W - "Time" Man of the Year

[leadpenny]

Drudge and C-SPAN reporting.

[Churchillspirit]

I intend to buy several copies. If this issue becomes a best seller perhaps a point will be made to the liberal press.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

" reframing reality to match his design"

You nailed it. Time could not be classed as Rather biased so they had to make the OBVIOUS choice of President Bush but ONLY with the hell of hatred attached in the couched words and obvious undelying slams.

[an italian]

[an italian]

[lainie]

Who were the other finalists?

[paudio]

I think he looks more like Van Helsing to me... ready to shoot those vampires...

[SlightOfTongue]

all I can say is.......

It's "W" TIME!!!!!!!!!!!

[risk]

http://www.esri.com/industries/elections/graphics/results2004_lg.jpg

We have to ask ourselves who is terrifying the urban populace into voting like this. I would argue that it is a bipartisan, media-implicated, political influence situation. People are afraid, hence their abject rush toward dependency on the government. It's not just the Democrats who have structured our economy around the politics of fear. When immigrants can take or underbid your job any day of the week, why wouldn't you be afraid? There are people in both parties who are paid well to keep it that way.

[Victoria Delsoul]

The magazine's editors tapped Bush "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."

Hmmm, I don't like the tone of it but since it's Time....

[bushisdamanin04]

A poll from the Seattlegrad Pravda-Intelligencer:


Do you agree with Time magazine's choice of President Bush as Person of the Year?

20.0%
Yes

68.0%
No

0.0%
Don't know

12.0%
Don't care

Total Votes: 75

[StarFan]

Can't be. Mainstream media wouldn't honor President Bush

They didn't after reading tidbits from the article.

Many, many Americans deeply wish he had not won," Kelly said in a telephone interview. "And yet he did."

He did because many MORE Americans deeply wished him to our President.

Kelly said "Bush has changed dramatically since he was named Person of the Year in 2000 after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency."

Same old, same old and wearing quite thin!

[StarFan]

Oops. He did because many MORE Americans deeply wished him to REMAIN our President.

[MeekOneGOP]

Hmmm, I don't like the tone of it but since it's Time....

My sentiment as well.

[Carry_Okie]

People are afraid, hence their abject rush toward dependency on the government.

Rural people are, by virtue of their lifestyle, more independent both politically and economically than urban voters. Urban voters, viscerally knowing (however unconscious) how dependent they are upon deliveries of food, water, fuel, transportation services, etc., have become accustomed to government to provide those services. It is no surprise then, no matter how well-off they might be, that urban voters so easily fall for the siren song of "government protection."

[risk]

That's the simple explanation. The more complex version is that Madison Avenue and Wall Street like it this way, as well. Our immigration policies are closely tied to keeping the workforce in line. That has a backlash in terms of driving people into the arms of the state -- in addition to your well-established argument that urban living increases interdependencies.

[radiohead]

A poll from the Seattlegrad Pravda-Intelligencer:

Do you agree with Time magazine's choice of President Bush as Person of the Year?

68.0% No

Another reason for me to get out of here as soon as the ink is dry on my dipoloma.

[AlbionGirl]

He really looks like his Dad in that picture. Also, the picture has a Mt. Rushmore feel to it.

[Carry_Okie]

The more complex version is that Madison Avenue and Wall Street like it this way, as well.

For obvious reasons. With government control of commons by virtue of regulatory power...

Given that the ability to gain personal control of commons is based upon the ability to make a political sale, there are several prerequisites:

1. A simple justification to maximize the applicability of the claim to individual perceptions and desires.
2. A majority perception that acquisition comes at minimal personal cost.
3. Collective benefits that are difficult to measure or long deferred.
4. Powerful beneficiaries with sufficient personal interest and resources to fund and execute the taking.
5. Control of communications media to influence majority opinion then becomes the cheapest means to control factors of production and the key to controlling wealth.

Source

[risk]

1...5

Where to begin? I'll start with saying "well put." I'll skip to the chase: where are the American children? They've been programed out of existence.

[Carry_Okie]

Another quote from the same source:

The claims by which a commons is socialized are ironically often the same precedents as were used to extend the original democratic claim; i.e., by extending claims against the transformation products of the democratic use of the resource. With the legal precedents in place that were used to take control of the factors of production on individual property, the civic agent now has the legal tools to take control of ALL related private property. Control of the use of land is now in the hands of an agency that is alienated from accountability to the public claim for healthy ecosystem function. The agency instead serves the limited interests of the politically dominant, who use the power of government to gain de facto control of ALL factors of production.

History teaches that this is not a good thing.

A socialized commons is an evil to the environment because the resource is under a controlling agent with no structural motive to prevent or eliminate ecological problems. Quite the contrary, civic management of the environment not only doesn’t work, it has every reason not to work. As eco-logical problems worsen and resulting economic crises deepen, the power acceded to government agencies expands!

Commons are factor inputs to all economic goods. The power to socialize commons by regulation is the power to transfer control of ALL factors of production to government.

It's a hell of a book, if I say so myself (which I'd better, seeing as I wrote it). It's work to read, but it's worth the effort.