Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States News

Former US President Jimmy Carter Turns 100 71

Jimmy Carter reached his 100th birthday Tuesday, the first time an American president has lived a full century and the latest milestone in a life that took the son of a Depression-era farmer to the White House and across the world as a Nobel Peace Prize-winning humanitarian and advocate for democracy. Associated Press: Living the last 19 months in home hospice care in Plains, the Georgia Democrat and 39th president has continued to defy expectations, just as he did through a remarkable rise from his family peanut farming and warehouse business to the world stage. He served one presidential term from 1977 to 1981 and then worked more than four decades leading The Carter Center, which he and his wife Rosalynn co-founded in 1982 to "wage peace, fight disease, and build hope."

"Not everybody gets 100 years on this earth, and when somebody does, and when they use that time to do so much good for so many people, it's worth celebrating," Jason Carter, the former president's grandson and chair of The Carter Center governing board, said in an interview. "These last few months, 19 months, now that he's been in hospice, it's been a chance for our family to reflect," he continued, "and then for the rest of the country and the world to really reflect on him. That's been a really gratifying time."

James Earl Carter Jr. was born Oct. 1, 1924 in Plains, where he has lived more than 80 of his 100 years. He is expected to mark his birthday in the same one-story home he and Rosalynn built in the early 1960s -- before his first election to the Georgia state Senate. The former first lady, who was also born in Plains, died last November at 96. President Joe Biden, who was the first sitting senator to endorse Carter's 1976 campaign, praised his longtime friend for an "unwavering belief in the power of human goodness." "You've always been a moral force for our nation and the world (and) a beloved friend to Jill and me and our family," the 81-year-old president tells Carter in a tribute video filmed in front of Carter's presidential portrait at the White House.

Former US President Jimmy Carter Turns 100

Comments Filter:
  • Where would we be if he won a second term?

    • Roughly the same place. Presidents fortunately don't have that much effect on the country (despite both parties claiming that "this is the most important election of our lifetimes" every election). It's the citizens that make or break the country.
      • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday October 01, 2024 @01:08PM (#64831469) Homepage Journal

        Trump had a massive and persistent effect through his judiciary appointments, including those defrauding supremes.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

          Trump had a massive and persistent effect through his judiciary appointments, including those defrauding supremes.

          I've not seen any fraud or defrauding....BUT, I am happy to see that the SCOTUS is much more of a strict constitutionalist body now...as it should be.

          • Trump had a massive and persistent effect through his judiciary appointments, including those defrauding supremes.

            I've not seen any fraud or defrauding....BUT, I am happy to see that the SCOTUS is much more of a strict constitutionalist body now...as it should be.

            They were frauding right on the national mall last week, I heard it from my friend's neighbor's niece. The biggest most violent fraud you've ever seen. If I have to make things up to bring your attention to the massive fraud that's happening I will because the media doesn't want you to know about it.

          • I've not seen any fraud or defrauding [in the judiciary]

            Then I have to wonder where you are learning about current events.

            Here, let me help. [politico.com]

            Oh, that's not enough? Here you go. [forbes.com]

        • by RobinH ( 124750 )
          But those judges would have been appointed so long as any republican had been president. He very much won the 2016 election by motivating a lot of labor voters who felt disenfranchised by the democrats to come out and vote, but as a sitting president he wasn't very good at actually getting his policies enacted. Policy-making-by-tweet is hardly effective. Biden has honestly been more effective at getting Trump's trade policies enacted than Trump was (in an effort to stop bleeding labor votes).
        • They had control of the Senate. They also altered some of the senate rules to allow them to be approved faster. When the Democrat's got "a shellacking" (Obama's words) in the mid-terms the Democrats got behind on appointing judges (they were blocked, mostly) as the Republicans also did whatever they could to stifle the appointments. Once they got a Republican president, they were able to jam them all through quickly and made sure they were as young as possible. They also focused on appellate courts so they
          • It was a combination of good strategy and good luck and it's absolutely great that we have them now in the system forever, because those judges are a lot more likely to make freedom-adjacent and liberty-minded decisions than far left progressives

            Well, those were certainly all words, but they were almost all bullshit.

            It was good strategy, in that it was successful. But those judges have already been trampling freedom with every possible decision, so your entire premise is broken. And there are no far left progressives among the Democrats, as none of them are trying to break the hold of fascism. They all work for corporations.

        • by shanen ( 462549 )

          I still want to know what is wrong with this solution approach:

          "A nonpartisan Justice may compel up to two junior partisan Justices to recuse themselves."

