My email to TIME: Person (moron) of the Year

[jmatthan]

Dear Editor,

Am I glad that I do not subscribe to your magazine.

Only a set of morons who pose under the banner of being journalists would choose a person of their kind as the Person of the Year.

Have you heard ONE sensible sentence come from this man?

My challenge - name just one, please.

And your magazine ignoring the election fraud just because John Kerry conceded, just shows your lack of judgement as a mainstream media.

This US election was never about John Kerry - it was about Anybody But Bush (ABB), Bush having stolen the last election and who did everything in his power to steal this one.

Maybe you do not want to print that

1. Bush is a war criminal. Kofi Annan said the war is illegal!!
2. Bush is a compulsive liar. It is possibly impossible to find a truthful statement from him!!
3. Bush is unable to make one statement in coherent English. Have you listened to any unprompted interview which he has conducted!!
4. Bush needs a box on his back to be able to take part in a debate. Or do you really believe that it was a wardrobe malfunction - then you are bigger fools that Bush himself!!

If you had a poll as the most hated man in this Universe - Osama bin Laden or George Bush, I think the answer would be evident!! Try it.

Jacob Matthan
Kampitie 6 B
FIN-90150 Oulu
Finland

PS: A copy of this letter is posted in major online forums as DemocraticUnderground.com

[wtmusic]

1. Jacob - great letter

edit out your address. Just a tip.

[jmatthan]

6. No, I believe in what I say!!

And I am not scared of a bunch of cowards.

jacob Matthan
Oulu, Finland

[coloradodem2005]

2. Thank you for that.

n/t

[Ian David]

3. My problem isn't WHO but WHY they made him Man of the Year

"For sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years, George W. Bush is TIME's 2004 Person of the Year"

In the meantime, the lessons Bush draws from his victory are the ones that matter most. The man who in 2000 promised to unite and not divide now sounds as though he is prepared to leave as his second-term legacy the Death of Compromise. "I've got the will of the people at my back," he said at the moment of victory. From here on out, bipartisanship means falling in line: "I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals." Whatever spirit of cooperation that survives in his second term may have to be found among his opponents; he has made it clear he's not about to change his mind as he takes on Social Security and the tax code in pursuit of his "ownership society." So unfolds the strange and surprising and high-stakes decade of Bush.

[cosmicdot]

10. not to mention those willing to contribute to the media creation

by writing such myths as:

"...his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years..."

I'm not clear on what a 10-gallen hat leadership style is, but I can assume the myth and image it's trying to create ... and, as far as the election, we know Kerry won ...

More myth building - my frontpage 'business news' this a.m. had this as one of its 5 top links:

"Bush Takes Risks in Second-Term Agenda" - no author called out on this "AP" piece (typical), but there's an Editor's note at the bottom stating "Tom Raum has covered Washington for The Associated Press since 1973, including five presidencies." I don't know if that means he wrote the piece or not ... whatever ... imo, it's an Editorial/Commentary, and should be noted as such.

"President Bush's opponents call him lots of names but they don't call him timid. When it comes to taking risks, Bush has few peers." "...big gambles..." "His new agenda is even riskier." "Bush won the 2000 election by the narrowest of margins" (got to stick to the Big Lie)

http://start.earthlink.net/article/bus?guid=20041219/41c50ad0_3ca6_1552620041219199255510

[Cha]

4. That's good ..thanks for writing to time.

I cancelled my subscription 2 years ago or I would be doing it now.

I console myself by saying that time chose bush to be "Chimp of the Year". He is the most newsworthy chimp on the Planet. Apologies to chimps everywhere.

[passy]

5. Here is mine.

I posted it in another forum on the time choice.
here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2845291&mesg_id=2845388.
but here it is too:

I sent him this "I hope that you are not considering it to be an Honor to be named man of the year.
Your choice is disgusting but as I have been reminded, TIME also picked Hitler and Stalin previously. So I guess that this year's choice has to be seen in this context.
Your decision has now led me to never ever purchase your magazine again. I cannot believe that you could find no better man in a world population of 6 billion than the one you picked. I do not hate the man as hating people who are reality challenged amounts in my view to discrimination, but I have to say that you must judge a man by his actions or inactions and the useless killing of Iraqis civilians amounts to a war crime for which history will harshly judge him. Your magazine will be judged along the same lines for its complicity. As the editor of one of the world's most renowned news magazine you should be ashamed of your choice, which will once again reflect the partisan line that TIME has been following for the last four years, and show the world that America only cares about its own.
Once again shame on you."

[BUSHOUT]

7. They almost made OBL "man of the year" last year.

They make any idiot or criminal "man of the year" if he touches (fucks up) enough lives.

Say what you want about chimp, but he's fucked up a whole lot of lives.
And for that, he's the biggest fuckwad of the year.

[ghostsofgiants]

8. The criterion for Person of the Year is impact on the news.

It's irrelevant whether or not the impact has been positive or negative, and you can't argue that Bush has had the biggest impact this year.

Like they say on their own website, it's about who is newsworthy, not who is praiseworthy.

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/photohistory/notorious.html

"TIME's choices for Person of the Year are often controversial. Editors are asked to choose the person or thing that had the greatest impact on the news, for good or ill—guidelines that leave them no choice but to select a newsworthy—not necessarily praiseworthy—cover subject."

[ghostsofgiants]

11. Bumping this shit

Since people seem to be missing the point.

[K-W]

9. Time made the right selection, everyone is misunderstanding the award.

Bush was, for better or for worse, the most newsworthy man of the past year.