Dear Mr. Myword,

You have such an acute insight and original writing style. I value your wisdom and truly do appreciate your enlightenment. I also appreciate you listing the website from which you plagiarized your entire post, verbatim. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, since you did list the website, that you intended to reference the work above as not originally yours but simply forgot in the heat of the cut-and-paste.

"I also appreciate you listing the website from which you plagiarized your entire post, verbatim"

You are wrong my friend. I did not copy anything verbatim. I did take excerpts from several sites and also linked you to the entire article that was referenced in the majority of my facts. If you took the time to read carefully you would know that some figures came from Wilkopedia, and even some from an article by William Bennett.

Just so we are clear though, if you still have a problem with that - get over it. I am not here for you, nor did I break any copyrights.

If you cannot attack the message, attack the messenger I suppose.

Not that anyone cares, but perhaps you can show us all what site was copied VERBATIM since you are claiming it and I am denying it.

Mr. Myword,

I agree with you that nobody cares, but for the record, I was in error when I said that you copied the entire post, verbatim, from the Muslim World Today. Indeed, I should have said that, save for the list of countries, you copied the majority of your post from the website, verbatim. Therefore, I wish to correct my error and give you your credit due.

I acknowledge that both phrases in parenthesis appear to be originally yours. And I do further concede that the whole paragraph starting with "Israel has been the state sponsor of no terror..." was indeed Bill Bennett's, and was not found at the link to the Muslim World Today website. Only the remainder, save the list of countries and the link to the article, was plagiarized verbatim, albeit rearranged, and for that error in clarity, I am contrite.

I hope you read the page I included as a link in the previous article. I’m sorry you wasted your time. I appreciate your honesty.

I also see you have met Enigma. There are very few people I refuse to challenge but Enigma is certainly one of them. Regardless, now that enough time has been wasted, perhaps you would like to comment on the content of my ‘Consider the Facts’ post. I apologize in advance for the length. You will be happy to note, save where I included a citation, all the words are indeed- mine.

The point of my original post was to stimulate a dead blog full of personal attacks unworthy of either participant. I hoped to re-direct the discussion. It worked.

What I might have said is that I have seen a disturbing trend toward blaming Israel for many of the problems in the Middle East. Personally, I find this a disturbing trend. The Muslims have a saying that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

Perhaps that is one reason I am somewhat concerned when Iran and Syria arm terrorists to attack Israel while Kofi Annan and the United Nations (and several Americans) blame Israel without regard to the Palestinians aggressive encroachment of and violations to a Sovereign Nation.

Perhaps the UN should make sure in the future that when it directs a Government to disarm a terror group, they actually do it. That certainly would have avoided the latest conflict.

The true source of the tension, in my opinion, is that several Muslim Nations live to destroy Israel. There is a reason that Muslim nations occupy so much land. Perhaps you want to look in to the original Jihad and Muhammad’s legacy or war, terror, and the slaughter of the infidels (check around the 600’s). Your boy Muhammad was told by Gabriel (yes, the angel – he claims he talked to him for over 20 years) to put it to you like this:

As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, 'When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks' (Qur'an sura 47, verse 4)”....Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah." [The Laws of Islamic Governance, trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 192. Emphasis added.]

In that spirit, since you (assuming you are not Muslim) and I and all Jews are infidels, we get the pleasure of having our heads chopped off. Iran has openly called for the destruction of Israel and the Palestinians will not accept any peace agreement or commit to not firing rockets in to Israel. Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar embraces, acknowledges and refuses to condemn that Hamas calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. At least now you know why you will be beheaded if they ever get to the big ‘number two’, the ‘great Satan’, you, me, ‘America’. Right now they are busy with number one, Israel.

Of course this issue should have already been settled by the United Nations in 1949 when it finally accepted and recognized Israel as an independent sovereign nation.

Unfortunately, this is one of the areas I have great difficulty in supporting the democratic leadership.

As for the land for peace argument; what say you Josh, would you give Texas to Mexico if they agree to stop border violence Josh? Then what would you give to stop violence at the new border?

I will now sit back and allow you, Hobbs, Carter and minds much greater than mine to pen, opine, postulate, and prognosticate.

from underneath a neighbors bed with a Nintendo in your arms, I'll accept that your are aware enough to release what is right and wrong.

Please remember that those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I have no malice towards you or your family but I would suggest that you refrain from posting anything for a few years until your credibility can be resurrected or your past can be forgotten.

You are good person with a good heart bad_ptc. It's annoying to see people avoid facts to argue English mechanics and potential posting errors in a blog setting.

However, basmati and Josh are more likely to play Nintendo together than JeffC and Josh are.

This is all in my humble opinion of course.

I think we have beaten this to death and I will probably not post about it again. However, in the spirit of clarity, I wish to assure you that you have mistaken Josh's identity.

Before you become too defensive of Mr. Hobbs, whom I RARELY agree with, seven percent of the Carter Center advisors have resigned.

They are Alan Abrams, Steve Berman, Michael Coles, Jon Golden, Doug Hertz, Barbara Babbit Kaufman, Liane Levetan, Jeff Levy, Leon Novak, Ambassador William B. Schwartz Jr., William B. Schwartz III, Steve Selig, Cathey Steinberg, and Gail Solomon.

There is an interesting article from CNN on the subject here.

Jeff C writes... I will not attempt to analyze the worms inside Mr. Hobbs mind that causes his shockingly macabre and grotesque fascination with my father’s funeral.

My only regret is that you are a local relative that can read these comments. Your father is a public political figure. I would just prefer you not to know the truth about how most Americans feel about Jimmy Carter. However, since he has chosen to keep his face and leftists opinions in the spot light, then I can not and will not ignore this imbecile merely because you might read these blogs.

He is a truly pathetic person who has sold out not only his own personal convictions to ensure his own place in history, but he has sold out the integrity and honor of the Presidency.

He is plain and simple an embarrassment to the office of the Presidency. He has been in bed with so many left wing wackos from around the world that he has lost all credibility. He exhibits only lust for public recognition. He gleamed with pride when the leftists on the Nobel Peace Prize committee awarded him their "political" prize.

