I've already stated my opinion of TIME's Person of the Year choice.
Idiotic!
It gets worse.
I expected the magazine's cover to look like this:
It doesn't.
I thought the monitor screen would be silver with "You" in black letters, as depicted in the photos.
The actual issue has "You." in the left corner above the words, "Yes, you. You control the Information Age. Welcome to your world."
The monitor screen is covered with a very cheap reflector panel.
It offers a funhouse mirror distortion of your face or whatever else YOU want to reflect.
It would be the height of narcissism if the reflection wasn't so poor.
The image reflected is deformed and dented.
Is that an editorial statement from TIME?
Is is possible that TIME doesn't like YOU?
To quote Lucy from A Charlie Brown Christmas:
"I know when I've been insulted. I know when I've been insulted!"
Sadly, one of the missing Mount Hood climbers, Kelly James, was found dead in a snow cave yesterday.
HOOD RIVER, Ore. -- Two climbers missing on Mount Hood may have fallen on a steep slope on their way down Oregon's highest mountain, authorities said Monday as the search resumed on a clear day and a team prepared to retrieve the body of a third climber found dead in a snow cave.
Air crews will survey the area because avalanche conditions make it unsafe for ground crews to head through a treacherous side of the mountain known as "the gullies," where climbers have fallen in the past, said Sheriff Joe Wampler.
The body of Kelly James, 48, of Dallas was found in one of two snow caves that the climbers hacked into the side of the mountain. Searchers found the cave Sunday near the area located by signals from the cell phone James used to place a four-minute distress call to relatives a little more than a week ago.
His brother, Frank James, told reporters that a ring found on the body confirmed the identity.
"This is a difficult day for all three families," he said choking back tears. "I feel that I have two other brothers still on the mountain."
The worst fears of the James family have been realized.
My prayers go out to them.
Also in my prayers are the families of Brian Hall and Jerry Cooke, the two other climbers.
Please understand that I feel nothing but compassion for them as they go through this ordeal.
That said, I don't know why this is such a big national story.
I don't mean to diminish the significance of the missing climbers to their families and friends. It's the world to them.
Of course, locally, I'd expect it to receive a lot of media attention; but I don't get why the national media are obsessed with the search.
They've latched onto it as if they're giving installments of a made-for-TV drama. In a way, it seems that the media are exploiting the agony of the James, Hall, and Cooke families.
In the time since the three climbers went missing, how many other people around the country have disappeared? How many other families are praying for the safe return of their loved ones?
We don't hear about them. Their families need our prayers, too.
Are the results of the Weblog Awards tainted?
There have been questions about the integrity of the voting.
I'm not putting any energy into being concerned about the validity of an online poll; but it's the bigger picture that's troubling to me.
I hate to think that honest people could become an endangered species.
Here's the list of 2006 winners.
Congratulations to Wisconsin blog Boots and Sabers!
Senator Ted Kennedy was Chris Wallace's guest on FOX News Sunday yesterday.
I didn't watch it, but I did scan the transcript.
This is just weird. One of the favorite lines from the Left is that we've been in Iraq longer than our involvement in World War II. That annoys me. It's just plain stupid to compare the extent of our military operations in Iraq with the scale of U.S. activities during World War II. The length of the conflict isn't the only issue to consider. World War II and Iraq are apples and oranges.
I wasn't surprised that Kennedy used the tired, old WWII comparison; but it did surprise me when Kennedy brought up how long we were in Vietnam. KENNEDY: Since the Hamilton report has been issued, 40 Americans have been killed. Our military has been in Iraq longer than in World War II, World War I, longer than the Vietnam War.
Wallace didn't point out that Kennedy said something that was false. I suppose he had enough other things to follow up on.
The fact is the war in Iraq has not lasted longer than the Vietnam War, not even close.
Something else that I found interesting was when Wallace told Kennedy that his Dem colleague Harry Reid said that he would go along with a "troop surge" in Iraq.
Teddy disagrees with Reid:WALLACE: Senator, I am told that your leader, the new Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has just said this morning that he would support a temporary surge of U.S. troops into Iraq.
KENNEDY: Well, I respect Harry Reid on it, but that's not where I am.
WALLACE: You think that would be a mistake.
