« My Christmas Wish | Main | What if you don’t believe in anything? »
OK, but who's the smirking f*****g moron next to the two dead white guys?
by northstar at 06:09 PM on December 19, 2004
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 freedoms 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.
comments (25)
Boo hoo. You know, Time doesn't always pick saints. If they didn't close off their site to non subscribers, I'd give you a list of past ones.
by MrBlank at December 19, 2004 6:22 PM
Well who else did you expect to be picked as person of the year by the "liberal" media? Yeah, so much for that idea. I'm actually surprised that Time would pick Bush, and one of the reasons they gave was his "sticking to his guns" and his ten gallon hat leadership style.
I think Bush has started a trend that you describe very well, "Americans make up their minds based on an absolute minimum of information." And he takes it further by then actively avoiding information which contradicts his point of view. He's elevated consistency to such a level that it outweighs the value of critical review - people whp question are demonized.
I'm actually surprised Time would make such a political decision, given that the country is so divided. Half the country likes Bush, half the country wants "anybody but Bush". Half the country doesn't even know why we are at war and people are dying everyday.....sounds more like most divisive confusing person of the year. Thanks Time for suggesting such a wonderful hero.
by chris at December 19, 2004 9:17 PM
Hello? Is anyone paying attention? Time's 'Person of the Year' isn't about heros. Hitler and Stalin are on the fucking list.
http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/stories/
by MrBlank at December 20, 2004 1:02 AM
hey i completely agree. americans believe everything the conservative media broadcasts. if more people would open their minds to other sources of information besides fox news and cnn, the truth would start to surface. i have had plenty of arguments with my conservative high school drop out uncles, my farmer grandfather, my girlfriends deadbeat dad who makes 30 grand a year, only to come out on the losing end because they insist bush is a saint. its rediculous to think that a leader can have so much support, yet so much hatred amongst his people. and the war in iraq? hah. wait for a stalingrad-esque event take place that changes the entire shape of this nation. then maybe the dumbass neocons will open their minds.
i write about this kid of shit all the time. infact, u wanna swap links? take a look at my site, and drop me a comment in the latest post and let me know. talk to ya soon.
Bobby
www.ndyccm.com
by bobby at December 20, 2004 4:39 AM
Funny you mention that silly war. We got into a big discussion about it. You know how the Red Sox finally beat the Yankees? Well when the Viet Cong and and Somali warlords kicked the US military's ass, it emboldened everyone else to think they might have a chance against the juggernaut. Hence: the "insurgency."
by anna at December 20, 2004 8:01 AM
Mr. Blank, everyone here knows that Time's man of the year is sometimes an evil dictator. The difference is that Hitler & Stalin were not celebrated in their "Man of the Year" status for "sticking to their guns" and "ten gallon hat leadership style."
by Linz at December 20, 2004 10:03 AM
MAN OF THE YEAR: That Mexican guy who killed that guy he had sex with and started eating him for three days in his cardboard hut.
by LOCKHEED at December 20, 2004 10:16 AM
"Celebrated?"
"For sharpening the debate until the choices bled, for reframing reality to match his design, for gambling his fortunes—and ours—on his faith in the power of leadership, … "
That does not sound like celebrating to me. Stalin was picked once for becoming the U.S.'s ally in WWII. Would you also call that "Celebrated?"
I swear, people will find any reason they can to bitch about the pres.
by MrBlank at December 20, 2004 11:00 AM
It's hard not to "bitch" (i.e. express growing concern?) when every measure of a successful nation is plummeting. Dollar falling. Soldiers dying, more every day, in a poorly researched and poorly executed war. We have big huge problems. People have every right to vocalize their worries about the health of our country. This isn't trivial "bitching" here.
To counter your Time quote with another, "Bush ran big and bold and specific all at the same time, rivaling Reagan in breadth of vision and Clinton in tactical ingenuity." It is a matter of opinion whether that article's overall tone is not one of admiration, and I doubt you and I will agree.
In Time's defense, the person of the year is supposed to be selected as "the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news" and not "the greatest person." As far as news generation, this would no doubt be Bush.
by Linz at December 20, 2004 11:35 AM
It's not bitching to express your dissatisfaction with the president. It is bitching when you use trivial things to repeat said dissatisfaction. Was this a post about the Time article or a rant against Bush? To me this kind of thing strengthens Time's decision.
You're right about the tone of the article. Even so, I have to counter with a reply to this: "Bush ran big and bold and specific all at the same time, rivaling Reagan in breadth of vision and Clinton in tactical ingenuity." I bet Time had similar praise for Hitler's propaganda tactics. (Not that I am comparing Bush to Hitler. That would be dumb.)
by MrBlank at December 20, 2004 11:50 AM
"....Time's 'Person of the Year' isn't about heros". I disagree. Sometimes it's about highlighting a very influential person whether they are good or bad, but more often than not it's about trying to create an icon representing something with positive value.