So, although I have no personal animosity toward your father such as to wish him personal injury, I will however, fail to shed one tear upon the good lord calling him home. And the sad part is, he is so very worried that even Gerald Ford, who was for all intents and purposes only a RINO, will have more of a dignified funeral than your father will.

He may be your father but he was my President and he has shown nothing but dishonor about our Country and upon that office since he left that office.

As to your defense of his recent book, I'll demur to you and to the 14 advisors at the Carter center that resigned in protest. I believe you and these advisors know him and his actions even better than I can. I think that this admonishment from those at the Carter Center is more telling than the left wing articles that his son might cull from the bottom of the liberal websites you bookmark and then use to proffer in defense of his opinions.

I'm sorry you have to read these comments, but I'm also sorry I have to continually read about this sick old man continuously getting free air time in which to put America and the Office of the Presidency down the toilet with his idiotic liberal trash talk.

Tell him to shut the *$# up and I'll stop writing about him as well.

Mr. Hobbs, you sell yourself short! You write: “My only regret is that you are a local relative that can read these comments.” While I suspect that the comment is true because you can not comfortably spew your venom in local anonymity without being refuted by people who are apparently far more knowledgeable than you, I hope you will take comfort knowing that I spread your writings far and wide. We find the clarity of your thoughts expressed in your unique writing style to be entertaining and quite articulate. Particularly the, “Tell him to shut the *$# up...” comment. I must confess that I find your writings challenging also. When you write, “I’ll demur to you…” you sent me to the dictionary to try to uncover your wisdom. Alas, to no avail. Fortunately, I have several dictionaries, and as a peace offering between us, I would be willing to loan you one of mine.

I must say that I believe that you flatter yourself in that it seems that you think that I want you to stop writing. Or perhaps the fault is mine by writing a post which was long and failed to hold your interest until the end. Far from wanting you to stop, I will reiterate what I said in my last posting:

Mr. Hobbs took it upon himself to initiate this discussion and said Jimmy Carter’s book states that “Israel is to blame for all that is wrong in the Middle East, and the Palestinians and Hamas are just misunderstood...” I contend that this is an outrageous and bald-face lie perpetrated by him and I challenge Mr. Hobbs to cite references in the book to uphold his allegations.

I demur back to you Mr. Hobbs.

Jeff C and other Carter apologists,

I have not read, nor will I read his book. I know of Jimmy Carter's penchants for lies and half truths to know enough that I can never expect anything that he might write to be meritorious of my time.

I will say that the very title of his book strongly implies that he blames the Jews exclusively for the trouble in the middle east.

His Title is "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" implying that the Jews have stopped the peace process in order to segregate the Palestinians. The fact is, Israel has a large Arab population, and many serve as elected leaders in their government, something that can not be said for Hamas. Carter essentially is saying the Jews would rather fight a war than to have any Palestinians around them, when in effect it is the other way around.

But no, I won't read his propaganda in his lust to punish past wrongs done against him. I will however, direct your attention to those that have read his book and found such lies and distortions of truth to force them to resign in protest from his very own Political Center.

Below is a brief quote from a very lengthy article found online that details Carter's lies. My quotes are brief in light of the article, but again and again, one can see the insane resentment that Carter has for anyone that has in anyway detracted from his place in history. He has to blame someone for the mess in the Middle East, because that was his only true victory, yet it has been the Arabs, and especially Carters' best friend, Arafat, who violated those agreements through the use of terrorism.

The PLO has as part of its charter the distruction of Israel. Israel still tries to negotiate, and yet Carter blames them and ignores the very foundational beliefs of the PLO as being unimportant?

Begin Quote:

The only thing new that I learned in the entire book dated back to Carter’s administration. In 1978, Israel attacked the PLO in Lebanon after a terrorist seized a sightseeing bus and killed 35 Israelis. Carter thought Israel ’s actions were an over-reaction and a threat to peace. He also objected to the use of American weapons. What I did not know was that Carter threatened a cutoff of military aid to Israel if Prime Minister Menachem Begin didn’t withdraw Israel ’s forces from Lebanon. RH: Yes, he was willing to abandon Israel, the only democratically elected government in the middle east, and our only true ally, because he was ticked off. Thats a great leader for you.

At the end of the book, Carter summarizes what he considers the two obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East : the belief he says Israelis hold that they can “colonize” Palestinian land and subjugate and persecute the Palestinians, and the reaction of some Palestinians by honoring suicide bombers. Though here he mentions terrorism, the book is devoted almost entirely to his accusations against Israel. And even in referencing terrorism, he says it is only a reaction to Israeli policies rather than a tactic independent of any Israeli action. The fact that Palestinians used terror against Israel long before a single settlement existed in the West Bank is irrelevant to Carter. Furthermore, he does not see Islamism or inter-Arab or inter-Muslim rivalries as obstacles to peace in the region.
The principal question that emerges from the book is why Carter has become persuaded by the arguments of the new anti-Semites. One hates to psychoanalyze him, but he clearly has never gotten over the feeling that Begin lied to him about freezing settlements (Begin agreed to freeze them for three months and Carter believed it was to be permanent). This sense of betrayal may contribute to his venomous attitude toward Israel . Carter is also frustrated that the Israelis never accepted his vision for a comprehensive peace (the Arabs, including Sadat, did not accept it either, but he does not blame them). He is also undoubtedly still bitter over losing re-election in part because Jews voted in record numbers for Ronald Reagan because of their conviction that his policies were harmful to Israel.

ew, if any Jews realized, however, just how nefarious Carter’s views really were until he left office. In retrospect, their votes may have saved Israel.

End Quote:

http://www.me-ontarget.com/the_daily_tidbit/p,402/

As to my local anonymity, I can only say that I am not at all scared or nervous of you "liberal" "elites" who are obviously my intellectual superior. Now that my ignorance has been shown for all the world to see, I will now go back and change my moniker to a truely anonymous one so as to protect my future ignorant conversations.

Or perhaps, you might have interpreted my reservations for making a comment about your father, especially the negative ones, as being out of respect for your expected feelings of loyalty and love for your dad. Oh, but then again, I'm not smart enough to understand that.