          When Carter was in the White House, every Justice had been confirmed by a majority of the Senators from BOTH parties. Now exactly NONE of the sitting Justices satisfy that simple criterion for "nonpartisan".

          Yeah, I know there have always been politics, even involving SCOTUS nominations. Remember what Ike said about his mistakes? (And his motivation for the

          • by GlennC ( 96879 )

            I still want to know what is wrong with this solution approach:

            "A nonpartisan Justice may compel up to two junior partisan Justices to recuse themselves."

            As I told you last time, there are NO nonpartisan Justices.

          • I hope with Biden's proposals we may see the concept of term limits for Supreme Court Justice's stick around and pick up some more support.

            It's one of those ideas I have just not heard a compelling argument against.

            - The presumably long (18 years is what's usually proposed) single term limit still maintains a non-political leaning.
            - Justices are free to go back or work in Circuit or Federal Appeals courts after their term (or rightly retire)
            - Eliminate the tiresome and ultimately damaging political game tha

        • Trump's incapable of even understanding what those judge appointments mean. He's simply doing as he's told. Apparently, the Machiavellian who's plotting behind the scenes is Leonard Leo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] He's the one trying to replace judges, from top to bottom, with Christian, neoliberal extremists. So far he's been doing pretty well. The USA may be beyond saving by now... unless there's some serious reform of the US legal system... which I doubt... so... the USA's well & truly screwed
          • Yes, Trump is a spectacular dumbshit like Reagan, the candidate to which he is most aptly compared — remember how that presidency fucked us. Neither of them knew shit about how to run a country. The difference was that even when suffering from Alzheimer's, Reagan was still capable of a small amount of shame. And I quote: "Oh, dear."

      • by nucrash ( 549705 )

        Reagan was a fairly radical departure from Carter's policies.
        While there is a lot of overlap and yes, Congress makes policy and president enforces policy, how that's done does make a difference. Would the Cold War have ended if Reagan wasn't president? Would unions have fallen under their own weight if Carter was in charge?

        I used to have the same attitude you demonstrate, but looking back on various presidential approaches and the outcomes, I don't hold your same views any longer. Presidents do make a dif

      • by skam240 ( 789197 )

        The popularity of Reagan enabled a pretty drastic shift to the political right for the US. Sure, some degree of this was likely inevitable given the wax and wane of political movements but it likely wouldnt have been so significant without such a massively popular president like Reagan.

      • As long as the USA is running a global empire there's not much they can really say about international law, human rights, war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc., without sounding like a total hypocrites. Yeah, keep defending & protecting Israel while they drop US bombs on schools, hospitals, & refugee camps, & openly declaring genocide against the population they're occupying. Then there's the USA's support & tactical involvement in the Saudi's war crimes in Yemen.
  • Happy Birthday (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2024 @01:00PM (#64831445) Homepage Journal
    While I didn't care for his politics or many of the things during his presidency....I do admire his humanity endeavors.....he seemed to be a good person. He acted to help his fellow man.

    I actually had a brush with fame...meeting him and Rosalyn on Bourbon Street in New Orleans...I guess some time maybe around 1986 or so?

    I was walking down the street, it was slightly crowded on a weeknight...I saw these guys coming towards me with the shades and earphones...and then I saw Jimmy and his wife...I reached forward to shake his hand and he smiled and shook it...said a few words and they were off again....

    Happy Birthday Jimmy.

    It's not easy to make it a 100yrs...congrats on a life well spent so far....

    • I came here to say pretty much what you said, although I never encountered him in person. I didn't like most of his policies, I would have expected more backbone from an Annapolis graduate, but I respect his sincerity and his insistence in doing what's right, not what's expedient. Happy Birthday, Mr. President, and may there be many more!
  • by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2024 @01:16PM (#64831487) Journal

    I have lots of respect for Carter as a humanitarian.... but lately, I've read a lot of revisionist history about his presidency on Reddit and other sites.

    Inflation was TERRIBLE during his term of office, for starters. He's responsible for giving away the Panama Canal, as well as totally fumbling the Iranian hostage crisis (fixed by Ronald Reagan shortly after he took office).

    It's borderline insane people are making claims, now, that he was responsible for giving America a "strong economy" and other nonsense....

    • I mean, yeah, in as much as he's the one that broke it I guess that counts.

      It's a well established historic fact that Ronald Reagan arranged for the hostages to be held until after the election so he could win.

