TIME - Person of the Year

[Buck]

For those don't know yet




WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 (Xinhuanet) -- US President George W. Bush was chosen as Time's 2004 Person of the Year for
Bush was named "for reshaping 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."
Bush was named "for reshaping 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."
"reframing reality to match his design," the magazine said Sunday.

Bush was named "for reshaping 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," the magazine said on its website.

　In an interview with the magazine, Bush said he understands that his presidency "is one that has drawn some fire, whether it be at home or around the world... I don't expect many short-term historians to write nice things about me."

Yet even halfway through his presidency, Bush said he already sees his historic gamble paying off. The president "views his decision to press for the transformation of Afghanistan and then Iraq... as the heart of not just his foreign policy but his victory," the magazine said.

"The election was about the use of American influence," Bush told the Time.

The magazine gives the honor to the person who had the greatest impact, good or bad, over the year. Source (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-12/19/content_2355999.htm)


Honestly, I was abit shocked of it. Of all the people to choose from in the world...why him?

[Amelia]

I remember when they wanted to pick Osamma Bin Ladan as their person of the year for year 2001. They say it isnt about picking the most popular person just the person who is the biggest newsmaker or most important topic.

[Buck]

Absolutely Amelia, you hit the nail on the head.

Nail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_the_Year#Person_of_the_Century)



Controversy

...According to stories in respected newspapers, TIME's editors anguished over the choice, fearing that selecting the al-Qaeda leader might offend readers (and advertisers). Adding a wrinkle to the equation was the fact that bin Laden had already appeared on its covers on October 1, November 12, and November 26. Many readers expressed dissatisfaction at the idea of seeing his face on the cover again. In the end, Giuliani's selection led some to criticize that TIME had chickened out.

In recent years the choices for Person of the Year have also been criticized for being too America-centric, which is a departure from the original tradition of recognizing foreign political leaders and thinkers. The last non-American Person of the Year was Pope John Paul II, in 1994.
........../snip

I just dont think that dubya was the most influential person in 2004. Honestly for the past 5-6 years TIME has been catering to the masses and not choosing properly. Its a shameful cop out.

[Amelia]

I can see why they picked him. I dont agree with it and I do agree with you that it was a cop-out or an easy pick or lazy pick.

Who do you think should have been picked?

[AquaFizz]

And, after you say who you think should make a better person of the year...

I'd really like to know why The President would be considered a "lazy pick." Perhaps if people would stop focusing on all the bad stuff and look into all the AWESOME stuff he did, it'd make more sense as to why he might actually just deserve to be Person of the Year.

~Shrugs~ But, you know, I'm an American Idiot. (mm..green day..I still love you!)

[Amelia]

it just seems so easy to say The President of the United States if the man of the year and so cliche.....it is better to have Bush then Bin Laden though.

[wiggin]

A great number of American presidents have been Time's PotY. A rough count, including doubles, gives me roughly 20 years when an American President (or future American President) took the distinction. The question is, though, whether Mr. Bush really was the most influential person this year. People I might place as more influential on news this year (not better or worse, just with greater influence):

Vladimir Putin
Yasser Arafat (after all, he did die)
Basque terrorists
Ariel Sharon
Kofi Annan (for single-handedly destroying the effectiveness of the UN)
Ali Khamenei (the Supreme Leader of Iran)
Hosni Mubarak (Egyptian President)
Gerhard Schroder

etc, etc. I could make a good argument for any of those. Almost all are politically-based, as cultural icons rarely have enough influence worldwide, and it's often hard to tell the true influence of scientists/businessmen until years after the fact (though I might add Sergey and Larry as possibilities, as they've revolutionized the world's conception of tech companies).

[dark fuschia]

Keep in mind that "awesome" where bush is concerned is a matter of perspective.

[Kindred]

Remember, Time magazine, just like any other 'business' out there is out to make money 1st. No matter what they claim, they are not in business to educate, inform, or entertain 1st. 1st, they are out to make money, and if people buy the magazine to see why the heck they would select him as their POTY, then bingo, they made money. Plus, look at all they free publicity they're getting on this website alone now...