By the way, is Josh your son? He writes much better than I would have expected, so either he is getting help, or he has matured a great deal since I last read about him in the Newspaper.

Dear Mr. Hobbs,

Kudos for providing an actual scholarly source to support a few of your maunderings. Even though you forgot to cite your source, the author of your quotation was Dr. Mitchell Bard, the director of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, and a formidable opponent. However, Dr. Bard missed the point of the book entirely, which should have been obvious from the book’s title - Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid – that President Carter was writing about Palestine, not Israel. The second word in the title, Peace, tends to provide a sense that the book is about peace, not “essentially […] saying the Jews would rather fight a war than to have any Palestinians around them”. Finally, the last two words in the title are “Not Apartheid”, which might imply that apartheid is probably not the best way to achieve peace.

I was glad to see that Dr. Bard only learned one new fact from reading the book, acknowledging that the rest of the book was indeed factual. Your addendum about abandoning Israel is precisely the tragically benighted and automatic steadfast pro-Israel remark that President Carter wrote the book to dispel. The fact is, when Begin launched an attack from Southern Lebanon on the sightseeing bus, President Carter “publicly condemned [the] outrageous act” as documented on page 44. Then, three days later, Israel, using American-made antipersonnel cluster bombs, attacked Beirut and other urban centers, killed hundreds of civilians, left thousands homeless, and invaded Southern Lebanon. So yes, I do believe that Israel’s retaliation was a bit harsh. In fact, so did the international community whose consensus was that perhaps there was a plan to establish permanent Israeli presence in Southern Lebanon. Regardless, only a fool would believe that Israel’s actions were of equal magnitude to the bus bombing, and “such use of American weapons violated a legal requirement that armaments sold by [the United States] be used only for Israeli defense against an attack” (Carter, pg. 44). Since Israel was using the attack, albeit outrageous indeed, as an opening to engage in an illegal invasion, President Carter informed key Israel supporters in the U.S. Senate of the illegal use of American weapons during the invasion, and then informed Prime Minister Begin the same. The United States law mandates that when the president formally notifies Congress of an illegal use of American weapons sold to foreign nations, the United States is required to cut off military aid to that country. That law sounds like a reasonable safety net to me, but perhaps you disagree, Mr. Hobbs.

I also find it intriguing that Dr. Bard puts quotes around the word “colonize”, as if it were some Palestinian fantasy that Israelis are encroaching on Palestinian land. In fact, Israel has built an enormous wall – entirely in Palestinian land – for the sole purpose of encompassing Israeli blocs from the remainder of the West Bank. The wall “cuts directly through Palestinian villages, [and] divides families from their gardens and farmland” (Carter, pg. 191). This wall is not just a mere fence, as our current president would have you believe, but is a massive 40 foot high concrete wall enshrouded with an electrified fence, complete with trenches 6 feet deep, patrol vehicles, ground and fence sensors, thermal imaging video cameras, razor wire, and sniper towers that snake through Palestinian territory and is estimated to be at least three and a half times as long as Israel’s internationally recognized border (Carter, pg. 192).

Then, Dr. Bard laments that “[Jimmy Carter] does not see Islamism […] as [an obstacle] to peace.” I would agree that he does not! Islam is a great religion with many of the same teachings as seen in Judaism and Christianity. In fact, “Prophet Muhammad commanded his followers to recognize the common origins of their faith through Abraham, to honor their prophets, and to protect their believers” (Carter, pg. 64). The overwhelming Muslim majority that do not pervert the teachings of Muhammad are honest, peaceful people of which neither Mr. Hobbs nor Dr. Bard should have any problem. In fact, people are even permitted to worship the Islamic faith right here in the United States! So to say that Islamism in and of itself is an obstacle to peace is a grotesque misunderstanding of the Muslim faith. Besides, what end would Dr. Bard suggest for such an obstacle?

Concluding, Dr. Bard goes into some psychoanalysis of Jimmy Carter and how he “clearly has never gotten over the feeling that Begin lied to him about freezing settlements…” etc. etc. with no factual basis to connect such musings to reality. Therefore, besides political mudslinging, that analysis is clearly for naught, and at least in my mind, deters from Mitchell’s credibility.

Ostentatiously, you claim that you have reserved comments about President Carter that out of respect you chose to not write, yet you previously have apologized to Jeff for him “having to read these comments” as if you were revealing some hidden truths about a subject that apparently you know exceedingly little about. Especially with intelligent sentences such as “Tell him to shut the *$# up and I'll stop writing about him as well,” I must conclude that you are futilely trying your best to get under his skin and are certainly not holding to any reservations. Therefore, I will see your obviously mendacious claim of respect as a feeble attempt to cover for your simple lack of wit. You can’t have it both ways, Mr. Hobbs.

Finally, I applaud your insight that the quality of my posting is of such caliber that the only logical conclusion is that I must be related to Jeff. I am also flattered that you believe that I must be assisted on my posts, and must confess that I do receive a quite a bit of help creating these discussions. However, the help is always, without exception, cited.

Josh,

Again Josh, you are a very talented writer, albeit to a subject that is of little interest apparently to most of the readers of this blog, considering the lack of responses from others. (I do get quite a few private emails, thanking me, but I suspect you do as well.)

But the cite you mentioned that I ommitted is following the actual quote.

As to your relationship to JeffC, I must admit I am intrigued. Since your monicker is that of his son, and since I would believe his son has an interest in his grandfather, then I made an assumption based upon conjecture. I would not think that a 20 year old has the vocabulary and ability to debate as well as you, but I've been surprised before.

I also noted that as soon as JeffC signed off, Josh signed on and responded to me. So either you are living in the same home, ergo using the same computer; are the same person; or possibly coincidentally writing about a subject that you both hold dear; I am still appreciative of your writing skills.

My lack of writing skills comes from the obvious bias and internal anger I have over this man I once called our President. I can not help but on occaision, lose my compusure, when I think about all that he has and continues to do in embarrassing our Country and the Office of the Presidency, I can become "unhinged". I don't know why I worry, because I am confident, history will paint a picture of this man, and it will be accurate and by far a very unattractive one. So I know he will get his just acknowledgement from history. Its just that I sometimes let my passion get in the way of a good discussion, my apologizes.

