Do you agree with TIME's pick for Person of the Year?

Why or why not?

how they (and everyone else) were suckered and abused by their CIC.

the person (or people) who had the most news impact in 2003, and not who deserves praise in 2003, it should have been Saddam. Without Saddam, the troops would be working quietly somewhere else.

like they are getting away from the "most news impact" of yore and going more for "best cover to sell magazines. Frankly, "most news impact" has to be GWB himself, who laid waste to the UN, changed 200 years of US foreign policy, told massive lies on the international stage and looks to get re-elected for his efforts.

Planet of the Year and they picked earth. I thought that was stretching the POY concept a bit too much.

not a generic. Otherwise, wouldn't the correct pick for "Person of the Year" be "The Person"?

Yes! But I certainly hope 'Time' will tell the truth about what is going on in Iraq, and hit upon the reality of what our soldiers are facing there. I don't want to see a whitewash, because this will not help our troops one bit. I want the American consciousness to be raised regarding the this war. I want to see some REAL journalism from 'Time'.

These soldiers are implementing one of the worst policy disasters in American history and functioning as mercenaries for Halliburton/Bechtel and furthering a PNAC plan for American Empire building.

I see nothing but shame in the entire enterprise.

It's ugly.

It should have been the DEAD american soldier.

Or the WOUNDED american soldier.

Our soldiers are being put in a an almost impossible situation and if this gives them a morale boost than I'm for it.

the times "person" of the year which could be more than 1 person or even a thing has turned into something that is considered an honor rather than news which had a large affect whether positive or negative. the fact is osama should have got it in 2001 but they were scared of being accused of supporting saddam so it went to rudy instead. and this year ithink it should ahve been tony blair and jaques chirac as much of the debate of iraq concerned them,a nd continues to right now.

designed purely to sell magazines.

which would you rather have had ?

I also think it would have had to be Junior according to the criteria. It isn't someone who does the world the most good (Osama was a candidate too). It's someone who makes the biggest impact on world events. I'm glad it wasn't Bush, because most people misinterpret the rules and would think of it as somehow elevating him.

This year, after being nearly bludgeoned to death for trying to pick Osama in 2001, have become totally gun-shy.

It's not surprising...the bottom line always wins the argument.

How many Subsidiaries can a Corperation have anyway?

Time no longer has the guts to put the actual person who most influences the news on the cover. In 2001 they chose Guilliani over Bin Laden because they didn't want to hurt their sales. They should change the name to Person Most Liked by Americans of the Year.

who came out in the millions to protest illegal invasion/occupation.

And why didn't they include British forces

To me, it's just a back-door way of rah-rahing the attack & occupation of Iraq.

These people give up their lives and time with their families to serve. Many of them are killed or mamed. They are the best of the best. They deserve to be recognized at every step of their service.

Thank you, all servicemembers!

Time punted on this one. A wimpy choice, indeed.
The Professor

Please mention them.

First, a collective PERSON of the year? That's a punt on Time's part. It was a clear attempt at avoiding the real naming of a Person of the Year and doing the marketable thing, whether or not it made sense.

Secondly, why would they be PERSON of the year? What did they do that they didn't do last year? They were in Afganistan then. They've been in Kosovo for 7 years. Exactly what was different about the military man or woman in 2003 as opposed to the last 100 years? Answer: nothing.

Third, there is nothing that any of the troops did to make and shape the direction of the news. That's what Time's criteria says. (It's on their website.) These folks don't shape the battle plans, develop strategic direction, or make the geopolitical decisions. They're just following the orders of the superior officers. So, they're not newsmakers. They are the instruments of the actual newsmakers.

Fourth, this is a clear and direct attempt of a major player in the 4th estate to target a one week uptick in sales by playing to the sentiment of the american people, which is cynical and unbecoming of a "free press". They're not supposed to be cheerleading for war. They're supposed to be covering it.

That's enough. I'm bored with having to explain something this simple. I could probably write on this for another hour. But, you wouldn't read the whole thing, i fear. If you needed someone to explain this to you, i would suggest your mind is already made up. I'll waste no effort trying to convince you.
The Professor

But it looks like something more.....

should have been picked.

... I haven't had a chance to read the accompanying article to find out exactly why Time is honoring the American soldier.

I agree with all the reasons that Michael Moore gave in his comments about letters he gets from soldiers. I imagine Time gives it a somewhat different emphasis though. I'll suspend judgement until I actually read the Time article.

I'm sure that Halliburton (and the rest of corporate America) is grateful that they are putting their lives on the line, and killing and dying to protect the bottom line.

killed by our brave soldiers

bound to generate the least controversy.

The saddest thing would be that most people would wonder why she was on the cover having never even heard of her in the first place.

and wonder why Time picked an criminal, anti-American terrorist supporting hatemonger as POY.

What a crazy world we live in!

while illegally in the country and while a member of a terrorist supporting organization that teaches people illegal tactics for getting into a foreign country so that they can engage in illegal terrorist-supporting activities.

A gun? In your world, are the police the criminals? After all, they have guns and regularly confront and arrest people without guns.

Glorifying military is an important step in fascism.

We need to be respectful and thankful for the job they do but we must reject the glorification of a killing force.

US Military deserves it as much as anyone!

a group of soldiers following orders is news, but not the true news. Look behind the machine and see who is plugging it in.

Maybe we should have a Most Corrupt Individual of the year?

Ask the soldiers, and a truthful answer would be that they are not happy being part of the machine that invades countries without immediate provocation and kills thousands of civilians.

I think this is more about using the Republimedia to try to prevent sharp declines in enlistments and reenlistments.

Thats ridiculous.

These military men and women are doing the hard work and they deserve to be honored. Agree with the war or not they are doing the hands on work and that will help this country be saver. America will NEVER be like it was before 9/11 but if we don't take a stand against these Islamic terrorists there we will be fighting them here. Here in our own yards. Either that or give in to them and summit. That would be worse than Bush for 4 more. Plese don't slam our troops. They and they alone have givin us the right to bitch about things here. You could not say the things you say about Sadam's army and get away with your life if you lived in Iraq and he were still in power. You could not say these things if you lived in N Korea or China.

God Bless our troops.

but I'm a Kerry supporter so I'm biased in this regard.