Thanks for pointing to the list of past POTY. I couldn't find it before posting above, and after looking at it, I have to retract my statement of surprise. If you're the prez, the probability of making Time's list is very high. But I think their list is a little hokey and stochastic - which is not at all surprising when you try to narrow down all of a year's history to one choice. For instance picking Andy Grove over Steve Jobs as a leader of the digital revolution.
Anyway, I certainly don't need a reason to bitch about the president. But given some their past picks I would have hoped Time could have made a less cloying choice. But they didn't so I'm bitching about it. There are so many great people in the world, and I've never felt so hopeless about our society. I wish Time could shed some light instead of highlighting dimness. There's a difference.
by chris at December 20, 2004 11:53 AM
I guess my feeling is that Bush would rightfully be person of the year, but the article was not truly an objective one. I feel that the articles about Stalin & Hitler likely did not celebrate them & paint them like go-it-alone cowboy heroes in this way.
I have a feeling about media in general that they are becoming less & less objective as well as more mushy and digestible. My friend & I are email-bitching about this right now because a response letter she wrote to an op-ed piece was printed in the Atlanta paper today, but it got butchered (big words removed, all sentences made tiny).
Check this out, it's a neat video theorizing the fall of New York Times in 2014. Linky thing not working, so here's the address: http://epic.chalksidewalk.com/
My guess is Northstar did not know the criterion for deciding person of the year (which I did not either before looking it up), but I don't think his main points about the president were trivial at all.
by Linz at December 20, 2004 12:12 PM
Chris has finally done it: He's stumped Joe Vocabulary:
sto·chas·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (st-kstk)
adj.
Of, relating to, or characterized by conjecture; conjectural.
Statistics.
Involving or containing a random variable or variables: stochastic calculus.
Involving chance or probability: a stochastic stimulation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Greek stokhastikos, from stokhasts, diviner, from stokhazesthai, to guess at, from stokhos, aim, goal. See stegh- in Indo-European Roots.]
by anna at December 20, 2004 1:29 PM
How could an article picking the person of the year possibly be objective? Choosing a single person out of the 6 billion on the planet for anything, much less "Person of the Year," is by its very nature subjective. Getting upset over Time's decision makes about as much sense as arguing with someone about what their favorite color is. You may dislike the president, but your dislike of the man doesn't in any way invalidate Time's decision.
by mg at December 20, 2004 2:40 PM
I didn’t say Northstar’s points were trivial. I said it was trivial to use the Time article as an anti-Bush rant.
I will say that his points are wrong.
“He stole Florida …”
Talk about beating a dead horse. The president is elected by the Electoral College. Recounting popular votes over and over was pointless. The numbers were all within the margin of error — essentially it was a tie.
“Leaders lead...they do not fly aimlessly around the country trying to find a safe rabbit hole …”
Leaders can’t lead if they are dead. Any president would have done the same. Your point is moot.
“… he is responsible for the deaths of 1300+ American soldiers …”
Last I checked Congress has to approve the president’s decision to go to war. We elect our representatives. We share this responsibility.
“… atmosphere in which hatred is once again fashionable. Gays, Democrats, Muslims, France … it certainly is easier than taking personal responsibility for our own siutation”
Fashionable? Did I miss a memo? Did MTV switch sides? Your whole post is full of hate. You know, blue states have also banned gay marriage? Personal responsibility? A huge difference between liberal and conservative philosophy is the placement of responsibility. The left is for group responsibility where the right is for personal responsibility.
“ something like 70% of those who voted for Bush feel that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9.11 attacks …”
I AGREE with you on this. I find this to be a dirty trick by the president’s spin-doctors.
“…Do you realize that over 1300 American soldiers have died …”
When you compare Iraq to Viet Nam you seem to have forgotten to include this statistic with it. 56,244 troops died in Viet Nam. How long has the war in Iraq gone on? The death toll is a fraction of Viet Nam’s. We go to war = soldiers die. You know that going into war. Reread point 3 above. Also, what is your solution? Pull out of Iraq? Let the 1300 die in vain?
“… explain to me how the war in Iraq is protecting our freedoms here at home …”
It’s not that complicated. Muslim extremists want to kill the western world. They are far away and don’t get much attention until they fly plains into the twin towers and murder thousands of Americans. It becomes obvious they are a threat. The Middle East is like an incubator for these terrorists and countries like Saudi Arabia are pretty much aiding them. (The insurgency is evident of this. They are coming from all over the Middle East to fight us.) The UN is impotent in controlling anything in the area, so the US takes action to protect itself. If the US can create democratic societies and remove or limit the power of terrorist supporters the terrorist threat shrinks dramatically. (Of course, Bush uses Saddam as a way into the Middle East and spins like crazy to demonize him as a terrorist supporter and represent the US as a liberator when our main priority is protecting ourselves.)
This PBS program explains it wonderfully.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/view/
“…Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq …”
Oh my fucking God. This spin irritates me to no end. The entire universe, except for Saddam, thought he had WMDs. Then when we find out after the fact that he didn’t, suddenly Bush is the only “liar.” If Bush is a liar then everyone else is too.
