The Weak in (National) Review - The Carter bashing continues - all because he won the Nobel Prize and Ronald Reagan didn't. Talk about a case of "Nobel Prize" envy. I've never seen anything like it. Jay Nordlinger leads off his more recent Impromptoupees column with a predictable sigh and lament. And John O'Sullivan writes an equally angst-ridden piece on the affair. O'Sullivan writes that Carter's win came not from his global acts of charity and mercy, but because of "his marked aversion to anything that smacked of armed force while he was president." O'Sullivan thinks this is somehow a not-so-good thing. But I beg to differ. I think it is a heroic thing. We should all be averse to the violence of armed force in conflict resolution. But notice that "being averse" does not mean "unwilling to use." I am convinced that Jimmy Carter would not have hesitated to use armed force as a last resort to protect us and to preserve our freedoms. He should be lauded for not considering the use of armed force as a "first resort." Besides which, "Peace" is the antithesis to "War" - and the Nobel "Peace" Prize SHOULD recognize efforts that represent an "aversion to anything that smacks of armed force." I'd be surprised if it reflected anything less.