I swear, on the name of all that is Good, Right, and Holy, that I WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER PURCHASE ANOTHER TIME MAGAZINE AS LONG AS I SHALL LIVE- and I plan on being ornery while I’m still drawing breath for a good, long time.
How sad is it when the face of the forces of hatred, ignorance, and oppression is celebrated by one of the (formerly, at least) most respected media outlets that this country has to offer. Are the maroons who make these decisions completely BLIND to the reality of the world that has been created by Bush and his neo-Conservative fellow travellers? Have we become so undemanding of our leaders that we are willing to lionize the inept, the venal, and the thoroughly corrupt who lead us? And then people wonder why some of us want to relocate to Canada….
I cannot believe that any thinking, rational, lucid human being could possibly think that our Prevaricator-in-Chief would be worthy of ANYTHING resembling this sort of recognition. Hmm…let’s review his qualifications, shall we?
He stole Florida, and with it the 2000 Presidential election right out from under the nose of Democrats. His minions (including his Daddy’s friends on the US Supreme Court) used their power and influence to block the counting of legimately-cast votes from Dade County, among others.
On 9.11, his deer-in-headlight reaction to the terrorist attacks typified his Daddy-what-do-I-do-now? leadership style. Leaders lead…they do not fly aimlessly around the country trying to find a safe rabbit hole while all hell breaks loose around them.
He used 9.11 as a pretext for his long-desired war on Iraq. By fabricating intelligence on Iraq’s alleged possession of WMDs, and by ignoring dissenting (and decidedly more reasoned and intelligent) voices in his own Administration, he is responsible for the deaths of 1300+ American soldiers…and for what? Good Morning, Vietnam….
He has helped to create an atmosphere in which hatred is once again fashionable. Gays, Democrats, Muslims, France…we no longer lack for scapegoats. Besides, it certainly is easier than taking personal responsibility for our own siutation, eh??
He has given life to Josef Goebbel’s “Big Lie”. Given that something like 70% of those who voted for Bush feel that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9.11 attacks, it hasn’t been much of a challenge to indoctrinate the American voting public. Apparently, we are an exceedingly undemanding lot. Critical thinking? Nah, I’ll take “Let me bend over and grab my ankles- you can drive” for 500, Alex. Americans will believe ANYTHING if it is fed to them often enough.
If I seem angry, it’s because I am. I’m so tired of being surrounded by the ignorant, the undemanding, and the intellectually inflexible. By and large, Americans make up their minds based on an absolute minimum of information. You can almost hear minds slamming shut, steeling themselves against anything that might shake the certainty of their faith. I am baffled by the collective American refusal to face the reality of what they have voted into office.
Have any of y’all bothered to pay attention to what is happening in Iraq? Do you realize that over 1300 American soldiers have died, and thousands more have been wounded?
Can someone PLEASE explain to me how the war in Iraq is protecting our freedoms here at home? HOW in the world was Iraq a threat to the Homeland? And spare me the tired Republican chant about how you would rather fight the terrorists in the streets of Baghdad than the streets of New York. Before the invasion of Iraq, there WAS no insurgency. That is purely a result of George W. Bush’s war.
Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, 1300 Americans have died in a pointless war of aggression, and yet he is being lionized as a hero? Bill Clinton lied about getting his helmet polished by an intern, and he was impeached…so who’s the criminal now?
I am so tired of hearing Americans proudly saying “My Billy in is Iraq protecting our freedom here at home!” Protecting us from what threat? The one that we created when we invaded Iraq? How, exactly, had Iraq threatened our freedom previously? Therein, perhaps, lies Bush’s greatest crime. Instead of leading, he has told Americans exactly what they want to hear. He has become a hero by convincing Americans of what they were predisposed to believe to begin with.
Instead of leading, instead of being honest with the American people, George W. Bush and his minions have hammered on a consistent, if untrue, message that resonates with the electorate. Given that we are an exceedingly stupid and undemanded aggregate, it probably wasn’t much of a challenge…not when you have timid media like TIME to do the heavy lifting for you.