Dear Mr. Hobbs,

Usually when one cites a source, they credit the original author within the body of the text. I realize that my articulation of this point was in error in my previous post and do apologize. Nonetheless, you will see that I did indeed credit you for citing Dr. Bard, but must hold that your prevarications are yet to be scholarly supported.

Alas, I do have a solution to your internal anger and loss of composure. If you stop adding self-fabricated conclusions to your chimerical Carter history, you might find yourself less likely to become “unhinged.” Just a thought.

Josh

Your fixation with citation is extremely annoying. (I can’t even imagine how often you had the band to your underwear yanked up around your neck.)

Perhaps you can actually address the issue in some of your blogs.

We are not here for impromptu lessons in how you feel we should cite articles. None of us has, despite your false accusations, copied anything verbatim in its entirety.

This is a 'blog' Josh. You yourself improperly cited text form Jimmy Carter's book, according to the A.P.A. rules of citation, in your own article, and yet you have made vast leaps of ASSumption that simply do not apply to this forum.

Perhaps you and basmati can work out a way to sue us all for plagiarism and Hobbs can represent us. If you work that out, let us know so we can all play together in court.

Until then, either contribute to the discussion by addressing the issues at hand (that you so often avoid) or do us all a HUGE favor and shut up about what YOU feel is a proper and acceptable citation format for a blog.

Dear Mr. Myword,

Believe it or not, for a blog, I feel that the mechanics of reference are unimportant. Something like "'The so-called West Bank and Gaza areas combined total 2,300 square miles and comprise a miniscule 0.046% of the entire Arab empire...Only a mind, hopelessly out of touch with reality, can seriously suggest that the Arabs need still more land, carved out of Israel, to create yet another country.' which I got from the Muslim World Today..." would suffice.

Now, to refresh your memory, Mr. Hobbs, in his original post, opened with, "Jimmy Carter's newest book, which contends, (now hold your boot straps) that Israel is to blame for all that is wrong in the middle (sic) East, and the Palestinians and Hamas are just misunderstood and have a right to defend themselves." So, Mr. Myword, I would appreciate your insight as to how my clarification on how Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid does not contend that Israel is to blame for all that is wrong in the Middle East is somehow off topic.

Josh

You seem so flustered. Here is your previous entry to Mark, in it's entirety:

Considered the facts...
Josh's picture
Submitted by Josh on Mon, 01/15/2007 - 1:18am.

You have such an acute insight and original writing style. I value your wisdom and truly do appreciate your enlightenment. I also appreciate you listing the website from which you plagiarized your entire post, verbatim. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, since you did list the website, that you intended to reference the work above as not originally yours but simply forgot in the heat of the cut-and-paste.

Now, I'm not a very smart guy so perhaps you can help me out here. This is what you sent him when he asked you to stay on topic and stop with all the 'cite' this and that nuances.

Now, to refresh your memory, Mr. Hobbs, in his original post, opened with, "Jimmy Carter's newest book, which contends, (now hold your boot straps) that Israel is to blame for all that is wrong in the middle (sic) East, and the Palestinians and Hamas are just misunderstood and have a right to defend themselves." So, Mr. Josh, I would appreciate your insight as to how your above cited blog, in its entirety, was on topic.

Does it hurt to be so.... wrong?

Yes... when he asked me... Tell me how I'm wrong again?

I have included the original post date and times to help ‘jog’ your memory.

1) I posted Please Consider These Facts:
Submitted by myword_mark on Sun, 01/14/2007 - 1:26pm

2) You accused me of plagerism, Considered the facts...
Submitted by Josh on Mon, 01/15/2007 - 1:18am.

3) I asked you to stay on the topic, and denied any copyright violations Josh - you are simply wrong. And, there's no heat here for me.
Submitted by myword_mark on Mon, 01/15/2007 - 11:15am.

4) You denied being off topic, Upset, Mr. Myword?
Submitted by Josh on Mon, 01/15/2007 - 5:54pm.

5) Enigma cut and pasted your comment - univited- regarding plagerism
Josh, are you okay little buddy? Mark is, well, on the mark!
Submitted by Enigma on Mon, 01/15/2007 - 6:08pm.

6) You retracted your accusation - sarcastically admitting that "save this" and "save that" some was cut and pasted from the link provided (which I had already said).
Mr. Myword, you win.
Submitted by Josh on Mon, 01/15/2007 - 6:46pm.

7) Now you are asking for a timeline – and once again you are off topic.
Quick Reminder
Submitted by Josh on Mon, 01/15/2007 - 6:56pm. (Yes... when he asked me... Tell me how I'm wrong again?)

There - that about does it. Since all of these are on this one root, you should be able to follow them.

You have pretty much lost any and all credibility with me at this point so forgive me if I chose to ignore you after this post. I don't 'do' sarcasm very well.

I hope that helps jog your memory Josh.

I never called for the posts to stay on topic because I rather enjoy the side comments. In my opinion, the best part of this blog was TruthinessUberAlles’ title Richard Hobbs, the Hindenburg Editorialist, which would not have existed without digression. I also never called for a timeline. The straw-man technique is a powerful one indeed, but not one I succumb to easily.

I do however, refute that I have avoided the topic, as I remain among the very few (there’s three) on this blog to have actually discussed the contents of the book (the topic) and my analysis remains unchallenged.

Anyway, for me, credibility is lost when someone creates the façade that someone else’s work is their own. Ignore at will.

Josh.

You say "I never called for the posts to stay on topic because I rather enjoy the side comments."

Duh. I asked for YOU to stay on topic when you decided to discuss what you feel is appropriate citation. Remember item number three in the timeline?

3) I asked you to stay on the topic, and denied any copyright violations Josh - you are simply wrong. And, there's no heat here for me.
Submitted by myword_mark on Mon, 01/15/2007 - 11:15am.

And then you say: "I also never called for a timeline."

Double Duh..... no one ever said you did. I offered you a timeline in hopes of helping you see your errors, again. I see it was in vain. Regardless, you may recall the first sentence when I stated: “I have included the original post date and times to help ‘jog’ your memory.”

