Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Former Submariner, President Carter Stokes Controversy

Jimmy Carter challenges Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which he termed the only law in America today that regulates a group of citizens then prohibits them from identifying themselves and speaking up on their own behalf. link to source

Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program, Carter was then assigned to graduate studies at Union College in Schenectady, N.Y. in 1953.

Curiously, USNA graduate Carter shared attendance at Union College with an erstwhile predeccessor, Philip Spencer, whose subsequent error of judgement during a midshipmen training cruise of 1842 actually accelerated the founding of the USNA.

Spencer (son of the U.S. War Secretary) and two confederates were found guilty of determined attempt to commit a mutiny. The three were hanged from the yardarm of USS Somers. The incident cast sharp doubt on the wisdom of sending midshipmen directly aboard ship to learn by doing. The Somers mutiny shocked the country.

Through the actions of Secretary of the Navy Bancroft, the Naval School was established in 1845 without Congressional funding, at Fort Severn, Annapolis, Maryland. By 1850, the Naval School became the United States Naval Academy.

All of this raises old questions anew:

Are Modern Submariners Really Pampered Wimps? link to sources

Does former President Carter support assignment of females to U.S. Submarine Crews? link but nothing indicative of President Carter's personal opinion on this matter.

Can Submarine Commander Fix the Military Academy with the Feminine Gender? link to sources

Did Adm. Rickover first approve Lt. Carter for the nuke program and then disapprove him as an Anonymous source has suggested? link to this anonymous comment:
When he ran for office the first time he claimed to be a "nuclear sub sailor'. Although he never actually served on a nuke. My guess is Rickover approved him and then disapproved him. The reason he went back to the farm was pretty weak.
Vigilis, for one, does not believe Rickover expelled Carter from the nuclear power program.
- Carter actually served on the conventional submarine Pomfret and was on the precommissioning detail of the USS K-1. Upon selection by Rickover, he was studying to become the engineering officer for the nuclear submarine USS Seawolf (SSN-575), whose keel would not be laid down until September 1953.
- Upon his father's death (July 1953) Lt. Carter immediately resigned his Navy commission and was discharged on October 9th of that year. He never commanded a nuclear submarine, as the first (Nautilus) was not launched until 1955. Carter returned to Plains, GA to manage his family's expanding peanut farming business. This departure was not unprecedented and it was neither dishonorable nor irrational.
- We must be indebted to the service of every president as Commander-in-Chief, alone. President Carter also served our country as a Naval Officer and one of the world's pre-eminent human rights champions. During his presidency, Carter oversaw the Panama Canal treaties, the Camp David Accords, the treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel, the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union, and the establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for "decades of untiring efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflict." OPINION: While it is common and easy to find fault with another's politics, Carter has been an honorable, diligent man, and we should view his brief naval career and namesake SSN-21 as serendipitous for the submarine service. Disclosure: Vigilis may or may not have attended Union College, himself.



At 16 May, 2007 22:12, Blogger SonarMan said...

Those much vaunted Panama Canal deals of Carter aren't the accomplishment everyone thinks they are. By giving the canal "back" to Panama, something we built and bled and died for, which according to the treaty was ours, Carter gave away the most strategic piece of property we could have ever owned.

It allowed front companies for the PRC to gain control of both ends of the canal, which could therefore be denied us in time of great need/war, forcing us to go around the Cape Horn.

Carter is either an idiot or a traitor.

At 17 May, 2007 00:23, Blogger Vigilis said...

Sonarman, I share few of the former president's political views, myself, and like you, did not find his Panama Canal decision to have much merit on its face.

Moreover, I found Carter's understanding of economics issues disturbingly lacking, and his tendency to micromanage rather than to delegate tended to give his fellow submariners, a bad rap in the 1980s civilian job market, according to a "Wall Street Journal" report of the time. Yet, he carried the load of office for all of us.

Thank you for your comments.

At 17 May, 2007 03:07, Blogger Subvet said...

Well, I'll agree we should respect the man for his term as Chief Executive of our country. Anyone who ever held that position is entitled to that deference.

And that's where I'll leave it!

Good blog by the way.

At 17 May, 2007 13:23, Blogger Old Gary said...

Carter did achieve some good, as you point out, but his "Malaise" speech doomed him.

His negative outlook, similar to the present day Democrats, isn't what Americans want in the long run. We want forward looking, positive leaders.

That's why Lincoln, Kennedy, and Reagan will be remembered forever while Carter will be relegated to the lesser ranks of our presidents.

At 17 May, 2007 23:25, Blogger Vigilis said...

Old Gary, your characterization of Democrat party leaders seems fitting and well deserved to this independent.

Given that, however, the glaring failure of Republican leaders to square with voters on such issues as Mexican immigration, the rising price of gasoline, their vision for America and the corrupt nature of the only licensed profession with the power to oversee itself continues to amaze.

One might conclude that there are really no significant differences between the two party's actual (as oposed to stated) visions for America. Most of the political squabbling then boils down to gamesmanship - a charade perpetrated by party leaders to deceive others into believing they have a say in government, but not so much as to prevent their continued exploitation. Who would be the masters in such a game?

At 19 May, 2007 03:45, Blogger Subvet said...

I wonder how much the accountability problems of both parties would be solved if "We, The People" got off our rears and kept close tabs on these idiots. Seems we take too much on faith that they'll always be our white-hat wearing defenders when the real truth of it is that the only person looking out for #1 is #1.

Just my opinion.

At 19 May, 2007 14:48, Blogger Vigilis said...

subvet, keeping close tabs on just one idiot would be more than a full-time job. Our forefathers, however, being students of immutable human nature, gave us the perfect solution (preventative) to the unfortunate outcomes we now confront: Voters may vote incumbents out of office.

In my opinion, this sanction shoulk automatically apply to our Senators, especially those who ever attended a law school.

At 20 May, 2007 00:30, Blogger Subvet said...

Amen to all that, especially regarding Senators who attended law school.


Post a Comment

<< Home