Media = Hype

[Anita Blake]

it seems the sort of thing that some unpleasant men in black suits told the magazine's publisher to do, lest they find themselves in a long and protracted legal battle over aiding terrorists. :dozey:

[jabbernaut]

As I understand it, Time picks their Person of the Year by basically going back over the whole year of news and figuring out who's name came up the most. In other words, it's more of picking who was most influential on selling the NEWS than on advancing society.

A few past PotY's : Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939 and 1942), Nikita Khrushchev (1957), Ayatollah Khomeini (1979)

I'm kinda surprised that this year's wasn't John Kerry. ~shrugs~

[Buck]

it seems the sort of thing that some unpleasant men in black suits told the magazine's publisher to do, lest they find themselves in a long and protracted legal battle over aiding terrorists. :dozey:

Oh Anita, TIME-Warner Co. owns about 95 % of the media in our country. They are the men in black suits. You'd be surprised how much the common american doesn't know on certain world issues. But that is another topic.

Ive sat and thought about it and I think that Yasser Arafet probably should have been the perfect pick. dedicated to the very end in his beliefs... much more than dubya...much much more.

Fiz, it isnt about how wonderful Georgy is. That is not what TIME picks are based off of.

2001 should have been for Bin Laden. It makes me sick to my stomach but based on past picks that's the POTY that should have been.

[Vivacia]

Keep in mind that "awesome" where bush is concerned is a matter of perspective.


~applauds~

[wiggin]

Ive sat and thought about it and I think that Yasser Arafet probably should have been the perfect pick. dedicated to the very end in his beliefs... much more than dubya...much much more.
Beliefs? Yasser Arafat had beliefs? As far as I know, he was dedicated to his pocketbook, and to his own personal power.

I'd make him PotY for the simple reason that he died. His natural death has opened up a whole new range of possibilities for peace in the region that simply were not remotely likely for the last 30 years.

Ender

[AquaFizz]

Wig-

Um..my grandfather died in 1990. Why wasn't HE named person of the year? He even fought in a war, raised a family singlehandedly (because my grandmother didnt work), was a volunteer firefighter and helped a lot of people during his life.

...you're kidding me, right?

I'm not saying Bush is the most PERFECT candidate...I'm just saying, he works hard for our country and cares for our country. I think a lot of people don't think he's a good candidate just because they don't like him personally. Which is close minded and blind. If they looked into things they *might* see things a little differently. Not that they'd change their minds, but they might not be so stinkin bitter. I mean, Dang. Hate much?

I get what you're saying, Wig. We've had so many talks about the whole thing. You know it interests me and I love learning from you. But, I just think your reasoning is a little wrong. A lot of people died. A lot of AMAZING PEOPLE died.

Last year will always be my favorite choice for person of the year...and I think they deserve it again.

[Amelia]

Yes I was going to say can I please be the person of the year again? That was very nice, except can I be on the cover this time? or Cypher since hes in Iraq.

[sir archely]

heh, maybe we should name a quiller of the year and give them a feature on the front page. ;)

[Dregs]

Surely I'd be the front runner for Quiller of the Year? What have you lazy bastards done?

[Amelia]

heh, maybe we should name a quiller of the year and give them a feature on the front page. ;)


That would be interesting!

[Buck]

No I think that would be a mistake. Popularity contests = bad. But aside that I think we kinda made nf quiller of the year at NO for all the work she put into it. We even gave her a book full of :love:


Fizz, I think your really missing the point behind what TIME's Person of the Year is supposed to be about. This isn't some gimmicky Man of the Year award. At least at one point it wasn't.

[sir archely]

buck, you're the only one who said anything about popularity.

besides, when have we ever cared what you think? :p

[AquaFizz]

Did I say it was a gimmicky man of the year award?

Uh..no. Just a little confused as to why Arafat deserves it but Bush doesn't.

I vote we do away with the whole thing.

Or maybe they should do the top 50 ordinary Americans of the year. There's a lot of everyday citizens who do some pretty groovy things that deserve an award. I mean...all the people we've named so far get their rewards everyday (paycheck, their face in the news, ect.).

