Even assuming it to be true of the United States, the latter of which is Dhimmi Carter’s view, I’ll take the latter thank you. It is certainly true of Carter.
Christopher Hitchens skewers Dhimmi Carter.
The latest absurdities to emerge from Jimmy Carter’s big, smug mouth.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, May 21, 2007, at 11:35 AM ET
Almost always, when former President Jimmy Carter opens his big, smug mouth, he has already made the psychological mistake that is going to reduce his words to absurdity. When he told the press last week that the Bush administration had aroused antipathy around the world, he might have been uttering no more than a banality. But no, he had to try to invest it with a special signature flourish.
Read it all at the link above. Highly recommended.
Any of those longing for surrender in the mid-East and price controls on gasoline, who were ten years old or more during Carter’s putative presidency, should be required to read this before they next vote.
OTOH, they shouldn’t vote even then. Not because they are doomed to repeat a past they can’t remember, but because they’re ignorant of current events.
I would like to nominate Mr. Carter for a new category of Nobel Prize: “Most evil committed in the name of smug good intentions.” Extra credit for vacuous preening.
Alice the Camel reminds me of a great passage from Paul Johnson’s Intellectuals. It serves as a partial explanation for Mr. Carter.
Almost all intellectuals profess to love humanity and to be working for its improvement and happiness. But it is the idea of humanity they love, rather than the actual individuals who compose it. They love humanity in general rather than men and women in particular. Loving humanity as an idea, they can then produce solutions as ideas. Therein lies the danger, for when people conflict with the solution as idea, they are first ignored or dismissed as unrepresentative; and then, when they continue to obstruct the idea, they are treated with growing hostility and categorized as enemies of humanity in general.
Hitchen’s article and an email from me prompted Paladin to supply a list of the worst Presidents of the 20th century:
Here’s my list of the 10 worst in the 20 century only (Sorry, Andy Jackson):
5. FDR (would be higher but for WWII)
6. GHW Bush
Which connects a question being asked by Amy Ridenour…
…to a conversation Paladin and I had about Libertarians this afternoon.
I suggested one might look to the Reason Foundation and/or Reason Magazine as a source for viable Libertarian congressional candidates.
Lynn Scarlett, the Rachel Carson apologist who elicited Ridenour’s question, is a former president of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian nonprofit based in Los Angeles.
The problem might be that the libertarian tent, by definition, is too big. Lynn Scarlett must be considered a libertarian spokesperson, and she’s praising the junk scientist responsible for big government decisions resulting in millions of deaths from malaria? Amy Ridenour might better have asked about an Ode to Pol Pot. Or Carson’s natural heir, Al Gore.
How do I know Carson’s science is junk? Well, it’s only fair to give Reason Magazine a chance to rebut. It is a big tent.