Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2004...

[Petra]

Who do you think it might be?

Go on, take a guess.

show spoiler

George W. Fucking Bush, that's who.

Time chose Bush for sticking to his guns and for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his 10-gallon-hat.

I just can't believe it.

[viscousmemories]

I can't say I'm surprised they did it, but I am surprised by the comments quoted in that article. "for sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his 10-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters this time around that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years" seems more critical than complimentary. To me, anyway.

[seebs]

Keep in mind, PotY isn't necessarily a compliment; it's the person who changed things the most, it doesn't carry any implication that the changes are good.

[livius drusus]

Hitler was PotY twice, wasn't he?

[ApostateAbe]

Didn't Osama make Person of the Year in 2002 or something?

[ApostateAbe]

Nevermind.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Hitler was PotY twice, wasn't he?

You're kidding!


Although, if what seebs says is accurate, then I guess that makes sense. Errr....I think.

Be nice if they would recognise those who have made advancements in medicine or science or something. "Person of the Year" sounds like an honour, not a criticism, and I'm not sure we should be honouring arseholes.


Bugga, I'm getting kicked off again! Fascist sister! Doesn't she know I'm THE OLDEST and as such get to make ALL the calls, even when in HER house using HER computer! I'm of a good mind to just beat her up.

'cepting she has the strength to kill me!

[Petra]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Didn't Osama make Person of the Year in 2002 or something?

Hmmm. I need to research this PotY thing a bit more, methinks....

[ApostateAbe]

Here is the wikipedia Person of the Year listing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_the_Year

Hitler made it once. Ayotallah Komeini made it once. The Person of the Year is supposed to be "the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news." For that reason, Osama bin Laden was almost chosen, but they feared public sass.

[livius drusus]

Thanks for doing the actual research, Abe.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by lunachick

Who do you think it might be?

Go on, take a guess.

show spoiler

George W. Fucking Bush, that's who.

Time chose Bush for sticking to his guns and for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his 10-gallon-hat.

I just can't believe it.

It took me 2 seconds to guess.

[Dingfod]

I guess it doesn't mean that much, the two men responsible for the most murders in the 20th century were named Time Man of the Year, Adolph Hitler once and Josef Stalin twice. Nice company for Dubya.

[Darren]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Didn't Osama make Person of the Year in 2002 or something?

I think he was in the running for it, seriously.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Darren

I think he was in the running for it, seriously.

He was in the running in 2001, but Time wimped out and played politics instead.

It is an inescapable fact of life that the bad, the evil, and the notorious often have a great deal influence on world affairs, and Time's annual "Man of the Year" selection is simply an acknowledgement of the person they perceive to have been that year's most influential individual, whatever the nature of that influence. Some of Time's previous "Man of the Year" selections such as Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Ayatullah Khomeini (or even Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson) were not intended to heap laudatory praise upon those persons, but to simply recognize their profound effect upon world history.

So, by the standards Time has employed for more than seventy years, Osama bin Laden is an obvious choice as someone to be considered for designation as 2001's "Man of the Year." Certainly some may believe that there are better choices (i.e., that there are other people who have had more of an influence on world events in the past year than Osama bin Laden) or that as nothing more than a terrorist (i.e., someone lacking any official political standing) Osama bin Laden shouldn't be afforded any publicity at all — good or bad — by an American national news magazine, and those are legitimate issues one might choose to raise with Time. But complaints along the lines of "How dare you even consider honoring a murderer like Osama bin Laden!" are likely to fall on deaf ears, because honor is not what Time's "Man of the Year" is about.

Update: Time avoided the controversy by naming New York mayor Rudy Giuliani as their Person of the Year for 2001, disdaining Osama bin Laden as a "garden variety terrorist":

Though we spent hours debating the pros and cons of naming Osama bin Laden, it ultimately became easy to dismiss him," said managing editor Jim Kelly. "He is not a larger-than-life figure with broad historical sweep . . . he is smaller than life, a garden-variety terrorist whose evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes."

-source

[Darren]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

He was in the running in 2001, but Time wimped out and played politics instead.

Thanks for the update viscuous. Very inconsistant aren't they, the people at Time? I mean, does Giuliani have broad historical sweep just because his evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes? I thought he was just a common-or-garden mayor, and I honestly doubt whether too many people outside the U.S. know his name or care, whereas Osama on the other hand.... well who doesn't know about him?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Darren

Thanks for the update viscuous. Very inconsistant aren't they, the people at Time? I mean, does Giuliani have broad historical sweep just because his evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes? I thought he was just a common-or-garden mayor, and I honestly doubt whether too many people outside the U.S. know his name or care, whereas Osama on the other hand.... well who doesn't know about him?

Yeah it's pretty ridiculous. I guess the key to being Person of the Year is to be a more effective terrorist like Hitler, Stalin and Khomeini.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I guess the key to being Person of the Year is to be a more effective terrorist like Hitler, Stalin and Khomeini.

Or Shrubya, a rank amateur by comparison to Hitler and Stalin, but is still responsible for many times more deaths than Osama. Bush is the biggest killer of the year, I guess.

[Adora]

Doesn't surprise me, since Time's person of the year has usually been the person with the biggest impact on the Western world, good or bad.

As for biggest killer of the year, I'd wonder if that title doesn't go to the Sudanese government by now. Does anyone know the approximate numbers of killings in Darfur (and connected regions) since the year started?

[maddog]

[spelling Nazi mini-rant]It's Adolf! with an "f", NOT a "ph"!!!
[/spelling Nazi mini-rant]

#136

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by maddog

[spelling Nazi mini-rant]It's Adolf! with an "f", NOT a "ph"!!!
[/spelling Nazi mini-rant]

Whatever. I'm not German, you know.


And I thought I was pedantic.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Whatever. I'm not German, you know.

Actually, neither was he.

Originally Posted by warrenly

And I thought I was pedantic.

I know, I know. Fingernails, chalkboard, can't help myself. You weren't the only one, you know. Apparently the Time Magazine people did that too, in the quotes above. It happens all over the place. But I can only see it so many times before my head-a-splode. Sorry. Spelling Nazi mini-rant derail over. sorry. I go 'way now. sorry.

#137

[flufeemunk]

Originally Posted by Darren

Thanks for the update viscuous. Very inconsistant aren't they, the people at Time? I mean, does Giuliani have broad historical sweep just because his evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes? I thought he was just a common-or-garden mayor, and I honestly doubt whether too many people outside the U.S. know his name or care, whereas Osama on the other hand.... well who doesn't know about him?

If you looked into the 9-11 commission report, it certainly shows he fucked up quite a bit along the way, actually.

[justaman]

I agree that PotY should be George Bush, but did y'all actually read the article?? It was hardly objective. I mean we're saying being picked doesn't necessarily equate to giving praise, but that's what Time does. George Bush The Great, it was ridiculous. In the following pages it has some commentaries from 6 historians, presumably to give an appearance of being objective in their appraisal. Those commentaries were hardly confronting. The worst it got was a wishy-washy 'time will tell whether his decisions will be considered favourably or not'. There was only one mention of misleading the public to go to war in the entire thing that I saw. Frankly, I can't think of a worse thing a contemporary western leader is likely to do, to intentionally mislead the public in order to popularise a personal agenda. Yet still he is loved. I can no longer fault he the President, I am forced to fault the 65,000,000+ people who think he's tops.

I will never live in the U.S.
Ever.