[Anita Blake]

not to hijack the thread, (but i'm totally off topic) but i don't necessarily think that getting one's face in the news is a "reward" (even if it is for something positive). Being a news item i think can be incredibly stressful, maybe even more so if it's for something good that you've done. It raises the bar for you, makes people look at you differently and expect more from you, or else makes a person feel less "normal" and more "above people". Or it least, it can. It doesn't always, of course.

oh, and i'd totally vote dregs as quiller of the year. mostly because i'm afraid of that big thumping stick he has. :umm: oh dear, i've already said too much...

~flees~

[Amelia]

Dregsy has a big thumping stick?

I would vote for Bucky cause he dressed up as my warder
Waffles cause he traveled around the world and visited most of us
Anita cause she rocks and I want to be like her when I grow up and
Chrono cause he is my hero!

[wiggin]

Let's take this step by step:

Wig-

Um..my grandfather died in 1990. Why wasn't HE named person of the year? He even fought in a war, raised a family singlehandedly (because my grandmother didnt work), was a volunteer firefighter and helped a lot of people during his life.

...you're kidding me, right?
Wonderful as your grandfather may have been, his death did not fundamentally alter the politics and likelihood for peace for roughly 1 billion people. Let me emphasize again: we are looking for the person who was most influential on the news (or perhaps, on the world) in the year in question. Yasser Arafat, by dying, drastically altered the politics of a huge region, with ramifications stretching from global terrorism to growth of the military-industrial complex. He was by no means a good person - in fact, I would have no qualms as classifying him as an incredibly bad person. Yet his death was extremely influential, regardless, and will continue to be influential over the next several decades.


I'm not saying Bush is the most PERFECT candidate...I'm just saying, he works hard for our country and cares for our country. I think a lot of people don't think he's a good candidate just because they don't like him personally. Which is close minded and blind. If they looked into things they *might* see things a little differently. Not that they'd change their minds, but they might not be so stinkin bitter. I mean, Dang. Hate much?
It doesn't matter whether I like Bush or not; it merely matters whether he was the most influential person this year or not. I would argue that he might have been extremely influential in 2003 (what with the invasion and all), but he has been less influential on the news this year than some of the other possibilities I mentioned in my earlier post. We can work hard and care for the country all he wants; those are not remotely related to his suitability for being called PotY by Time's definition.

Ender

[AquaFizz]

..don't you sleep anymore?

Anyway...

Arafat died, like, a MONTH ago.

If anything, his death will have an impact on this coming year...not '04.

If he had died in, say, June...I'd be more apt to see your point. But his death isn't something that's been causing a ruckus for the last 12 months, only the last one (maybe two, tops...if you can't the time he was really sick).

His dying doesn't change the ten months prior, wiggin. But it could/will change the NEXT ten months.

[wiggin]

The biggest thing that the Time article talked about was the election which occured... wait... ah, yes, a month ago. It doesn't matter how long of an effect they had, just how influential. I've been closely following the Matzav, and there has been a fundamental shift in rhetoric since his death that would not likely have happened otherwise.

Egypt and Israel are actually beginning to act like neighbors. The PA has a chance to implement at least a pseudo-democracy (instead of the combination kleptocracy and dictatorship they had beforehand), possibly implementing social and political reform. Unilateral disengagement no longer looks so unilateral, as the rumblings from the Hertzliya conference seem to indicate. Jordan and Israel are strengthening their ties. The UK is becoming actively involved in the region, though thankfully the EU and UN have so far maintained their ineffective stances.

Point is, his death did what years of US pressure could not - give peace in the region a chance. Iraq didn't bring peace to the Middle East; nor did Afghanistan, or Gulf War I, or Oslo. Arafat's death just might have.

Remember, though, that Arafat was *one* name I mentioned out of a list that could all have been potential PotY. If you don't like him, pick another one... plenty to choose from.

Ender

[AquaFizz]

Completely and entirely off topic, but...

