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

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.