“I'm so tired of being surrounded by the ignorant, the undemanding, and the intellectually inflexible.”
Come on, do I even have to say it?
by MrBlank at December 20, 2004 3:44 PM
I'll only argue with your last point on Iraq because I think it is the most important. Your entire paragraph in answer to Northstar explaining the war on Iraq still does not contain the answer as to why Iraq specifically is a threat, but instead makes Northstar's point yet again. "Bush uses Saddam as a way into the Middle East and spins like crazy...." Calling someone a direct threat to US security such that we invade their country, kill their army, kill many civilians, and suffer the continual death of our own young people, sounds a little different than using Iraq "as a way in to the middle East". To do what is described above "as a way in to the middle East" makes us sound like war mongering barbarians using any country we please for our own purposes. And "spinning like crazy" could be construed as cherry picking from mixed information to build a case for WMD - which is what most people accuse Bush of doing, except that in contrast to your statement, "The entire universe" believed Saddam had WMD, I, and most people I know, as well as several Western countries, were never convinced given the evidence presented by Powel or Bush, or Blair, that Iraq had WMD. And even if they did have them, we were able to separate the issue into the further question of whether or not it mattered. Perhaps the Time article puts it best: "reframing reality to match his design". Some people call that lying. Some people call that spinning like crazy. I don't care what you call it, I just want someone who deals effectively with reality.
by chris at December 20, 2004 5:18 PM
Stochastics: %K= 100[(Recent Close-Low)n-periods/Recent High-Low(n-periods)[...
... this makes me sick I tell you... %D= 5 period MA of %K...
...it's never enough....
by LOCKHEED at December 20, 2004 5:27 PM
Being married, or being in any relationship, is really an object (ha!) lesson in subjectivism. There is nothing to make concrete the notion of alternate realities than living someone, having conversation with that person, and yet taking away complete different things. As such, I've become perfectly willing to accept living in a world in which George Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs and George Bush told the truth about Iraq's WMDs. Come join me in this world, it is much less stressful.
by mg at December 20, 2004 11:04 PM
“To do what is described above ‘as a way in to the middle East’ makes us sound like war mongering barbarians using any country we please for our own purposes.”
Unfortunately, I think this is about right. We are using Iraq for our own purposes. It is plain as day. But on the plus side, if we do manage to rebuild Iraq and create a democracy, both us and Iraq will be better off.
“… I, and most people I know, as well as several Western countries, were never convinced given the evidence presented by Powel or Bush …”
What proof to the contrary did any of these people have? Why was the UN always looking for them? Some little country in Europe claims Saddam doesn’t have them while US intelligence, who’s been watching for decades, says he does. Who are you going to believe? Hindsight is 20/20 and being wrong is not the same as lying.
Bush made his case for war using the WMD angle. Congress and the public bought it and gave him the war. I know WMD was not the real reason Bush wanted to go to war, but it’s the reason the public took and Bush used it to his advantage to get what he wanted. Manipulating the masses to achieve his goals is a reality that Bush deals with very well. That is what I’d call deceptive and getting close to lying, not the claims of WMD.
by MrBlank at December 21, 2004 1:56 AM
Well it isn't a question of whether Saddam had WMD. It is a question of when/how he disposed of them. Chemical weapons are considered WMD, though I don't know why. He and Chemical Ali used them to kill thousands of Kurds. This is a fact beyond dispute.
by anna at December 21, 2004 8:52 AM
1.) "...on the plus side, if..." That's a pretty big IF. And unfortunately the "ends justifies the means" game is almost always a losing battle morally, because one person's ends is another persons means.
2.) "What proof to the contrary did any of these people have?" In this case the burden of proof is not on the negative, it is on the positive. And the "evidence" presented by the administration was not convincing to me, nor to several countries, nor to a sizeable fraction of the American public. US intelligence was NOT unanimous, and the administration has been explicitly criticized for "cherry picking" from disparate and contradictory evidence. This is not hindsight, this was foresight.
3.) Your last paragraph is perfect description of why the president has detractors. A lot of people don't like being taken advantage of by a deceptive manipulative leader.
by chris at December 21, 2004 5:42 PM
Hey. In the pix FDR has his legs crossed. He was paralyzed from the waist down. How did he do that? Did aides cross them for him? Where's his wheelchair?
by anna at December 22, 2004 8:42 AM
The man's arms worked, Anna.
by MrBlank at December 22, 2004 12:49 PM
Boo Friggin Hoo! Did you ever stop to think that the "conservatives” finally got sick and tired of the liberals trying to cram sh*t down their throats? That's right. The majority of the people in this country were sick and tired of the crap coming from the "left". The conservatives took a stand so get over yourself.
We lost close to 60,000 people in Vietnam. For a war of this nature 1300 is VERY low. Get your facts straight instead of the usual left banter that we read on website after website.
by Mo Mo at January 5, 2005 12:31 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to ad "What Me Worry" to the bottom of the page. It would be too perfect.
by Charles Consaul at January 23, 2005 1:39 PM