www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall TIME's Man of the Year

This was just released! And the winner is...

TIME's Man of the Year 2007 [time.com]

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I was already to post that when you beat me to it Father. I think it's great that Mr Putin won, but it's almost a guarantee that before the day is done, someone will mention Hitler winning it.

Just started reading Putin's book "First Person" and it's pretty good so far. Last night I read how Putin's mother and an old lady living in their apartment complex. secretly baptized Vladimir after he was born, and then kept the news from his father. And then in 1993 on an official visit to Israel, Putin had his birth certificate blessed at the tomb of Christ. Never heard of that practice before.

Great article. Thanks for posting it.

In Christ,
Alice

I guess this fits then

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/268990#Post268990

Shoot. I thought this was finally my year to win.

I hate to tell you this Nathan, but I think someone erased your name from my copy of the ballot!

Jason

5 ft. 6 in., and an ego like that?

Easy there, Big Tiny!

Alexis

There are many very successful men that are not tall.

Personally I think that when tall men belittle shorter men, that they are displaying a vanity and pride which is just as offensive as a beautiful or pretty woman looking down on a woman that many not be as attractive as they are...

As the Greek wisdom says and which I have seen happen too many times: 'be careful what you say because it may happen to you'...sometimes God wishes to make us more compassionate and more humble by giving children with the very same characteristics that the parents once criticized.

Alice

Studies show that short men are very discriminated against in careers and in their personal lives.

I was very short growing up, but hit a growth spurt late and ended up average height, that wasn't too fun. I think the predudice against short men is huge, but something not talked about often.

A funny thing though. I was short in high school and very skinny and I had no problem getting dates. I noticed the tall lanky boys had a much harder time in high school then I did. Then I got to college and the girls preferred the tall lanky guys or even slightly overweight guys to my then scrawny average height build. I then decided I needed to gain weight. Well, now that I discovered beer and I sit in an office chair or in traffic all day, I'm overweight and wish I could hit a happy medium. Alas, at least I'm married and even though I want to look good for the Mrs., there's not as much pressure to look good as when one is single.

Hey, I'm not knocking on short guys. I'm short: 5 ft. 8.5 inches (and when you're under 5'10'' those half-inches matter!).

I'm really just knocking on Vladimir Putin, because I think he's evil and all...

And I am sure I'm not the only one who finds ironic humor in the fact that such a small person could wield such power, such ego. Yes, I think it's funny! I'm short too, so let me think it!

Alexis

Dear Garrett,

OKAY-- you are hereby vindicated and forgiven!!

As for this:


You forget Napolean Bonaparte?!?

Alice

I voted for you Nathan, but Putin had more support...

Hey, all you have to do is work for the US Postal Service, then you become acutely aware of male supervisors with 'napolianic complexes'.

NOW DEFINATELY - ALL SHORT MEN ARE NOT LIKE THIS!

I just never encountered it till I bacame a rural carrier. Who knew!

You'd better watch it. I'm pretty sure Putin could make you "tap out."

Dr. Eric (Also 5'8 1/2")

I believe 5'8 or 5'9 is actually the world's average height for men.

Oh, no, Alice, he is the penultimate "Big Tiny!"


Of that I have no doubt! One of the many reasons I do not plan to visit Russia any time soon. Who knows how many of those Putin cult-worshippers are reading these posts? They've probably already made plans of what to do with me if I should ever visit there!

Alexis

Nathan,

Which one are you on your website? Is that you with the glasses?

Alice

Thanks to the pygmies!

Romney is "disgusted" by this pick: http://www.glennbeck.com/news/12192007c.shtml

He said: "Well, you know, he imprisoned his political opponents. There have been a number of highly suspicious murders. He has squelched public dissent and free press. And to suggest that someone like that is the man of the year is really disgusting. I'm just appalled. Clearly General Petraeus is the person or one of a few people who would certainly merit that designation and I know Time magazine makes a distinction."

Not that I agree or disagree with any of the points he made, I bring this up because I believe that Romney sounds less Presidential on this matter than other matters.

Terry

WOW!! Indeed, I am the one who is *appalled*--appalled that we could even consider having a President who would speak of another standing President like that!

-- Talk about wanting to start another 'cold war'. I really cannot believe that a politician would be so unrestrained with his feelings and words.

Alice

People talk like that about Hugo Chavez, Alice, and he's another standing President. People have said far worse things about him, and rightfully so. Just because a man (or woman) is President of Such-and-Such doesn't make them immune to criticism by other world leaders. In fact, their actions should be all the more scrutinized and people should be all the more free to criticize them.

Alexis

P.S. I hope our differences in point of view as expressed on this thread are just said: small disagreements between friends!

Comments on Chavez by free citizens is a completely different matter, or on Putin. People should be free to be public about negative personal opinions on public figures.

It is just that for a President or an official representative of a State, words can have consequences. If a President were to speak of another head-of-state in a dismissive manner and carry on an ad hominem attack, it must be supported by a strategy vaster than his personal opinion. Otherwise, if unhinged and careless, the President may severely affect his ethos.