WHile I think if we only focused on our own countries and not on other countries, we'd be really ignorant...

I do think sometimes people are too caught up in the issues everywhere else instead of focusing in on the issues in their own country. You know, like AIDS, Starvation, street crime, racism (on ALL races).

Now, that being said, obviously, TIME reaches more than just Americans. So, there is a plausible reason why someone who isn't an American should be put on the cover of the magizine. I'm not saying Arafat or any of the other people shouldn't be put on the magazine. They're all people who have had or WILL have a great impact on the world/be in the news a lot. I just think, sometimes we get too caught up in other places instead of first working on righting the wrongs in the world around us.

*shrugs*

I'm done. I know I'm going to get chewed out for that. But, whatever. Thats never stopped me before, right? :p

[SonoftheSands]

Nope. it only stopped me

*high fives Fizzy*

*smiles at Wigg* -- You've got a point Sir, and I like your list, but move to strike Gerhard Schroder from it. he Chancellor hasn't made a large enough inpact. Omar al-Beshir (President of the Sudan) might be a good selection though. Although one of his starving 3-year-old citizens might make a more poignant cover-photo

*runs away from the Liberal Media Men-in-Black and bumps into Anita&Viv* Watch out they're coming to get us!

*hides in a ballot booth and votes for Dregsy as Man of the Quill*

[wiggin]

Yeah, Scroeder only barely made it onto my list. He was more important two years ago. al-Beshir isn't a bad addition, either.

And... Aqua, since when is AIDS an important domestic issue in the US? It's an important foreign issue to us.

Ender

[AquaFizz]

Heh. Rawt.

Because only foreigners have AIDs. (you're joking, right?)

. . .

I think I should be person of the year. We all know I rock.

[wiggin]

Heh. Rawt.

Because only foreigners have AIDs. (you're joking, right?)
No, I'm not joking. AIDS is a relatively minor concern in this country; transmission is sharply down, treatment is top notch (we honestly don't know how long one can live with the current treatments, as not enough people have been dying to give us good stats), and we don't have money concerns. AIDS is a huge problem in some developing countries, with enormous segments of their population infected, next to no barriers to transmission, cultural factors that further encourage transmission, and laughable medical facilities (and a complete lack of money) to treat it.

The killers in the US are cancer and heart disease; AIDS is a minor concern, domestically.

Ender

[Dregs]

<EDITED DUE TO NOT MAKING ANY SENSE>

[AquaFizz]

~Hugs Dregs~

That doesn't mean we dont still have TONS of people with AIDs..and a million and a half other STDs. And, yes, you're right, lets not forget about cancer.

So, you know, maybe you could worry about that for awhile instead of ignoring the fact that you LIVE IN AMERICA and sticking your nose in everyone elses bussiness.

It just REALLY stinkin annoys me that people are so caught up in other places instead of focusing on matters that surround them.

PS-Has anyone talked to Cyph lately? Fizz is worried.

[Buck]

So, you know, maybe you could worry about that for awhile instead of ignoring the fact that you LIVE IN AMERICA and sticking your nose in everyone elses bussiness.

It just REALLY stinkin annoys me that people are so caught up in other places instead of focusing on matters that surround them.




Are you serious? Where are coming with this and where are you going with it?

Buck "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" Gaidiin

[SonoftheSands]

Ummmn. we need to look out for one another in this world. There are too many families spread across the globe and too many interesting things dotted along the planet for any ONE country to decide that what goes on within its own borders is the be-all and end-all of the Human Race.

but at the same time...

The United States cannot become a new Rome, and begin (though some might say "continue") an imperialist policy towards the rest of the world. We don't want to be your babysitter, we know that most of you resent us when we step in to try and create peace in your nations. We know you think that you can handle it yourself. Most politicians are full of Bullshit (U.S. and Others). It does not demean a nation's pride to ask for help from THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD before a problem gets out of hand. It saves us from having to go in when the problem gets out of control (Slobodan Milosovic anyone?)

ergo: No babysitters, no isolationism, no imperialism. lets just all be friends.
Yes France, even you.

