Man of the Year
Time Magazine has, for the second time, named President Bush their "Person of the Year."
Isn't that just fucking fantastic?
Apparently, all one has to do is win a presidential election, and VOILA!, there you go, Man of the Year. He was also named in 2000 after "defeating" Al Gore.
However, according to the all-knowing Wikipedia (my personal favorite site for random knowledge. A free, peer-reviewed encyclopedia. Very reliable. Top notch.), the title is not always a reward. It is merely "the man, woman, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that 'for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year.' " I would have to say that this year's selection is not "for the better."
Time cited Dubya "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." While this may be true, I see no reason why John Kerry couldn't have just as easily been named Person of the Year. The only difference between the two men (on this level) is Bush Jr. garnered less than 2% more of the nation's votes. Both men "sharpened the debate." Both tried to show leadership, while making calculated political moves. Why then do we name the sitting President "Man of the Year" when we could instead (and more fairly, I might add) name the 2004 Presidential Election as Man (ok, story, thing, whatever...work with me here) of the Year.
I will say though, Mr. Bush, you have joined a pretty select crowd. I mean Hitler, Stalin, the Ayatollah from the Iran-Contra scandal of 1979. Those guys are some winners, congratulations!
--Barney--
Barney writes much longer and on more diverse subjects here.
Barney will post regarding your specific political questions. Please send any ideas here.
Isn't that just fucking fantastic?
Apparently, all one has to do is win a presidential election, and VOILA!, there you go, Man of the Year. He was also named in 2000 after "defeating" Al Gore.
However, according to the all-knowing Wikipedia (my personal favorite site for random knowledge. A free, peer-reviewed encyclopedia. Very reliable. Top notch.), the title is not always a reward. It is merely "the man, woman, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that 'for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year.' " I would have to say that this year's selection is not "for the better."
Time cited Dubya "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." While this may be true, I see no reason why John Kerry couldn't have just as easily been named Person of the Year. The only difference between the two men (on this level) is Bush Jr. garnered less than 2% more of the nation's votes. Both men "sharpened the debate." Both tried to show leadership, while making calculated political moves. Why then do we name the sitting President "Man of the Year" when we could instead (and more fairly, I might add) name the 2004 Presidential Election as Man (ok, story, thing, whatever...work with me here) of the Year.
I will say though, Mr. Bush, you have joined a pretty select crowd. I mean Hitler, Stalin, the Ayatollah from the Iran-Contra scandal of 1979. Those guys are some winners, congratulations!
--Barney--
Barney writes much longer and on more diverse subjects here.
Barney will post regarding your specific political questions. Please send any ideas here.
posted by James at 10:29 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home