And finally, you have now reverted back to accusations of plagiarism after admitting they were incorrect. Again, without commenting on the lengthy blog I wrote just for little old you.

Here is a totally unsolicited reminder of your retraction:

Mr. Myword, you win.
Submitted by Josh on Mon, 01/15/2007 - 6:46pm.

Mr. Myword,

I agree with you that nobody cares, but for the record, I was in error when I said that you copied the entire post, verbatim, from the Muslim World Today."

Are you a teenager by chance Josh? I hate to mentally joust with an unarmed teen!

Your response is bizarre. It seems that I cannot use my usual wit and vocabulary when getting a point across to you, Mr. Myword, so let me be blunt since you don’t “do” sarcasm and play your game a bit.

You claimed that I was fixated on citation in your earlier post “Josh – you can’t be this up tight, can you??” I refuted that I was fixated, that any demarcation would suffice in “Upset, Mr. Myword?” Scroll up. Mr. Hobbs forgot to post the author of his quotations, but clearly marked them as unoriginally his. I, being familiar with Dr. Bard’s work, wanted to refute Dr. Bard’s accusations (the topic), and did so in a piece titled “Kudos to Mr. Hobbs.” Scroll up. My refutation of Dr. Bard’s analysis (the topic) remains unchallenged.

Previously, in a piece entitled “Profound Hobbsian Ignorance,” I refuted Mr. Hobbs’ claim that “Israel is to blame for all that is wrong in the Middle East” (the topic). Scroll down. The refutation of my analysis (the topic) remains unchallenged.

You say that “And then you say: ‘I also never called for a timeline.’ Double Duh..... no one ever said you did” when in your post “Re: Quick Reminder for Josh, Timeline Included” on item (7), you say that “Now you are asking for a timeline.” Scroll up.

Finally, in the post called “Mr. Myword, you win.” I retracted that you plagiarized the entire post verbatim only to say that you plagiarized the majority of your post verbatim. Scroll up.

The text “There are 22 Arab countries and only one Jewish country”, “The Arab areas are thus over 1000 times larger than Israel, sourround (sic – both on the website and in your post) them on three sides(water on the other) and the Arabs already possess 99.8% of the total land”, “The so-called West Bank and Gaza areas combined total 2,300 square miles and comprise a miniscule 0.046% of the entire Arab empire”, and “Only a mind, hopelessly out of touch with reality, can seriously suggest that the Arabs need still more land, carved out of Israel, to create yet another country” can all be found – verbatim – in the first three paragraphs of the document you linked only as a proposed solution to the problem, not a source of the majority of your post.

Your sentences "Arabs already occupy about 12 million square miles" and “Israel, including all of its territories, comprises only about 9,000 square miles” look a lot like the sentence “The land-rich Arabs already occupy over 5 million square miles and land-poor Israel, including all of its territories, comprises only about 10,000 square miles” which is from the website.

Your sentence “Israel has been the state sponsor of no terror, has kidnapped no innocent citizens of other countries, and has fought for its life ever since it was founded in 1948 – and now, yet again, is being assailed by a former President, Jimmy Carter” was completely unreferenced until you admitted to plagiarism from two sources, refuting that your post was completely cut-and-pasted from one source.

Therefore, the only text that I cannot for sure say was stolen were the eleven words you broke up and put in parentheses, and gave you credit.

Your straw-man accusation that I so often avoid the topic at hand (from Josh, you can’t be this up tight – can you??) is false.

Your straw-man accusation that I denied being off topic (Quick Reminder for Josh… Timeline Included) is false. As previously stated many times, I have already refuted Mr. Hobbs comments from Dr. Bard and Mr. Hobbs’ comments on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (the topic) and remain unchallenged. As for the topic, there seems nothing of substance left to refute. What would you have me do, refute myself?

Your straw-man accusation that I reverted back to calls of plagiarism is false. I never abandoned and still hold that you are a plagiarist.

So, since you are so concerned with staying on topic and don’t seem to actually read the posts, the topic of conversation is Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Feel free to read the book if you so fervently want to stay on topic. Being that I am indeed not a teenager, mentally joust at will.

Josh

Josh, can’t you distinguish between me and Hobbs?

This is your first blog - it is to ME from YOU. (Can you follow that? No Hobbs comment included or referred to.)

”Considered the facts...
Josh's picture
Submitted by Josh on Mon, 01/15/2007 - 1:18am.

You have such an acute insight and original writing style. I value your wisdom and truly do appreciate your enlightenment. I also appreciate you listing the website from which you plagiarized your entire post, verbatim. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, since you did list the website, that you intended to reference the work above as not originally yours but simply forgot in the heat of the cut-and-paste.”

Now, with Hobbs, Winnie the Pooh, and all other red herrings aside, what is there in this statement to me, your first statement to me, that is either: A.) On topic, or B) Related to the book written by Jimmy Carter? Should you refer back to the timeline I provided, you would see that this is indeed your ‘introductory’ blog directed to me. You would also see that my reply was that you should address content and not worry yourself with my citations. I see we have gained no ground. You continue to address anything but the topic at hand.

I will not bother to address the references you integrate of blogs you have written to Hobbs in your feeble attempt to change the focus of our exchange and your errors and false accusations of plagiarism. The timeline previously provided covered quite thoroughly the conversation between you and me. After initially acknowledging your were wrong, you have now reduced yourself to back peddling in an embarrassing manner in hopes of convincing yourself that you were justified in your erroneous accusations. .

Your argument has become so pathetic now that you are making remarks like this: "Your sentences "Arabs already occupy about 12 million square miles" and “Israel, including all of its territories, comprises only about 9,000 square miles” look a lot like the sentence “The land-rich Arabs already occupy over 5 million square miles and land-poor Israel, including all of its territories, comprises only about 10,000 square miles” which is from the website.".

Wow. Aside from the words and the numbers being different, they are indeed remarkably similar.

The funny thing about facts Josh is that they look a lot alike when stated by any number of sources. You may learn that should you ever choose to discuss facts.