TIME will never see another dime of my money…not that they will actually care or notice. I simply cannot in good conscience support the bottom line of a media organization that so willingly and easily glosses over the true record of George W. Bush.
WE DESERVE BETTER.
On the other hand, please remembr that the criteria is that it goes to the person who influenced the world the most FOR GOOD OR ILL during the previous year. That's why Hitler got it one year, and (IIRC) Khomeni another. I'm sure you could make the case for one side or the other...
So if you aren't going to buy any more copies of Time, let it be because they are a crappy magazine, not who they picked in a given year.
Bush just tied with Stalin for "Man of the Year" honors from Time, both now have two covers.
Well, since I rarely buy TIME as it is, I am cognizant of the fact that effect of my boycott will be purely symbolic...sort of like a moquito on an elephant's ass.
Nonetheless, Bryan's comment does draw a troubling comparison. The truly disturbing reality is that 51% of Americans support the C-Student-in-Chief.
I wonder if I can give a DUMB@$$ AWARD to 51% of the American electorate?
As a person who's political views lean more libertarian than red or blue, I have issues with both of the dominant political parties today. However, I can not help but recognize that with Ronald Reagan in the White House, Libya's support of terrorism was neutralized (amid cries of foul on the part of the French and domestic socialists) and that this was accomplished by the United States taking a clear stand on right vs. wrong at a global level. When US jets shot down Libyan piloted Russian MIGs, the NY Times wet their pants and "progressives" predicted that it could only lead to more terrorism. They could not have been more wrong (until today.)
Post 9/11, the US determined that the governing entities of Afghanistan, while falling short of clear state sponsored terrorism, did enable, aid and assist those who organized the attacks on US soil. As a result, the brave men and women of the US military accomplished in a number of months what the evil empire formerly known as the USSR failed to do in a greater number of years. So now, Osama is reduced to giving pep talks to Michael Moore and his followers via .WAV files.
The evil dictator of Iraq had a bone to pick with the US over his expulsion from Kuwait. He also had some members on the Security Council of the (num-nuts) UN in his back pocket financially. WMDs or not, Iraq was the most fertile ground for those with a common interest of destroying the US.
Bottom line: Our success in Iraq sends a crystal clear message to those who continue to plot attacks on our nation and the freedom it stands for. We are not weak, and we have the capability to strike preemptively at anyone whom we think supports evil deeds like the 9/11 attacks.
Of course, if you think that keeping terrorism at a "nuisance level" is satisfactory, then this sounds very hawkish. But if your among those who have declared a war of terrorism on the United States, the nuisance level goal is an admission of weakness, and an engraved invitation for further attacks.
Bob,
Among the fallacies of your comments:
> As a result, the brave men and women of the US military accomplished in a number of months what the evil empire formerly known as the USSR failed to do in a greater number of years.
The job is not finished. Afghanistan is still a tribal mess outside of Kabul. And while the United States can take credit for doing the heavy lifting during the invasion itself, you're once again highlighting the arrogance of the Administration by not pointing out the hard work that was done by Britain, Spain, France, Canada, Italy, etc.
Indeed, the work being completed in Afghanistan is held up in large part by these allies, including Canada, while the Bush Administration lost interest once the military invasion was complete, and started setting their sights on Iraq.
> So now, Osama is reduced to giving pep talks to Michael Moore and his followers via .WAV files.
You know, I don't think Northstar has ever accused you of being a traitor to America for consistently opposing the policies of the Democratic party. The link you make between Osama Bin Laden, Michael Moore and "his followers" is spurious and vindictive. This is precisely the sort of rhetoric that turns a debate over policy into a scatological slanging match.
You greatly oversimplify the concerns and objections others have had over the foreign policy of successive American administrations (objections to U.S. policy on Libya are limited primarily to an illegal and ineffective bombing run made by the Reagan administration. There was, however, widespread support, even in France, for the massive sanctions which eventually brought Libya to heel). You greatly oversimplify the merits of the administrations you support and the flaws of the administrations you dislike.