[Waffles]

I think Paris Hilton should've been the Time person of the year, cos I think she made the biggest impact... :p

Why Fizz? You don't like people from outside the US having concern about the US?

Frankly, and PLEASE NOONE TAKE THIS PERSONALLY COS IT IS SO NOT MEANT PERSONALLY, but a typical American trait that I found, was that Americans seem to care for themselves more than others. (And any who points out that the US gives more aid to any other county will be hit, because I know that, and that is not my point!) Its more every dog for themself over there... the current health situation is a big example. People are unwilling to give more money to social security, because people should work, and forget the disgusting unemployment rate. On the other side of the coin, Australians seem to care for everybody else, (this is known as 'mateship' heh.) Social security is a big things here. Another example is tax... the more money you earn in the US, the less tax you have to pay. Whereas here, the more money you earn, the MORE tax you have to pay. Its because, if you have more money, you can afford to help other people more. I'm not saying that our system is necessarily good, but its a difference I noticed travelling through the US, and just seeing different persectives.


I'd nominate me for Quill Person of the Year, just cos I rocked so many ppl on my travels, but people would rather vote for nf, so I'll just go with the popular decision ;)

[AquaFizz]

Bah. Waffs. Thats not what I said...

(shit..i just lost everything..grrr....moving along)

Knowing whats going on in the world around you is SO IMPORTANT. It's what makes you able to say, "Ya know, my country is far from perfect, but I'm still so lucky to live here instead of losotho, where about 30% of the population has AIDS and men have sex with BABIES because there's a rumor than having sex with a virgin will heal them." Know whats WRONG with the world around you makes you greatful for what you having. Knowing whats good about the world around you, helps you learn what you still need to change in your country.

That being said...

There's a million and a half quotes that talk about changing people. I don't have my quote book and I'm too afraid of losing this again to click out of the window, so I'm going to go with a quote about love. "You can't love another until you love yourself." No one's perfect (except SotS's, ofcourse). . . But before you go trying to change someone else (or love someone else), why don't you make sure you've got yourself together first (you love yourself). Thats a really far-fetched illustration and eventually I'll have the patience to look up a better one. But, anyway, So many people (americans in this case) are worried about fixing AIDS in Africa, fighting in Israel, and corruption within the british monarchy (I just pulled that out out of this air, really) that they're missing out on whats going on in their OWN country. Like people with AIDs (and Cancer, and tons of other HORRID deseases). Like people living on the streets. Like gangs. Like, ah, yes, our favorite topic, corruption within our OWN government.

Its FINE to know whats going on in other countries. Its good to be able to form an educated opinion about those things. But don't effin go off on me about whats wrong with my country until you've critically examined your own, because you know DAMN well its not perfect and anyone who thinks their country is, is an idiot. And I'd be more than happy to point out reasons why they're wrong.

For a long, long time I had my head in the cloud. I wanted to go to South Africa and work with the AIDs babies. I wanted to go to Russia and work with the orphans. I wanted to go to Ireland and fight with the IRA (yeh yeh, I know...you don't have to say it). But then I got to thinking, "Maybe instead of rushing off to stick my nose in OTHER peoples bussinesses I should work on fixing the things that are wrong around me." Don't get me wrong...someday I'll do all (or atleast most) of those things. But first, I'm going to work on fixing the things wrong with my own country.

My point, was that it annoys *me* when I see people too caught up in things going on in other countries to focus on whats going on on the home front (and before you say it, I'll say it for you-like America going to Iraq when that money could have been spent on things to help work on fixing our own country). I DO think that Americans are too caught up in themselves sometimes. I do think we can be very selfish. But I also tend to think too many people are CRITICAL of Americans without properly examining themselves and their countries first.

~hops off her soapbox and wanders off to go for a run~

And I think Sots should be QOTY because he's my homie.