Again, because you are so consumed with the citation of others' works, and continually refuse to address the content, I will remind you that I did in fact imbed the URL link to the page I paraphrased. I actually used figures that were more current I acquired from my research. I tried to encourage you, should you find the time, to actually address what is written and leave attacking the messenger to someone more qualified. But alas, again, you do not comment on the subject matter of the two lengthy posts I submitted related to Israel and instead choose to stay 'off topic' in hope of reforming your credibility and in an attempt to justify your false accusations. Sadly, in this regard, as in all of your blogs thus far, you have failed to succeed in your endeavors.

Enough of this foolishness, my time is better spent on those who can rationally espouse a point of view. I am here to learn, not to teach. I hoped that by putting out some information I might glean a brilliant point of view.

Now, do you care to comment on the two lengthy articles I posted?

As to your plagiarized remark about Jimmy Carter, I have already refuted such ignorance at length in my reply to Mr. Hobbs posts, which I have invited you to read.

Your plagiarized remark about West Bank acreage is a grotesque oversimplification of a very complex issue. Your insistence that such a point is relevant and worthy of discussion is striking and thus a point I missed entirely, and for that, I apologize.

If Mr. Hobbs would never expect anything Jimmy Carter might write to be meritorious of his time then certainly anything that I might write will be utterly worthless to him so I invite him to skip this section of my post. For other interested parties, I would like to refute some of the points he makes.

Mr. Hobbs says that the very title of Carter’s book strongly implies that he blames the Jews exclusively for the trouble in the Middle East and then cites some facts about conditions inside Israel. As anyone who has read the book knows the book is about Palestine not about Israel. The contention that equating Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians with apartheid is somehow new is an error. This comparison is quite common and not very controversial inside Israel itself.

Ami Ayalon, the former head of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence agency said: "The things a Palestinian has to endure, simply coming to work in the morning, is a long and continuous nightmare that includes humiliation bordering on despair. Is the option of Jewish democracy with apartheid acceptable? I think not."

Yossi Alpher, a former senior adviser in the Israeli government, once warned that with their unwavering support for Israel's approach to Palestine, neoconservatives in the Bush administration have encouraged Israel to create "an apartheid reality that is the very antithesis of the democratization that they preach for the region."

B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights says: “Israel has established in the Occupied Territories a separation cum discrimination regime, in which it maintains two systems of laws, and a person’s rights are based on his or her national origin. This regime is the only of its kind in the world, and brings to mind dark regimes of the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa.”

Israeli historian Benny Morris observes that Zionists could choose from only two options: "the way of South Africa"--i.e., "the establishment of an apartheid state, with a settler minority lording it over a large, exploited native majority"--or "the way of transfer"--i.e., "you could create a homogeneous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority by moving or transferring all or most of the Arabs out."

The editorial board of Israel's leading newspaper Haaretz, published an editorial in September 2006 which said that "the apartheid regime in the territories remains intact; millions of Palestinians are living without rights, freedom of movement or a livelihood, under the yoke of ongoing Israeli occupation,"

In an article, "Road Map to Grand Apartheid? Ariel Sharon's South African Inspiration,” Israeli researcher Gershom Gorenberg concluded that it is "no accident" that Sharon's plan for the West Bank "bears a striking resemblance to the 'grand apartheid' promoted by the old South African regime." Sharon himself reportedly stated that "the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict."

In a 2002 speech in the United States, South Africa's Nobel Peace Prize laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu referred to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Christians and Muslims as "Israeli apartheid."

Former President South Africa Nelson Mandela in a March 28, 2001 speech said: “As to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there is an additional factor. The so-called "Palestinian autonomous areas" are bantustans. These are restricted entities within the power structure of the Israeli apartheid system.”

Mr. Hobbs contends that “The PLO has as part of its charter the destruction of Israel.” This was once true until September 9, 1993 when Arafat changed the charter and issued a statement to Prime Minister Rabin in which he said: “In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid.”

Mr. Hobbs also contends that Israel still tries to negotiate. However there have been no negotiations for the last six years. None. This, in spite of the fact that Saudi Crown prince Abdullah floated an Arab peace plan that was agreed to by all 22 Arab countries at an Arab League summit conference in Beirut in March of 2002. The Arab Peace Initiative states that if Israel would withdraw from the Arab territories occupied in 1967 through implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, backed by the Madrid conference resolutions in 1991, then all of the Arab countries would:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

Surely this proposal, agreed to by all 22 of the Arab countries, would seem to be at least worthy of serious discussion. However neither Israel nor the United States seriously considered the proposal because it would require removal of settlements from within Palestine. The proposal was widely hailed in Europe and completely buried in the United States, much to the public embarrassment of our allies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Have you ever even heard of this proposal?

Many people have tried to mischaracterize the book as criticizing the building of a wall to separate Israel from Palestine. Others have claimed that the military checkpoints are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks in Israel. However the book does not criticize the building of a wall; the contention is the location of the wall, designed and constructed to confiscate land in violation of international law and rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court. Military checkpoints at the borders between Israel and Palestine are perfectly legitimate and checkpoints are, in fact, common in almost all countries. However, of the almost 550 checkpoints, only about 30 are at border crossings. The rest are deep inside Palestine and are of no military or security value to Israel. Here are two links to maps of Palestine, the first a map of the military checkpoints and the second representing the position of the wall and the construction of settlements. Decide for yourself.

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/maps/maps_of_israeli_military_checkpo.htm

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/maps/control_of_land_in_westbank.htm

A last thought in this post about the Palestinian issue: Arafat has been widely denounced for not accepting a proposal which returned 95% of the territory to the Palestinians. This is a disingenuous argument. If somehow the State of Georgia was occupied and the occupying forces offered return the state to us except that they were going to build a 40 foot wall 1000 feet on either side of Interstates 75 and 85 for the length of the state, thereby dividing the state into three parts without access to each other, would this be acceptable? Since this would only amount to 3 tenths of one percent of the state, who could object? On the face of it, returning 99.7% of the land would seem perfectly reasonable would it not?

I welcome Mr. Hobbs decision change his moniker to an anonymous one so as to “protect his future ignorant conversations” as he says; although I suspect that I will recognize him again soon enough.

