Oh I agree. It surprises me that she’s still regarded so highly by so many.
My vote for #1 would be the guy that invented the Dewey Decimal System. Damn his eyes!
Is any particular part of her philosophy vile enough to tell us about? I read Atlas Shrugged. I thought she went a little overboard claiming she could deduce morality through reason alone, but was otherwise nothing more than an early advocate for libertarianism.
It’s not that surprising, because 98% of people know absolutely nothing about her except that “she helped the poor.” Perhaps haf those people know what country she worked in. If all you know about her is that she helped poor people, she sounds like a saint.
The actual details of her work are, of course, a subject of debate (and I wouldn’t necessarily believe everything Christopher Hitchens has to say, either) but most people don’t know the details.
Time to get over the war, Lib. I’m a Southerner myself, with roots in north Georgia that go back before the Trail of Tears. Sure, Sherman was a son of a bitch, but Stonewall Jackson and Bedford Forrest were sons of bitches, too. It was war, and in war hard things must often be done. For that reason, many things we would ordinarily consider inexcusable crimes or atrocities must be forgiven or overlooked. Sherman understood that he had to defeat not only a hostile army but to suppress a hostile population as well; he was fighting not invaders, but rebels. Sherman thought the best way to do this was “to make Georgia howl,” and that’s exactly what he did.
Within the context of the war, what Sherman did was perfectly acceptable.
That would be Mevil Dewey, to you, sir.
I would like to cast my vote for the writers of the No child left behind act which is dumbing down our kids and teaching them to the tests.
I’m not sure I agree. Certainly the Vietnamese Boat People didn’t think so, nor the estimated 1 million people imprisoned without charges. A friend of mine was one of those boat people (he was a baby at the time) and his family has nothing but good things to say about American efforts in Vietnam. The government oppressed ethnic Chinese enough to lead to another war with China. The Vietnam Communist regime was responsible for far more deaths, refugees, torture, etc. than Bush yet you defend them and skewer Bush.
I said they’ve got a better future/present now. Certainly a lot of blood was needlessly shed getting here from there, but all that was at least as much the fault of the Americans as of NV and the VC (we could have avoided the whole thing by letting the national elections scheduled under the Geneva Conference go forward, though Ho Chi Minh should win in a landslide), and Vietnamese today do not wish the American troops had stayed in a day longer. I’m basing that on the responses of Vietnamese (not Vietnamese-American, born and raised and living in the 'Nam) Doper GeekMustNotDie in this thread.
Iraq has been going through a continual civil war since shortly after the invasion. It has been moderated by the fact that the various factions of the insurgency have the American troops as a common enemy – but, still, sometimes, when they’re not fighting the Americans, they fight each other. After we pull out, then the real fighting begins, and Iraq will go through a similar period of bloodshed to Vietnam’s, which is more Bush’s fault than Hussein’s; but I’m confident Iraq will, like Vietnam, settle down eventually and be prosperous, and safe, and as free as can reasonably be expected under the circumstances. But we have to pull out before the process can even start; and we can’t help things one little bit by staying on, we can only delay.
As for my own list of worst Americans I tried to use this criteria: (1) actions directly responsible for affecting the most people; (2) severity of the pain caused; (3) without that person history would likely have been different.
People like Phelps is out because his influence is non-existent (IMO). Philosophers like Rand are out because their actions are at most indirect (I’m not agreeing that Rand is evil; just using her as an example.) Looking through history I’d say that slavery and treatment of Native Americans to be our two biggest blights.
It’s hard to pin down one person for slavery. As an example, James Madison fought for its continuance during the Constitutional Convention but his overall brilliance exceeds this (one could tar the whole Constitutional Convention for upholding slavery.) Rabid slavery advocate Edmund Ruffin might fit the bill but it’s hard to imagine things being much different if he had never been born, same for Jefferson Davis. So I’m going to somewhat arbitrarily choose Roger Taney, author of the Dred Scott Decision.
For treatment of the Native Americans it’s harder to find someone worse that Andrew Jackson. Jackson’s case is somewhat mitigated by some of the good things he did as president but it’s hard to overcome such plagues like the Indian Removal Act.
Honorable mention goes to (some already mentioned):
John Wilkes Booth - Reconstruction likely would have been much smoother with Lincoln at the helm.
South Carolina senator Ben Tillman for comments when President Roosevelt entertained a black man in the White House.
Well, no, it was not a foreign country, precisely because people like Sherman were willing to do what is necessary to prevent them from becoming so. But I take your point that you’re focusing on people who (at least in your view) were damaging to America. As much as I disagree with including Sherman in that list, that is at least a qualitative difference between him and generals in other wars, who were only killing foreigners.
How do you know that in 30 years Iraqis won’t be better off as well? They are certainly starting from a better position than the Vietnamese did in 1975.
I’m sure there are plenty of Vietnamese who would agree. However, their opinion would certainly be different from the millions of refugees and political prisoners I discussed above.
They were in civil war well before the invasion. The Kurds were gassed by Hussein during one of the uprisings.
Which is why I am against an indiscriminate pull-out (which is a different argument which has been hashed out before.) I believe, however, that when we do eventually pull out Iraq will be in a better position to succeed then if we had done nothing.
Like what? I hope you’re not counting his dumbass veto of the Second Bank of the United States.
Jackson made the President an office of the people which I believe to be good (it helped lead to such events as the election of Abraham Lincoln). His strong response to the secessionist movement was another positive.
Forrest’s conduct in the Battle of Fort Pillow was more reprehensible.
I’m assuming they will be. But that depends on our pulling out now.
What people? My ancestors were people, and it certainly wasn’t an office of them.
Either it was mistaken or you misunderstood. It is trivially easy to document the movie’s credits with Google.
Liberal, I find it interesting that you list Sherman fourth, yet you list nobody from the Confederacy.
Also, was Sherman some rogue psychopath laying waste to the south of his own accord, or does his boss Abraham Lincoln share some responsibility for the ‘March to the Sea’ (maybe even more than Sherman)?
Einstein? People associated with the Bomb? Really, Lib?
The general view, among *knowledgeable *historians anyway, is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives than they cost, by ending the war. That’s what the Allied decisionmakers at the time thought too. Following the general view, those people were all heroes.
But you not only disagree, you think it was as blindingly obvious then as it is now that the bomb was Utter Unmitigated Evil that only the most evil persons imaginable could have used it, no matter how many more lives it would have cost. If you really meant that seriously, you cannot expect it to be taken seriously.