[wiggin]

Hrm. Two arguments that would contradict your position:

1) People have made compelling arguments that there is no moral reason to care more about how your next-door neighbors are doing than some person in, say, Lesotho. Peter Singer (author of "One World") takes these cosmopolitan arguments to their logical conclusion, arguing very effectively for a complete disregarding of borders. Essentially, it doesn't matter that the US still has problems, because compared to most of the rest of the world, our problems are minor; hence problems in the rest of the world should occupy our attention until everyone has our standard of living (without adversely affecting the environment, blah blah blah).

I'm not saying this is wrong or right, just that it's a good argument. Basically, he deconstructs the logic of sovereignty.

2) Secondly, you can look at it from, say, a complex interdependence point of view (read up on Kohaine and Nye, if I got the spelling correct). This argues that from a purely selfish-for-my-own-country's perspective, one would be logically forced to be extremely concerned about "foreign" matters. Essentially, in today's extremely interconnected world, events halfway around the globe have a staggering impact on our personal lives - not just in some high-minded moral way, but in hard, concrete manners. Some things still are essentially unimportant to us, so we can ignore them, but most major foreign issues are not.

Thus, to take the three examples you rattled off:
a) AIDS in Africa: This is extremely important, as Africa is chock full of developing countries that may become next century's superpowers. Europe got a head start, and Asia had the advantage relative isolation from imperialist powers (relative, remember) and a bit of a jump-start in WWII. But Africa is catching up, and the structure and friendliness of future countries in Africa is an extremely important concern. Furthermore, the AIDS crisis in Africa is extremely worrying for epidemiologists and political scientists - taking both disciplines into account, it seems likely that continent-wide wars will start breaking out in another few decades, spilling into the rest of the world.

Taking that harsh reality and adding that weapons of greater sophistication are getting easier to smuggle (and as it is, borders in Africa range from porous to nonexistent), and it's very easy to see how opportunists can take advantage of this chaos to build themselves a power base. Not a good thing for the safety of our country.

b) Ah, fighting in Israel. This is an odd conflict, as it's essentially minor on the global scheme of things (what, a total of 4,000 deaths total in four years? That's peanuts compared to almost any other chronic conflict.), yet seemingly to catch an extraordinary amount of newstime and global concern. Why? Well, aside from all the cultural/religious issues (most contested piece of realty on earth, yadda yadda yadda), the conflict has much more important national security implications.

There are five major nuclear powers with large, known arsenals: US, Russia, China, Britain, and France. Only one of these countries has ever used nukes on a civilian population, and though these all possess delivery systems of some sophistication, there is very little concern that any of these powers will use nuclear weapons.

There are also five other pseudo-nuclear powers: Israel, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and India. All of those, excepting NK, are centered in the Middle East, the world's powder keg. Of those five, Israel is the only one with a significant arsenal and some scary delivery systems (though it's unlikely they have ICBMs, the effective range of their air force covers a good chunk of the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe... longer if one is using suicide missions). While Israel, similar to the Big 5, has shown no signs of being stupid enough to use the nukes, they have hinted at their willingness to use them as a "Masada option" - ie, if Israel is about to be overrun by opposing forces, the last thing they do will be to launch planes and missiles with warheads earmarked for Cairo, Damascus, Beirut, Amman, etc, etc. Fortunately, a large-scale Arab-Israeli war gets less likely every year now, so Israeli nukes aren't very scary.

Similarly, Pakistan and India have fairly small arsenals and very good command and control systems, meaning that their nukes are probably safe, too - a perfect example of the MAD strategy (a stupid strategy, true, but it can work with strong centralized governments). It's possible for them to create a small radioactive slag heap that used to be their respective countries, but for one, it's likely to be contained destruction (bad for the billion and a half people living there, but not horrible for the rest of the world, on a strictly selfish viewpoint), and that war is fairly unlikely regardless.

That leaves us with the two countries that are a bit scarier - Iran and North Korea (Iraq and Libya have been contenders off and on for a couple of decades, but are not current concerns). North Korea is kind of scary, as they nearly have the range to hit the West Coast of the US with ballistic nukes, and aren't too friendly. Add that to them having a bit of an unstable ruling structure and a friggin' nut running things, and it makes me very worried. That's not directly related to the problem at hand, though ('fighting in Israel'), so I'll ignore it for now.