KENNEDY: Well, I agree with the generals who have appeared before our Armed Services Committee and think an enhanced — just as we saw the enhanced troops in Baghdad didn't quiet Baghdad down, the generals who have testified before the Armed Services Committee think that we would add to being a crutch for the Iraqi civilian government in not making the right judgments and decisions. I think that is a persuasive case and is one that I support.
Do the Dems have a plan for Iraq or not?
There seems to be some confusion as to what the plan entails, if there is one.
We don't know the plan, but we know that Reid and Kennedy have a difference of opinion when it comes to troop levels in Iraq and the proper course of action to take.
On ABC's This Week, Reid said that he would find it acceptable to send more troops to the region for a brief time. He would be on board with an increase in troop levels.
Kennedy doesn't like that idea, splitting with Reid on the issue. Why isn't the discord among these top Senate Dems big news?
Of course, the only discord worth reporting seems to be that which occurs within Republican ranks, following the usual lib media template. Last week, when Republican Sen. Gordon Smith was bashing Bush and calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq, that split was considered seismic.
The big news from this Sunday's talk shows came on Face the Nation. (Yes, it's still on.)
Colin Powell wanted everyone to know that "We are losing in Iraq."
That's the quote that's getting splashed.
Powell says we're losing.
But there's more to his comments than that.
Yes, he thinks we're losing and he doesn't agree with Reid that a troop surge will help.
Powell is not as pessimistic as the media are reporting.
He said, "We haven't lost. And this is the time, now, to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around."
Why don't the media jump on the "We haven't lost" quote?
Bias.
Although Powell isn't as defeatist as he's being made out to be by the lib media, he certainly isn't optimistic about the situation.
Powell says:"The current active Army is not large enough and the Marine Corps is not large enough for the kinds of missions they're being asked to perform," Powell said. "We need to let both the Army and the Marine Corps grow in size, in my military judgment."
Asked directly what the U.S. should do in Iraq, Powell said:
"I think that what we should do is to work with the Iraqi government, press them on the political peace, do everything we can to provide equipment, advisers, and whatever the Iraqi armed forces need to become more competent, and to train their leaders so that those leaders realize their responsibility to the government."
Powell, who as a member of the Bush Administration pushed the international community to sanction the invasion of Iraq, said that we are not safer now after nearly four years of fighting.
"I think we are a little less safe, in the sense that we don't have the same force structure available for other problems," Powell said. "I think we have been somewhat constrained in our ability to influence events elsewhere."
I can understand why Bush doesn't watch a lot of TV or personally monitor the media.
Being bombarded with constant critiques and advice from armchair commanders in chief posing on TV would be terribly distracting.
I really don't know why anyone would want to be President of the United States.
I think of Eleanor Clift as one of the media wonder women of the Left.
Helen Thomas, Clift, and Maureen Dowd are the run amok voices of liberal extremism.
Depending on your politics, they can be considered either superheroes or the enemy's useful idiots.
Clift has an interview with Jimmy Carter in the upcoming issue of Newsweek.
There are some excerpts online.
Although Clift questions Carter about Ken Stein's criticism of Carter's new book and the allegations of plagiarism, it seems like Clift isn't being a tough reporter as much as she's serving as an enabler for Carter.
Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters has a stinging account of a column Clift wrote shortly after Tim Johnson suffered his health crisis, "Tim Johnson's health crisis is a reminder of the fragility of the Democratic majority. What the party should do now."
Clift begins her column:The possibility that the Senate might yet remain in Republican hands is a godsend for President Bush. With his Iraq policy in shambles and the Joint Chiefs of Staff resisting a last call to arms, Bush must have been wondering whether the higher power he consulted before taking the country to war had abandoned him.
Word that South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson had suffered a brain hemorrhage that could leave him unable to serve out his term has repercussions throughout the body politic. On a human level, everybody hopes and prays for Johnson’s recovery. But this is Washington, and with the Senate poised to do real damage to Bush and his war party, not everybody’s prayers will be answered.
Sheppard comments:I’m not kidding you, folks. That’s really how she started an article that was published roughly 24 hours after the Senator was rushed to the hospital. Frankly, I’m so disgusted that I don’t want to cut-and-paste any more of this disrespectful drivel. Those with a stronger stomach than I should click on the link above, but I’m outtie, for I need to go scrub this filth from my fingertips, hug my children, and imagine a world where people have more concern for their fellow man than Eleanor Clift obviously does.
