Page 11


ties Union attorney in the Southeast. They are among the most honorable and fearless people of the region, of the whole country, and they are no fools.” Carter’s mother, Lillian, Coles writes, “is thoughtful, sensitive, socially aware, a 10 The Texas Observer Playboy: Who do you think has power today? Jerry Brown: Cesar Chavez has power. The women’s movement. The Whole Earth Catalog. \(from the March 1976 interview with Th eCOLVOWTI t gly Published by the Whole Earth Catalog The CoEvolution Quarterly is the Whole Earth Catalog in its new format. The CQ contains reviews of books and tools in the traditional Catalog categories: Whole Systems, Land Use, Shelter, Soft Technology, Craft, Community, Nomadics, Communications, and Learning. But the CO runs in a somewhat deeper vein, and offers more of what Catalog and CQ Editor Stewart Brand calls “conceptual news.” Features people like Gregory Bateson, Ken Kesey, Marlon Brando, Jerry Brown, Richard Brautigan, Buckminster Fuller, Gary Snyder, Paul Ehrlich, Carl Sagan, Michael McClure, and Joni Mitchell. Single copy: $2.50. 144 pages, color cover, profusely illustrated, no advertising. Available from The CoEvolution Quarterly, Box 428, Sausalito, CA 94965. BROWSE TILL 10:00 P.M. MONDAY thru FRIDAY Now In Our 13th Year of service to Austin GARNER AND SMITH-1 BVSTO7E 2116 Guadalupe Austin, Texas 78795 477-9725 Mike Smith lifelong friend of black people, and a fighter for various liberal causes. . . . In her late ’60’s she joined the Peace Corps, spent two years in India, near Bombay, working among the poor.” Carter’s daughter, Amy, Coles said, “attends a thoroughly integrated school, plays easily and warmly with blackchildren. . . remembered a comment of Jimmy Carter’s: `People ask where I stand on the issues. I stand with my daughter. She’s not in some all-white suburban school, or some private school with a black or two in it for show; she’s in a class that’s more than half black, and she doesn’t keep count, I’ll tell you.'” In economics, by my lights, so far, Carter is too conservative a liberal. He opposes breaking up the major oil companies on grounds that doing so might raise prices. Not doing so gave us corrupted politics. However, he seems to ‘be open to public works programs like the CCC and WPA of the New Deal if conditions warrant this. His “word of honor,” which he speaks of frequently, is given that he will sponsor a thorough tax reform to see that “those who make the most” pay the most proportionally. He speaks with respect of those on welfare and says that 90 percent of them deserve the help; the other 10 percent ought to be , trained for jobs and then, if they won’t work, taken off welfare. That’s okay. I heard no one remark on the fact that the Democratic platform repudiated the Vietnam war. These were the words: “The Vietnam war has taught us the folly of becoming militarily involved where our vital interests were not at stake.” But Carter defended that war far too long, and one gets quite fuzzy signals from him still on foreign policy. He says CIA covert operations are necessary and should continue. To what end? Will we go on shoring up rotten dictatorships and shooting down humanist revolutions? Well, he says we should withdraw our troops from South Korea and tell the South Korean government that “its internal oppression is repugnant to our people and undermines the support for our commitment there.” He seems to have a dash of humanist idealism concerning the poor of the world: “As long,” he says, “as the more powerful nations exploit the less powerful, they will be repaid by terrorism, hatred, and potential violence.” According to James T. Wooten in The New York Times Magazine of June 6, 1976, “Carter sees the need for redesigning foreign policy in a way that would prevent unilateral intervention in the affairs of other nations. He says the United States should not be militarily involved in any venture that does not directly involve the security and safety of the country. He has criticized this country’s shipment of arms to Angola, questioned President Ford’s decisions during the Mayaguez affair, and has consistently maintained. . .that his would be the kind of administration in which a Vietnam would be impossible.” This country’s annual sale or gift of billions of dollars worth of weapons to other nations is, to Carter, an “unsavory business,” and he wants to reduce the deadly commerce. He asks, “Can we be both the world’s leading champion of peace and the world’s leading supplier of the weapons of war?” On the most explosive of the world’s present trouble areas, the Middle East, he pledges “that we guarantee the right of Israel to exist, to exist in peace, as a Jewish state,” providing “whatever defense mechanisms or economic aid” are necessary “to let them meet any potential attack,” but he adds, “I would certainly never consider sending troops to Israel.” I did not like his controlled convention in New York City; I am uneasy that he is so shifty. One line of such doubts extends from Steven Brill’s article in the March, 1976, Harper’s, entitled “Jimmy Carter’s Pathetic Lies,” to Carter flack Jody Powell’s mimeographed refutation, to Phil Stanford’s study of the controversy in the Columbia Journalism Review for July/August, 1976. The sum of it is that Brill evidently relied a lot on quotes whose accuracy Powell denied, but properly raised questions: evidence that Carter pandered to Georgia segregationists in his 1970 campaign for governor; evidence that his staff used campaign dirty tricks that year, which Carter says he did not know were used; doubt that Carter’s vaunted reorganization of state government of Georgia.amounted to much; the fact that Carter never released the names of his 1970 campaign contributors, possibly thereby concealing ties to such special interests as Lockheed and Coca-Cola; and, finally, Carter’s vagueness on issuesStanford concluded that Carter “has changed his positions in significant ways on amnesty, capital punishment, money policy, busing, nuclear policy, farm subsidies, cuts in the military budget, foreign policy \(notably the Vietnam Doubt about Carter’s candor is so general, an Austin TV newsman helped himself to the figure of speech that something or other was “more difficult than getting