It's that time of the year again, i.e. New Year's. 2008 is upon us and some people like to use this period as an opportunity to look forward to the next twelve months (resolutions, plans, etc) while others prefer to take a moment to look back on the ups and downs of the previous year.
Time magazine has been handing out it's annual 'Person of the Year' award in late December for seventy years now, since first conferring it upon American aviator Charles Lindbergh in 1927. This year, the big journalistic brains at Time decided 2007's main man to be Russian president Vladimir Putin - a truly corrupt, authoritarian and odious individual who has also been recently revealed to be Europe's richest man.
I haven't quite understood the logic of giving the title to a man who is on his way out (of office, if not power) and who has had very little discernible impact on global affairs (as opposed to Russian and regional affairs) over the past twelve months.
So, who do you, the readers of this blog, think is 2007's 'Person of the Year'?
Justin Raimondo of the excellent Antiwar.com nominates Thomas Fingar - the US government analyst in overall charge of drafting the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's (lack of) nuclear weapons and who may have single-handedly prevented the United States from going to war with Iran in the coming months. (I myself have written about the NIE here and here).
Fingar is a fine choice for person of the Year. My own choice, however, would have to be the CEO of Al Qaeda, Mr. Osama Bin Laden. Not because I have any affection or admiration for his particular brand of nasty, narrow-minded Islam and vicious, violent militancy but because of the fact remains that he remains free, at large, uncaptured and alive, as the world's finest armed forces and intelligence agencies focus much of the planet's resources and attention on prosecuting a pointless 'War on Terror' which has failed to disrupt, deter or destroy him or his network of terrorists. Instead he is busy issuing videos from whichever cave or pass in Afghanistan (or Pakistan) that he happens to be hiding out in, mocking the West for our "burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes".
So, 2007's Person of the Year, for me, is Bin Laden. And, frustratingly, it'll have to be him every year until this ridiculous so-called 'War on Terror' ends.
Do you agree? Disagree? Do you have a better candidate? Go to the comments section of this blog (below) and get in your nominations now, before we enter 2008...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Agree with you about Time's weird choice of the nasty Putin. But aren't you just as bad with bin Laden? He may be a great survivor (and Bush may be good at keeping him alive) but is he less "odious" than Putin? The only difference between the two is bin Laden probably takes a bit more pleasure from the (many) innocent people to whom he gives the order to be murdered.
Another choice: Barack Obama - he has defied the critics and carved out an alternative to Establishment Hillary.
Agree with you about Time's weird choice of the nasty Putin. But aren't you just as bad with bin Laden? He may be a great survivor (and Bush may be good at keeping him alive) but is he less "odious" than Putin? The only difference between the two is bin Laden probably takes a bit more pleasure from the (many) innocent people to whom he gives the order to be murdered.
Another choice: Barack Obama - he has defied the critics and carved out an alternative to Establishment Hillary.
It can't be Osama! Putting to one side the many, many atoricities he has claimed to be responsible for, you can't award Person of the Year to a man who has been created by America and is probably being kept alive by America indirectly, in order to be used as a convenient excuse to justify the War on Terror.
The shortlist for Person of the Year is pretty thin, infact I'm having trouble coming up with anyone!
On a personal note, how about The Radical for finally getting this blog underway and lets hope it creates some major waves in 2008! Good luck.
2yyiam, you are too kind :-)
But both you and Mr "Anonymous" misunderstand - the Person of the Year is not for our favourite person of th year or nicest person of the year. It is for the person who has made the most difference to the events in one single year and, as long as the war on terror continues, for me that person has to be Bin Laden (who is, Mr Anonymous, of course "odious".)
As for Obama, I only hopes he becomes the Person of the Year in 2008 by winning the Democratic nomination and then the US presidency itself but only then can he be considered noteworthy. If he loses, he'll be forgotten and a footnote in US domestic political history. (Btw, is America ready for a black president? A subject for a future blog perhaps...)
Finally, 2yyiam, I agree it is a thin field to choose from. Not many inspiring, heart-warming, decent, positive role models come to mind for 2007 - Al Gore maybe? Hmm..
Keep up the comments!
- The Radical
Sorry - I have posted the last few comments anonymously - I am "Dissident Voice" and I meant to include my nickname. But, "Radical", or should I say Person of the Year 2007, who are you - perhaps you should tell us a bit about yourself! :-)
Let's hope indeed that Obama wins the nomination and presidency - otherwise we'll be left with play-it-safe-but-slightly-unhinged H Clinton.
Taking into consideration about 'making the most difference,' it still can't be Bin Laden, because he's been allowed to do so due to others' failings. So, he can't get the credit for that.
Post a Comment