Finally, Mr. Hobbs addresses me with, “you might have interpreted my reservations for making a comment about your father, especially the negative ones, as being out of respect for your expected feelings of loyalty and love for your dad.” This after entitling one of his postings, “Because he is a traitor,” saying he has a “penchants for lies,” he has, “insane resentment,” and referring to him as, “truly pathetic person,” who, “sold out not only his own personal convictions to ensure his own place in history,” “an embarrassment,” saying “I will however, fail to shed one tear upon the good lord calling him home,” claiming he has “shown nothing but dishonor,” referred to him as, “sick old man” and requesting I tell him to, “shut the *$# up.”

Let me publicly thank Mr. Hobbs for his reservations in making negative comments and since he has finally acknowledged that he has not read the book, I will no longer wait for him to cite references in it to justify his lies about it.

Jeff

You are well versed in the babblings of your Father's strange perception of reality.

You have cited numerous examples of how I am incorrect in opining that your father is indeed a traitor to the United States and embarrassment to the office of the Presidency.

You have chided me more than once about how your father has not gone out of his way to embrace any and every tyrant still living on this planet, in order to gain some spotlight of publicity that will assuage his obvious lack of self-esteem resulting from him squandering his opportunity in the 1970' in leading the free world.

I'll just again remind you of what I believe you never directly challenged, although I must admit your responses have been voluminous and I may have overlooked them, and that it, the 14 advisors that have resoundingly resigned from the Carter Center in protest to your father's book.

What motivation would they have in publicly embarrassing your father outside of finally having found they can no longer stomach your father's anti-Semitism and yes anti-Americanism.

I believe this debate, if that is what we should call this, is about over. You of course are again welcome to comment, but I shall instead sit back and wait. Since your father can not keep his mouth shut, I know I will be forced to see your father's face on the television making another embarrassing comment about the U.S. Either he will be decrying our treatment of terrorists in Gitmo; speak about how our President should be impeached; or be told how stupid it is that Cuba's healthcare system shouldn't be followed here in this country. I am sure he will do something that will raise my ire up to such a level as for me to BLOG him one more time. I will look forward to your comments then and again.

I must honestly admit though Jeff, you do your daddy proud in defending him. I may not agree with him at all nor in your responses, but I believe you defend him in a most civil way (although you take a few sweet pot shots at me, perhaps deservedly so, from time to time) but I do find you trying to make an argument that is academic rather than emotional.

Next time we debate, I'd rather it be on a subject with much more impact on this planet than your father, perhaps whether we should fire Michael Vick or if the TDK parkway should be built should we make it one way, i.e. westbound only.

Let us end celebrating things on which we can agree: (1) the debate here is apparently not of much interest to anyone but us, (2) we are not going to change each others mind, (3) I believe we are both satisfied to let history judge and (4) Jimmy Carter will raise your ire in the future and we can resume at another time. It will not be about impeaching the President or Cuban healthcare, silly ideas, and quite possibly other points of agreement.

I think Hobbs won this 'debate' hands down. JeffC, you often ask for facts but when confronted with them often simply disregard them and bring out a set of unrelated opinions and statements.

If you are going to 'debate' Hobbs, and I wish someone would, you are going to have to address the issues he brings to light and the sources when he cites them.

Changing the rubric (and thus the focus) mid-stream in hopes of reshaping the debate is a sophomoric tactic that really won’t hold up under any form of scrutiny.

As a (struggling) democrat, I can tell you that I cringe when I hear or see President Carter talking foreign policy.

I for one miss the Zell Miller, Sam Nunn, Bill (NOT Hillary) Clinton, moderate democrats of the world. Run Bill Richardson – Run!

I don't know if I'd qualify this debate in that manner. JeffC and Josh have done an admirable job in deflecting and defending Jimmah.

I think that JeffC is much more aware of his father's legacy than I, and can run circles around me in remembering his father's actions and words over the last 30 years.

However, I am thwarted from remembering anything good about the man, save that of habitat for humanity, because Jimmah's continued abuse of his place in history has given him unparalleled "air time" to spew his anti-american and anti-israel venom whenever he can.

So, I'll leave the debate with both Jeff and I, shaking our heads knowing full well, neither of us changed either's minds.

I will say though, Jimmah Carter changed the minds of his 14 advisors at the Carter Center sufficient enough to make them publicly resign. That resignation alone, proves my point more than any words I have used on this blog. Which was the inspiration for me bringing it on this particular Blog.

Jimmah will be remembered, oh yes, he will be remembered.

Soooo....Jimmy Carter says something that the esteemed Richard Hobbs disagrees with, and for that Mr. Hobbs calls the former President "anti American".

You disgust me Hobbs.

Well, I don't like any such rhetoric.

As for those who claim that anyone who does not support the war in Iraq is anti-American, I think of G.K. Chesterton's objections to the Boer War, and his statement:

"A man who says that no patriot should attack the Boer War until it is over is not worth answering intelligently; he is saying that no good son should warn his mother off a cliff until she has fallen over it."

But tell me, basmati, how is this any worse than comparing Bush to Hitler (complete with a corresponding icon calculated to offend) and likening Bush-defenders to Nazis (they are in "lockstep" wearing "jackboots" and are addressed as "Herr" So-and-so)?

Isn't your moral indignation just a bit selective?

----------

My grandson at 22 weeks, via live 3D ultrasound.

I rarely agree with you. I have a feeling if JeffC stays on your points, you will get broken down and quickly. (i.e., 93% of JCs staff DID stay, and those that resigned were - well - not exactly Muslims.)

My free, non-legal advice: Take the left handed compliment and enjoy with it.

Ah C'mon. Now you have me really perplexed.

The "debate" you suggest I won by a knockout might have been flattering, but I suspect it was not intended as much as praise for my techniques in arguing as it was in that the facts, historically taken, are pretty overwhelming in finding that Jimmah was an embarrassment to the Country.

In fact, I've seen some of your contributions to this argument as having more academic weight than many of my own very emotional comments.