Iran, though... a country with increasingly sophisticated delivery systems, and a fairly obvious covert weapons program (they're not even trying to hide it). They are increasing their striking range, and within 10-15 years may be able to reach around the globe with their missiles. Most importantly, they are not friendly with Western powers, including ourselves, one of the big reasons for that being US support of Israel. It's not hard to see Iran supplying Islamist extremists with nuclear material to carry out attacks in American cities. Scary.

Thus, for our best interests, it makes sense to be very concerned with the stability of that region. "Fighting in Israel" has been one of the prime reasons for instability over the last 50 years (other things also contribute, but that's the focal point), and one of the reasons for the growth of Islamist global terrorism. If we could figure out a way to calm things down and start making the living situation of most of the Arab world much better (without pissing them off, as we've done so spectacularly in Iraq), we could go a long way to increasing our security.

c) Corruption in the British monarchy. I know this was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but let's examine it anyways. True, the British monarchy has next to no political power. But what if we found that they were in the process of embezzling huge sums of money from the British government? Should we be concerned, and try to help them? Of course we should! This corruption would seriously harm the economy and effectiveness of one of our strongest and staunchest allies. British interests (often closely tied to American interests) are critical in the political environment of Europe (where the US has little say, but the Brits are a very important voice), in military engagements (Anglo-American cooperation in joing military operations is a well-established tradition since WWII), etc, etc, etc. That case we might be a bit less concerned, as the justice system in the UK can probably deal with that stuff, but if there was any way we could constructively help, we would be compelled to logically.

All I'm saying is that almost every major "foreign" concern has direct impacts on domestic concerns - not only from a "security" viewpoint, though that's the most obvious, but also from an economic, societal, health, and political viewpoint. No country is an island, AquaFizz, and we have to be responsible in how we go about our business. Doesn't mean we shouldn't also be concerned about "domestic" issues, but they are all intertwined.

Ender

[SonoftheSands]

Bringing this Thread back to heel a tad (but not too seriously):

1. President Bush has pledged support to help Africa with AIDS, and Colin Powell has visited the Sudan, among other African nations, as part of a relationship-building between Bush's govt. and the African governments.

2. President Bush had no problems with labeling the Iraqi, Irani, and North Korean governments as his "Axis of Evil" during his State of the Union Address. He has made itty-bitty little baby-steps in stabilizing the Middle East, but not enough progress that the entire experiment might not still blow up in his face (think of Malc+Acids). As far as the conflict in Israel goes, I believe that Jerusalem (among many other religious sites) will be contested for years to come. *wishes this weren't so*

3. President Bush loves Tony Blair. If the Queen, or her elephant-eared son, was embezzling to the point that the United States needed to assist the United Kingdom, Dubya would be all over it like white on rice.

Bush for Person of the Year! he's done sooooo much already!

:p

Son of the "oooh! i'm perfect.....ly impudent" Sands

Edit: BTW did anyone see the stockmarket close today? Highest levels for the DowJones in the last 3.5 years. Time for the Recessions to end!

[wiggin]

Read an article in Fortune that indicated we might be heading for another recession over the next two years. ;)

(As for the rest... I was merely addressing Aqua's comment that we should be focusing on domestic problems. I was not implying anything about the Bush administration and how they have/have not dealt with the three examples.)

Ender

[night faerie]

just read this thread.

you know, I'm starting to feel about politics on this site the way that Malcor feels about porn. :dozey:

[Amelia]

I'd nominate me for Quill Person of the Year, just cos I rocked so many ppl on my travels,


If you read my post, poodle you would see that I did nominate you and for the same reason!


How does Malc feel about porn?

[Dregs]

I dunno, but his badge is shinier than mine, so I'm guessing he's against the Quill becoming a filthy haven of smut.

[BuzzMoo]

Now that i'm home i've had to sort through the pile of TIME at my door, and i think after reading Person of The Year, i've decided the whole issue was pretty well written and it's objective. I think that given the criteria, this was a fair choice.

10 clams on someone not from the US next year though.