Here's some more of Clift's "disresepectful drivel":Just as Wellstone’s untimely death cost the Democrats a key Senate seat, Johnson’s illness should inject a sense of urgency into the Democrats’ agenda. No one would have put the robust-looking Johnson on an endangered list. Democrats have plenty of octogenarians and septuagenarians to worry about making it through to the next election. A health crisis that strikes without warning is a reminder of the fragility of the Democratic majority. With the direction of U.S. policy for the next two years riding on Senate control, Democratic leaders can’t afford to sit around figuring out how to position the party for ’08.
That's beyond bad taste.
She's so callous.
Clift certainly destroys the myth that libs are compassionate.
When I heard of Johnson's health emergency, I didn't think of control of the Senate.
I came to terms with the Dems being in control of Congress weeks ago.
It didn't even cross my mind to do anything other than hope and pray for a speedy recovery for him and wish his family the best at this difficult time.
Clift's fretting over all those Dem octogenarians and septuagenarians is postively ghoulish.
It truly creeps me out.
Politics trumps human decency for some of these libs. Disgusting.
Another disgusting Clift moment came on The McLaughlin Group this weekend.
In a discussion about the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, Clift screeched that the war in Iraq is lost.
She said, "This is about managing defeat."
Why are these Lefties so bent on insisting that the U.S. has suffered a humiliating loss in Iraq?
It's as if victory isn't in the Dems' vocabulary anymore.
Did Truman look at Japan and approach the war in the Pacific as how best to manage defeat?
Clift and her defeatism is nuts.
By studying history, we can learn from mistakes; but we also can learn from triumphs.
The libs don't get that.
Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be NBA players.
It's not fair to generalize about the caliber of players' characters. They aren't all thugs. Some actually do have more self-discipline and control than they have tattoos.
But when there's a violent meltdown on the court, like yesterday night at Madison Square Garden, it leads me to believe that all players should be enrolled in an anger management program.
NEW YORK -- The NBA has another ugly scene to recover from. This one involved its leading scorer and happened in its most famous arena. Denver's Carmelo Anthony and the other nine players on the court at the time were ejected for fighting during a wild brawl between the Nuggets and Knicks, triggered in part by a New York team that felt it was being shown up on its home floor.
Multiple players, including Anthony, threw punches, and New York's Nate Robinson and Denver's J.R. Smith — fouled hard by Mardy Collins on the play that started the brawl — flew into the first row of the crowd while fighting during the NBA's scariest scene since Indiana players fought with Detroit fans in 2004.
Smith had a red mark along the left side of his face, but there were no other injuries among the players. No fans were directly involved, even after the fighting spilled into the seats.
This sort of thing makes courtside seats a risky luxury.
Woody Allen will probably need to see his therapist twice a day after this.According to the Knicks, the whole thing happened because the Nuggets still had their starters on the floor with 1:15 left and a 19-point lead. Denver won 123-100.
"They just wanted to embarrass us," Robinson said. "It was a slap in the face to us. As a team, as a franchise, we weren't going to let that happen. A clean, hard foul happened and after that it went down from there."
The foul wasn't clean at all. Collins grabbed Smith around the neck as he was going in for a breakaway layup. Anthony and Robinson quickly jumped in, and the melee went from one end of the court all the way to the other.
You can debate about the starters still being in the game.
That's a legitimate question.
George Karl should explain his strategy, tell us what he was thinking, give us some insight into the mind of an NBA coach.
I don't get his decision.
That said, just because Karl decided to shove his Nuggets in the faces of the Knicks and their fans, that's no excuse for the home team to explode.
Does this look like a "clean foul"?
Denver Nuggets' J.R. Smith is fouled by New York Knicks' Mardy Collins during the second half of basketball action at Madison Square Garden in New York Saturday, Dec. 16, 2006. (AP Photo/\Frank Franklin II\)
I don't think so.
Robinson's claim that they were somehow defending their honor and doing it for the fans is ridiculous.
Doesn't he see that by losing control the Knicks lost the high ground and became part of the embarrassment of poor sportsmanship?
Guess not.
..."I feel bad for the league, I feel bad for the Denver Nuggets and the New York Knicks," Nuggets coach George Karl said. "Very poor display of respecting basketball and respecting the game in the best place in the world to play basketball."