      The fact that didn't end the Republican party for the next 50 years is one of my Country's greatest failures. It's why we're on the brink of a dictator ship.

      As for Carter's inflation response, yeah, he fucked up. It was caused by OPEC (our entire economy was built on cheap gas). He should'
    • I have lots of respect for Carter as a humanitarian.... but lately, I've read a lot of revisionist history about his presidency on Reddit and other sites.

      Inflation was TERRIBLE during his term of office, for starters. He's responsible for giving away the Panama Canal, as well as totally fumbling the Iranian hostage crisis (fixed by Ronald Reagan shortly after he took office).

      It's borderline insane people are making claims, now, that he was responsible for giving America a "strong economy" and other nonsense....

      I'm old enough to say I was there at the time, and pretty much disagree with you. Maybe I agree on the Panama canal, but that's kind of a minor item.

      With respect to inflation, and the economy, these things operate on a lag to presidential (and congressional) terms. Carter appointed Volcker, and Reagan enjoyed the credit for the corresponding drop in inflation (Reagan extended the tradition of good heads of the Fed with the Greenspan appointment, and I think they've pretty much all been good since Volcker)

    • by Targon ( 17348 )

      Too many people give credit to the president who was in office when things are either bad or good. The 1970s were a generally terrible time, you had the mess at the end of Vietnam, high inflation, and that caused a lot of misery. The Fed raised interest rates through the roof, effectively killing the economy to "fight inflation", and it didn't really work. So, Carter being president back then...all the people remember the misery, and that Carter was president. On the flip side, the 1990s, we had the

    • I have lots of respect for Carter as a humanitarian.... but lately, I've read a lot of revisionist history about his presidency on Reddit and other sites.Inflation was TERRIBLE during his term of office, for starters.

      Not really sure you can blame Carter here. Inflation was terrible before he took office, too. Nobody remembers Gerald Ford's solution to inflation? Giving out pins that said "W.I.N." (for "Whip Inflation Now"). The consensus among economists is that it was Paul Volcker's actions with the Fed in 1979 that finally tamed inflation, and he was appointed by Carter.

      He's responsible for giving away the Panama Canal,

      as well as totally fumbling the Iranian hostage crisis (fixed by Ronald Reagan shortly after he took office).

      Given that the hostages were released b

      • Given that the hostages were released by Iran on January 20, literally the same day Reagan was inaugurated, there's really no way to credit Reagan with "fixing" the hostage crisis.

        I don't know if it's true or not, but what I heard at the time is that Reagan had made it clear that if the hostages weren't released before he took office he wouldn't honor any of the agreements with Iran and negotiations would have to start over. That's why the hostages were released when they were because they didn't want t
        • by XXongo ( 3986865 )

          There weren't any agreements with Iran for Reagan to not honor.

          Would make sense that the Iranians wouldn't want to negotiate with Reagan, but the Iranians were in fact the main reason Reagan became president in the first place. And, for that matter, they showed no signs of sense, then or since.

    • by seeker ( 9636 )

      Carter's best work was after his presidency, such as Habitat for Humanity.

      As a President which I saw first hand he:
      - created an economy later called Stagflation which strangled the US economy
      - that led to a cycle of staggering inflation and high interest rates
      - was defeatist in the competition with the USSR
      - generally appeased opponents of any flavor: USSR, OPEC, Panama, communist funded European nuclear freeze groups to mention a few
      - his weakness as a leader led to the Iran hostage crisis: they were confi

  • But he was born before the Great Depression started...

    • I mean... he remained his father's son during any Depression era farming. Parents do have a habit of doing things after one is born but still a child :)

  • "Old fart refuses to die already." TFTFY
  • by GlennC ( 96879 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2024 @02:29PM (#64831711)

    He may not have been a good President but at least he was honest.

    In my opinion, Jimmy Carter was the last honest and ethical person to hold the office of President of the United States.

    It's been a parade of lying amoral corporate whores ever since, with a demented con man who wants to return to office thrown in the mix.

    This is what happens after decades of having to choose between the lesser of two evils, I guess. Whatever happens next is yet to be seen but I'm pretty sure we're close to the end of the United States, although I welcome any evidence to the contrary.

    • At least I never had to hear W weepily tell America how he hadn't actually cheated on his wife but had "sinned in his heart." Honest or not, that's really inappropriate for a Presidential address.
  • Presidents get to keep their title. It's not as if "President Carter" is dead-naming him.

God made machine language; all the rest is the work of man.

Working...