Of course, I wouldn't want you to flatter yourself with such admissions on my part. ;>)

Dear Mr. Hobbs,

Having the obvious upper hand of having actually read the book provides me such an acute factual advantage over you, Mr. Hobbs, that usually entering into such a debate creates for me a moral pause akin to squashing a mosquito with a bulldozer usually reserved for uprooting olive trees. However, besides your perverted obsession with President Carter’s funeral, it seems that Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is the apparent topic of conversation. Therefore, I figured that my insight might be helpful to those not so proud with their bigotry that they are capable of understanding factual knowledge and separating it from random regurgitations of opinionated bunk.

I have already clearly described for you, Mr. Hobbs, the difference between a fact and a claim, so I am not going to even try to correct your ramblings about Jimmy Carter “[being] in bed with so many left wing wackos from around the world that he has lost all credibility”, “[lusts] for public recognition”, is a “sick old man”, etc., and just file them away as pure fantasy created to further fuel your self-imposed lust for Carter hatred until you provide at least one single source for your claims, as previously challenged. However, I will break from my purely informative and factual notations to express a kernel of pleasure from your fervent hostility and uncontainable rage against Jeff’s understandably frustrating intellectual superiority.

So, even with the uncited, unsourced, unsupported, maniacal Hobbsian refuse ignored, it is hard for me to believe that anyone, regardless of religion, creed, political party, or even proud bigotry, could think President Carter was an idiot. Even though you may disagree with his conclusions, it is quite discernable that unlike you, Mr. Hobbs, Jimmy Carter is decidedly neither idiotic nor ignorant on any matter on which he opines. So, although I assume you would prefer the topic stay at surface level name calling and boo-hooing, I must now end my digression and present the facts that I so love and so prove you to be the ignorant boor.

First, Jimmy Carter does not, contrary to the majority of his critics, state that “Israel is to blame for all that is wrong in the middle (sic) East”. He states many times that Israel and her Arab neighbors should live in peace together and together share that burden. He even opens (on Page 13, for those following along) by saying that “Current impediments [to peace] have been the desire of some Israelis for Palestinian land, the refusal of some Arabs to accept Israel as a neighbor, the absence of a clear and authoritative Palestinian voice acceptable to Israel, the refusal of both sides to join peace talks without onerous preconditions, the rise in Islamic fundamentalism, and the recent lack of any protracted effort by the United States to pursue peace based on international law and previous agreements ratified by Israel.” In fact, his number 1 most basic precondition for peace is that “Israel’s right to exist within recognized borders – and to live in peace – must be accepted by Palestinians and all other neighbors” (Pg. 17).

Throughout the book, President Carter’s basic premise is that the Palestinians should be given the right to live freely in their own land and have Israel withdrawal to its internationally recognized legal border. I await the Hobbsian reason as to how calling for Israelis to claim sovereign only the land that is theirs somehow “[puts] America and the Office of the Presidency down the toilet with […] idiotic liberal trash talk.”

I will admit that besides a couple itemized lists here and there, and even though President Carter was the only president in the history of the United States that brought peace between any two countries in the Middle East through the Egypt-Israeli Peace Accords, that Jimmy Carter’s outline for peace in his new book is not originally his. It is, in fact, U.N. Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967) that calls for “(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

In Mr. Hobbs’ boundless ignorance, he would have the reader believe that support of such a resolution both is idiotic liberal trash talk and puts the Office of the Presidency down the commode. In fact, Resolution 242 was unanimously approved by the Security Council of the United Nations. Also, just to ensure that the entire world did not succumb to a simultaneous lapse of reason at the time of adoption, Resolution 338, which re-affirmed the United Nations’ commitment to Resolution 242, was unanimously adopted on October 22, 1973.

I continuously am intrigued by the absolute incisiveness of which people claim that Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semite or an anti-intellectual without actually reading his book. Such critics, like Mr. Hobbs, add a lot of nonsubstantiative noise to the debate about Carter’s book. However, such noise, the very idea of such a conversation, creates a dialog that is not automatically and unequivocally pro-Israel, and is the precise reason that President Carter wrote the book. So, thank you, Mr. Hobbs, for opening such a debate.

Josh.

Hobbs must be in the same race as the other bunch of Carter protestors who resigned. That stupid wall they built in Palestine is as bad a symbol to peace as the one we want to build at Mexico.
President Carter is old and I am sure getting tired of political correctness. The problems in that area are the fault of both sides.
Unfortunately, terrorism is the only weapon an inferior nation has to fight for a place of their own. Re: Iraq.
Now we want to eliminate the democratically elected government of Palestine since a faction won that we don't want.
Let them fight their own battles in Iraq and Palestine, but just stop subsidizing either side.

because you can write. The "worst president of my life." So we won't back up to Nixon and Ford (who pardoned his "friend") but he really deserves a pass. Carter. We are up to Ronnie Rayguns...weapons for hostages, illegally funding a secret war and finally bankrupting the USSR before he did the same to US. Let's pass on George I (other than to spawn II). Clinton...hmmmm, Newt shuts down the govt and his worst crime is to fall prey to a 21 y/o Lolita. Economic growth. Stock mkt up. Takes care of Rayguns' debt. Now George II...arrogant. Enters war anyone that was paying attention in high school world history would know would be a civil war, in a country that was never a country. He does it with No EXIT strategy. Presides over one of the most corrupt Congresses in modern times. Squanders (thank gawd) all the political capital of presiding over a 12 yr majority in both houses. & hey, his only admitted mistake was trading Sammy Sosa.
Go back to sleep. Thankfully the adults are running the govt. now, not the fratboy.

Hey Guy.

Click on your name. Pick out the blog you started on. You should see an edit tab at the top. You can edit your blog or even delete it if you so desire. You can close out the bold by using this tag.

TYPE THIS: /strong AND WRAP IT WITH THESE: <>
You have to use the / in front of "strong" to close the bold.

You can close out the italics by this tag:

TYPE THIS: /em AND WRAP IT WITH THESE: <>
You have to use the / in front of the "em" to close the emphasis.

Also maybe THIS will help.

After you go back in and edit your blog you will be able to close both the "strong" and the "em" in order to get the proper look you desire.