Obviously, Karl feels very bad. BOO HOO.
He should take a little personal responsibility and own up to his lack of class.
Where was his respect for the game and the league when he kept most of his starters in during the final minutes of a blowout?
Karl acts as if he had no role whatsoever in stirring up the pot.
He's the Eddie Haskell of this whole thing.
..."Clearly this isn't how we or the NBA wants to be perceived," [Knicks coach Isiah] Thomas said. "It should have been a foul and the guy takes two free throws and maybe some words, but it shouldn't have escalated. This isn't even a rivalry."
The question is: Why DID it escalate?
The Knicks’ Jared Jeffries puts a positive spin on the situation:
Jeffries saw an upside to the fight, saying that when teammates defended each other, it was a sign of affection.
“It’s his rookie year,” Jeffries said of Collins. “I’m going to stick up for him.”
Oh, I get it now. It was a lovefest!
What happened was really a display of affection and loyalty.
That warms my heart.
GIVE ME A BREAK.
This wasn't a case of two players losing their tempers and becoming violent, with their teammates quickly stepping in to stop the fight.
This was a brawl, with ALL ten players on the court being ejected from the game.
It was a complete disgrace.
All involved should be ashamed, but I don't know that they're capable of shame. That would require some moral standards.
The NBA has a real character problem.I think every grade school, high school, and college basketball coach should show their players the tape of last night's scene at Madison Square Garden.
They should make it clear to their players that they need to exhibit sportsmanship when on the court and on the bench and in their daily lives.
In other words, coaches should warn young players that they need to be very careful when looking for role models in the NBA.
Debate over TIME's Person of the Year has become a year-end ritual.
Many people mistakenly think the designation is meant to be an honor.
They're wrong. TIME's Person of the Year is not an award or an endorsement. TIME's Person of the Year is the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year.
Read the complete list of past Persons of the Year.
A quick glance reveals that TIME has given the title to some notorious figures, including Ayatullah Khomeini (1979), Nikita Khrushchev (1957), Adolf Hitler (1938), and Joseph Stalin -- twice (1939, 1942).
True to the criteria, those Persons of the Year were selected based on the impact, "for good or for ill," that they had at the time.
There have also been some really goofy choices -- like the Computer (1982) and the Endangered Earth (1988). I guess computers and the planet are people, too.
In 1936, Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson was named Person of the Year. How very tabloid of TIME! All the way back in 1936, the magazine was showing its penchant for fantasy and celebrity obsession rather than grasping and reporting the news.
In my opinion, TIME made history this year.
Since 1927 when Charles Lindbergh was picked as TIME's first Man (person) of the Year, through eighty years of selections, there has never been a more ridiculous choice.
This year the title goes to --- YOU.
Yes, YOU!
YOU ARE TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR!
Actually, it isn't really YOU, unless YOU are an Internet user or creator of content.
That's one reason to criticize TIME's choice of YOU. It's extremely misleading.
It might be YOU, but it might not be.
YOU might be TIME's Person of the Year if...
It sounds like a Jeff Foxworthy "You might be a redneck" joke.
It's absolutely idiotic that TIME chose YOU because it's not necessarily YOU.
I think the "deciders" at TIME couldn't bring themselves to put bloggers or New Media on the magazine's cover as Persons of the Year, so they recognized them in a more roundabout way.
Why not swallow hard and give the title to bloggers?
Why not name the New Media or the Alternative Media?
At the very least, Internet users, consumers and creators, could be specified as the Persons of the Year.
Why put YOU on the cover?
It's inaccurate.
It's stupid.
YOU is so silly. (YOU are so silly?)
It's lame.
Perhaps another reason that TIME chose YOU was to be intentionally vague. Maybe it was an effort to appease the egomaniacs who have been campaigning for the title.
People like Nancy Pelosi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can kid themselves into thinking that, in fact, they were chosen as Person of the Year.
YOU gives the impression of being very inclusive. No one is left out. Everyone is recognized. That's so affirming. It also humanizes the computer monitor and the keyboard, warm and fuzzy.
Does it make YOU happy?One thing that's kind of nice about YOU being selected by TIME is that it eliminates the magazine as having a noteworthy impact. YOU is not ME. In other words, TIME isn't Person of the Year. Right?
