Oct. 16, 2002 - 19:21 MDT

THE WONDERING JEW

Points Of View

As in most things I encounter in life I can see how the same person or event can be looked at by many, each person having a different impression. There are usually valid and reasonable points made by those having different ideas.

In today's Rocky Mountian News, October 16 there are two columns concerning Jimmy Carter's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, each looking at him and the award differently. What makes it difficult for me is that each column is written by a columnist I highly respect. Molly Ivins and Thomas Sowell, but oh how differently they look at the man, Jimmy Carter.

Mr. Sowell heads his Column: "If weakness equals peace, Carter's prize well deserved." Mr. Sowell says, "The politiczation of prizes was never more blatantly revealed than in the comments of three of the members of the committee that awarded former president Jimmy Carter the Nobel Peace Prize." Are we as a country so far off base that things like that can be truly said about us ? This makes me wonder, has it always been that members of the committee to award the Nobel Peace Prize have been so outspoken ? Have Nobel prizes been always political ? Or is Mr. Sowell a bit off base ?

He goes on to say that three of the committee indicated that it implied criticism of the Bush Administration and its use of, "Threat of the use of power." I wonder were those things actually said ? I haven't seen anything anywhere confirming that.

He makes the claim that, "Carter has long been a favorite of those abroad who are anti-American, and a case could even be made that he was the first anti-American President. It was he who blithely gave away the Panama Canal that Americans had built and operated for more than a century, pleasing all the citizen-of-the-world types here and in other countries." The pros and cons of the Panama Canal have been aired long ago. Did we make a mistake or did we not make one ? Pros and cons still abound.

In his column he builds up former President Reagan as a white knight in shining armor in comparison to Mr. Carter. It seems to me that the attitude taken by Mr. Sowell throughout his column indicates that Jimmy Carter has rubbed Mr. Sowell's fur the wrong way for years. Sort of the attitude of, even if Jimmy Carter did something good Mr. Sowell wouldn't like it.

Molly Ivins looks at things a bit differently. Her column title, "Jimmy Carter a worthy recipient of Peace Prize." Molly mentions, "For those interested in high points in the history of bad manners, there was rather a breathtaking moment last week when columnist and television pundit Bob Novak chose to use the occasion of Jimmmy Carter's wining the Nobel Peace Prize to trash the man." Which by the way it appears to me that is also what Mr. Sowell is trying for.

Molly also cites more words of Mr. Novak in the same vein. She says that James Carville in the course of the conversation said, "I mean, what is it about people getting along that so irritates and aggravates you ? "Ask Bill Clinton," Novak replied. "He couldn't stand him because he was bothering him all the time he was president."

Molly says the thing that I think is the crux of the matter and the most telling thing against Novak, in a very simple, civil statement, "Jimmy Carter needs no defense from me. The man is enough to give Christianity a good name. Following the Christian doctrine of works as well as faith, he has done immeasurable good in the world, and no mean-spirited attack from a petty pundit can diminish him." She brings out, "The implicit citicism of President Bush in the Nobel committee's selection (made explicit by the chairman)((So I missed that -- was that a sound bite or two ?)) should not detract from this recognition of how long and how hard Jimmy Carter has worked for peace and human rights. I think he is an invaluable asset to the nation." I personally agree Miz Molly !

She did mention that the Wall Street Journal had a bit of negativity about Jimmy Carter but that it was a bit more civilized.

Mr. Sowell, an economist and obvious Republican in my eyes, has written so very many down to earth, realistic, thoughtful columns that I whole heartedly agreed with, his common sense is outstanding, so that his bile in the column now under my eyes amazes me.

Molly Ivins, formerly of the Fort Worth Star Telegram newspaper, has many outspoken things to say about the former Texas governor and his actions in Texas before he became our peerless leader. She seems to have the same opinion of how he discharges or dissipates his duties as president.

To my way of thinking, no man or organization is completely perfect, we all have our faults and make our mistakes I think -- Democrat as well as Republican. Two people who I respect much, each with a different opinion. It upsets me when they disagree so much, to such an extent. So I must do two things, agree to disagree with Mr. Sowell and agree to agree with Molly Ivins, and quote Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along together ?" said by a man as imperfect as I.

So with any person or event there are at least two different Points Of View . . . . . . . . . . . .

Blog