So, what you really have is not an argument designed to convince Northstar of anything, but an opinion paper that's frankly not well researched. My question has to be, if you don't intend to be any less biased than you accuse Northstar of being, how is it you intend to claim any hold on the truth?
I have to agree with Greg, by the way. There's no doubt in my mind that Bush was the most influential person of 2004. For good or ill. I would have preferred it if blogs had been the Time's choice, but their ultimate choice is very defendible.
I also agree with Greg and James on the Time cover, and particularly with James on the influence of blogs during the year. In (what I hope will turn out to be a brief) response to James comment, I'd like to thank James for mentioning the other members of the coalition. On my part it was an omission of expedience, not arrogance. Certainly, the sacrifices made by those countries were no less painful than those made by the US, and in proportion, every bit as helpful in accomplishing the mission.
I'm as accurate as my time, and the point of my comments permit. The outrage and the associated predictions of doom surrounding the incident outside of Libya's airspace predated the more memorable (and effective) bombing James recalled, and is more illustrative of my point, that an appeasement based foreign policy on the part of the US is historically ineffective, counterproductive and in today's environment invites terrorism. The event in question occurred during the cold war, was a marked departure from the appeasement based Datant of the Carter administration, and is indicative of the kind of American foreign policies that helped to bring down an evil empire and liberate millions of people in the former satellite nations of the USSR.
You are half-correct James, my comments are indeed my opinion, and opinions do tend to be, well... OPINIONATED!
However, my comments are better researched than you give them credit for, and less effectively refuted by your superior writing skills than you may think. The relationship you draw above between truth and bias is an apples and oranges comparison.
Truth is reality, and I don't think you've identified anything in my comment that was untrue. Bias shapes an individual's perception of reality, and I would be foolish to think that my opinions could sway Northstar's bias. The time I waste and enjoy here at TPRS is purposed to challenge the extreme bias that is the theme of this site, and (hopefully) to encourage fellow fans to examine their own filtering of reality, as this site does for me.
I'm compelled to correct James on two things he mentions above. I have never accused Northstar or Michael Moore of being a traitor. That James puts such words in my mouth so that he has something to refute says a lot for the quality of my comment. Call my opinion of Moore vindictive all you like, but the point remains that the talented film maker does indeed have a faith based following, and the truth of the matter is that he may have done his cause more harm than good.
Truth is more than just what we make of it. I'm not a post-modernist. There are standards of evidence and there are standards of argument, and you need to back up your assertions a bit if you want an argument to get to be anything more than just a slanging match. And if you can't speak in absolutes, don't. If you can see merits in the other side in an argument, speak them out. This gives us the best opportunity to step beyond the rhetoric and actually come to a conclusion we can both be pleased with.
An example of a statement that is too absolute:
> Libya's support of terrorism was neutralized (amid cries of foul on the part of the French and domestic socialists) and that this was accomplished by the United States taking a clear stand on right vs. wrong at a global level
My problems with the statement:
- You single out the French and "domestic socialists" as opponents to a "clear stand" in U.S. policy against Libya.
- You suggest that the United States' "clear stand" was primarily responsible for bringing Libya to heel.
The reality is, disagreement over what to do with Libya amounted to concern over the Reagan administration launching an air strike against Libya in the 1980s using planes launched from the United Kingdom. The air strike was, at best, questionable, and it was opposed by every state in Europe except the United Kingdom. Ultimately the air strikes it were ineffective. It was a massive sanction campaign that ultimately brought Libya to heel, a campaign where the heavy lifting was done by the United States, France and the United Kingdom through the structure of the U.N.
So, it's really quite remarkable: you exaggerate the level of dissent on the U.S. policy on Libya, but you shrink down the number of players who had concerns. You claim a lot of credit for the United States, and yet you suggest that anybody who disagrees with America are either socialists or Frenchmen.
And from certain sides of the blogosphere, where commentators are not ashamed to call France "the most useless country in the world", it's clear that for some, labelling somebody French or socialist is intended as quite a put-down.
You would make more progress bringing Northstar around to a common point of view if you didn't rise to antagonism with such antagonistic language of your own.
Thank you James, I'll keep those blogging tips in mind.