Every time I get involved in one of these things, I am eventually reminded of the futility of it. It doesn’t matter how right or wrong one side or the other is, each will always be able to come up with a retort. It’s like a neverending tennis game. Why are we bothering?
My excuse is there’s fuck-all happening elsewhere on the SDMB and there’s fuck-all on TV. I really don’t give a shit what time magazine did. I thought I’d join in with a rant about something which I agreed with, eventually realizing that because it is a rant about an American thing on a board populated mostly by Americans then it can’t win.
Is the Person of the Year thing even relevant anymore? With access to the internet, cable news etc. I doubt many even aware of Times PotY, much less care about it.
Yeah. Maybe they should merge with People’s “Sexiest Man Alive”. Then I would be able to be completely uninterested.
Come on kids, its Time. A magazine which has (as others have written in this thread) lost a considerable amount of its journalistic integrity in the past years due to bias. The very story being discussed here is another example.
Of course I have, but it wasn’t (I hope) so trivially stupid.
Although you are correct, this is completely pointless - both the rant, my objection to it, your objection to my objection, and my attempt to justify my objection. Merry Christmas.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - Come on, didn’t you like the sphincter reference even a little?
Look on the bright side of the issue: the next time some mouth-breathing tighty-righty wants to claim that the media has a liberal bias, just grab a copy of Time’s 2003 MotY issue and smack 'im in the face with it.
Yes, I’m sure that the families of those UK soldiers who died to protect the US from imaginary weapons are simply delighted that those sacrifices are now being ignored by the US.
The Time article is insulting and dishonest. The “American Soldiers” are falsely attributed with accomplishments that do not solely belong to them. It’s bad reporting.
They’re not being ignored by the US. They’ve just not been mentioned in this one article.
Have you read the article? It’s not just about Iraq and/or Afghanistan. From the article:
It’s about all of the accomplishments of the US military, not just Iraq and Afghanistan. But more than that, it’s about Time’s editors making a choice that they thought would sell magazines.
I’m all in favor of recognizing all the coalition soldiers. But those of you that are trying to paint this as an American snub of its coalition partners are losing your cool over nothing.
I know what you mean, I hate it when I’m on a European board and the damned weenies refuse to que up behind my grand exalted provincialness. I can see your point, but seriously though, what’d you expect?
I could be wrong about this - but lately I’ve noticed an air of agreement and understanding in the Pit. I guess I expected no-one to take issue with the taking-issue of the article.
It was after people did take issue that the pattern became familiar and I realized that we are, and would continue to go round in circles.
I’m not going to ask you at this point whether you would envy a friend or comrade who won some honor or recognition that both of you deserved. Frankly, at this point, I’m afraid of your answer. You’re above all this, Diogenes. I hope.
This Australian cares not a jot for the supposed ‘offence’ and is prepared for the American soldier to take all credit. I am ashamed of our involvement and am quite happy for it to go unacknowledged.
Maybe that’s where we see things differently, Diogenes. In my view, another man’s success does not constitute my failure. If a film receives an Academy Award, it doesn’t mean that the other films are no good or unworthy of being honored. I would hope that the award’s recipient would be grateful and pleased, rather than annoyed, and I would hope that others in the industry would be pleased for the winners. Wouldn’t you rather have friends around you who share in your joy rather than those who interpret your happiness as an affront to their own misery?
If y’all look at the list of previous Man of the Year recipients, you’ll notice that since the end of the Cold War there have only been two recipients who have not been American.
Though it’s unstated, I understand TIME’s Man of the Year award to really be TIME’s American of the Year.
While I understand what folks are saying about singling out US troops from the others who served in Iraq, I find it hard to take seriously a magazine that chooses Mayor Giuliani as man of the year in 2001, so I’d just let it go.
Let’s not forget that it’s also about the editors’ choice of who had the most historical influence over the preceding year. They certainly are no strangers to controversy.
)
I can see your point, but seriously though, what’d you expect?