Dershowitz's article is utterly devastating.

A Map Ain't A Map

As mentioned in an earlier post, Jimmie Carter appears to have used copies of maps without permission, in apparent violation of the copyright laws. That seems to be the least of Carter's sins, but the copyright issue is an interesting one -- as are some of the reactions to the accusation.

One approach taken by those seeking to minimize Carter's culpability is to suggest that maps are only minimally copyrightable. Hiram Hover, for example, posts the following:

"Maybe there’s a case of copyright infringement here, maybe not. As Ralph Luker points out, maps of the same place do tend to bear some resemblance to one another—surprising as that may be to the folks over at NRO, who have done so much to flog the accusation. In any event, a cribbed map is hardly what comes to most people’s minds when they hear the charge of 'plagiarism.'"

This is excuse is particularly silly coming from a purported historian. A historian should know, if anyone should, that maps are not fungible. Good or poor maps can make all the difference when trying to following a campaign, for example. Even in a social history, the absence of good maps can be extremely frustrating.

On the legal side, it's worth noting that the very first copyright act enacted in this country -- the Copyright Act of 1790 -- specifically included maps within its scope. Indeed, "map" was the very first item mentioned in the title of the Act: "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned." (Emphasis added) "Map" is likewise the first protected species of work listed in the text of the Act:

"Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passing of this act, the author and authors of any map, chart, book or books already printed within these United States . . . shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending such map, chart, book or books, for the term of fourteen years from the recording the title thereof in the clerk’s office, as is herein after directed . . .." (Emphasis added.)

I guess the First Congress was populated by denizens of NRO. It's a massive right-wing conspiracy!

Plagiarism Plus

Over at Civil War Bookshelf, Dmitri Rotov notes that former president Carter has been accused of plagiarizing maps. I was going to post a brief item simply noting how important maps can be -- and how frustrating bad or insufficient maps can be. The number one complaint about Civil War books has got to be the dearth of maps. I frequently go to the internet (or other books) to locate usable maps to accompany my Civil War reading.

Then, doing a check to see what the current status of the dispute is, I ran across a post that explains that the plagiarism charge is the least of president Carter's problems. The post provides copies of the maps in question, so you can judge the plagiarism allegation for yourself. It also provides a simple and readily understandable explantation documenting the far more serious charge: the maps are copied but mislabeled in a way that appears designed to reinforce inaccurate and misleading statements in the accompanying text. I urge anyone intested in this issue to read Rick Richman's post at Jewish Current Issues, entitled "Carter's Maps: Worse than Plagiarism."