If you're like me, each year at this time you wait with baited breath for Time to announce it's Person of the Year, and this year, I was particularly giddy with anticipation at the prospect that my guy, Dave Petraeus would get the nod.
All he did was turn a war around in eight months, true, and he had some help, while J.K Rowling wrote all that Potter crap all by herself and it's made billions, so I mean, maybe I was a tad over-optimistic?
If you haven't heard, General Petraeus came in fifth behind communism, filth, fantasy, and, well, more communism. Time felt that Vlad the Derailer was the man of the moment apparently because he's been artfully thuggish, at least that's what Time's explanation said to me.
Al Gore was second. I can see that, since it's been a long time since a fat fool has been able to scam the entire world and transform educated people into absolute idiots..
And of course Ms. Rowling deserves third place since she was able to take so many minds off the global warming idiocy if only for the moment.
Then there's the Chinese leader in fourth. I don't know his name, should I? And I also don't know what he did besides executing the guy who produced tainted drugs, who spread Bird Flu, or who sold us toys that can substitute as x-ray shields, but I'm sure he was more important than Petraeus too.
Here's how Time puts it:
"TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world for better or for worse."
Uh-huh. But should Person of the Year be cumulative or should it be about someone who was singularly significant in this particular year? Put another way, is Time's pretzel logic… make that, "expanded, concept" merely a way of avoiding giving General David Petraeus the honor he deserves?
Time goes on…
"It is ultimately about leadership bold, earth-changing leadership. Putin is not a boy scout. He is not a democrat in any way that the West would define it. He is not a paragon of free speech. He stands, above all, for stability stability before freedom, stability before choice, stability in a country that has hardly seen it for a hundred years."
Got it?!? Just remember that line the next time some dope like Lenny rails against Bush for trashing the constitution.
"Whether (Putin)… proves to be a reformer or an autocrat who takes Russia back to an era of repression this we will know only over the next decade. At significant cost to the principles and ideas that free nations prize, he has performed an extraordinary feat of leadership in imposing stability on a nation that has rarely known it and brought Russia back to the table of world power. For that reason, Vladimir Putin is TIME's 2007 Person of the Year."
Except that, following that bit of reasoning, Putin could already be named Person of the Year for 2008 right now.
General Petraeus did what he did in far less than a year, and it was THE single most important achievement of 2007, not just for America, but for the world, in 2007. And for that, coming in fifth is not recognition of "the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world for better or for worse," it's telling the world that to the American Media, a flimflam man and a fantasy writer are more powerful than someone who must manage life and death daily while attempting to stabilize a region where a good many other "powerful individuals and forces" don't want stability – and he's doing it in real-time.
in other words, Time could not have avoided recognizing David Petraeus. It would have provoked the Outcry of the Year. But putting him in last place tells us that Time would have left him off if they could have, and unfortunately, it will minimize the criticism this rotten from the toes up organization deserves.
So may God continue to bless you General Petraeus.
And may God damn Time to the hell it deserves.
And Merry Christmas to all! Well, to all non-liberals, anyway.