I would not want our President to describe another head-of-state in a capricious manner. There is a point at which truth and diplomacy collide. When that point is reached silence is often the wiser choice, or a focus on positives and common interests.

Terry

An unfortunate event.
Ed

Did they mention any of his recent sales to Iran?

Yes.

Exactly! Thanks for understanding my post and articulating my sentiments clearly.

Garrett--there is a vast difference between what a regular person like you and I can say, and what a politician running for the president of the United States says!

My only comment would be, too bad Mr Putin doesn't have a brother to run for president in this country. He beats all that are running here hands down. Who knows, maybe someday an Orthodox America will arise. Much to the dismay of the George Soros' and the Clintonistas out there.

Alexandr

Oh, by the way, I think Russia should monitor the US Presidential Elections this November. With a history of gross ballot fraud and unfair election practices in this country, maybe Russia should critique our voting processes. Or maybe, even better yet, maybe Russia should support organized crime elements in the election and sponsor street protests against any candidate that opposes Russian foreign policy. After all, fair is fair!

Don't be silly. We're going to call out Jimmy Carter.

"With a history of gross ballot fraud and unfair election practices in this country, maybe Russia should critique our voting processes."

Alexandr,

Ha! Some states are worse than others at regulating their polls. I've been an assistant election judge (no big title and it's usually once a year). In Texas, if someone claims an error has been made and that they should have been on the voting roll they can write a special ballot. This person not registered with the precinct will have to sign an affidavit and there are only special cases where the vote will be counted. Those cases are rare.

I would be worried about states which allow oral testimony to be enough to verify a person's eligibility; especially if the DNC and GOP bus in an enormous amount of "poll workers" into the state. If a study is done which shows that more people voted in a county than are eligible, it will be difficult to make a case against groups or individuals that could stand up to the legal process.

I share your sentiments for that remark, though I would say it could be unfair to say that Mr. Putin or a twin of his would be a good American politician. I don't see a parallel to how political power is distributed in Russia to how the political system works in America. If a parallel existed or can be proven, I could agree with your first comment.

Terry

Yeap, I'm the guy in the glasses, and my dad is the "old man".

I need to update that website, but I've been working on a commercial dvd in all my free time.

Well, you look like a very happy and beautiful person on the inside and the outside!

God bless you,
Alice

Awww shucks.

Thanks for the compliment! I could stand to lose about 20-30lbs though.

You look healthy!

I think we all could, brother.

Except Alice and Alexandr from what I've seen and read.

Ok, Alice, but haven't Presidents spoken that way of Hugo Chavez as well? I understand their words have consequences, and agree they should be carefully measured. Which is why I think it is all the more appropriate for Presidents to speak out against Mr. Putin; people harken to their words!

Alexis

How about arguing with Terry who articulated this position *quite well*?

I am a little tired of being debated with, and am, quite frankly, in no mood. Thanks.

Alice

Dear Alice,

This time of year many people are tired - and it will get worse before it gets better. I shall remember you to Saint Ambrose of Milan (it's his feast day today on the Julian Calendar). My own Xmas Rush is usually confined to buying a cake from an Italian shop and some flowers for the living room, and that takes care of that.

Fr. Serge

I can't say I have had much interest or regard anymore for this annual Time magazine coronation ever since 2001.

Clearly, by any reasonable measure, Osama bin Laden should have had the 'honor' that year. The fact that Time couldn't hold itself objectively to its own criteria but felt the need to obseqiously pander to an America they must have thought would cast them into outer darkness if they did their job properly shows a lack of principle that compromises the whole thing for me.

Best,
Robster

Alexis,

I could join in an argument on this issue if you got specific about who said what and when he said it.

In regards to Putin, President Bush has maintained the tone of diplomacy in public statements. Recently he was asked what he thought of Putin in regards to the Times' pick and he answered, "I presume they put him on there because he was a consequential leader. And the fundamental question is, consequential to what end? What will the country look like 10 years from now?"

That is a fair question and President Bush's answer was cautious. If he, or someone in his position, were to be as blunt as Khrushchev was at the UN, then I would have to side with you on this issue.

For Chavez, I don't remember a moment when aggressive words were used carelessly. It is not a diplomatic sin, so to speak, to speak harshly. There are moments which require harshness, even if certain blogging communities strongly disagree.

If the President crossed the line in his words to or about Chavez, then let history be the mediator of this debate between the left and the right. Just from our own perceptions of matters, it is easy to believe that this time and our problem today is the greatest moment in history and the worse problem to face mankind. That has been the passioned belief of many before and will be many after our time on earth. They cannot all be right.

Terry

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were TIME's men of the year too.

TIME likes strong men no matter what their philosophy is. TIME likes a strong central government and those who practice it or reconstruct it.

Pope John Paul II was man of the year too. Did he now advocate a strong centralized church and papacy?

TIME also picked *women* in 1975 when they were being strong and taking back their bodies after abortion was made legal.

Ed

I dare say it isn't a preference of TIME to say they "like" as though it were a child with an ice cream or pop music preference.

It may be more accurate to think of the title as being "Newsmaker of the Year". Some years the newsmaker is particularly good, some years not as particularly good.