"Person of the Year"?...

As you know Time magazine's famous "Person of the Year" for 2013 is Pope Francis and in that issue were also profiles of the other of the "top five" which included (in order) Edward Snowden the runner up, Edith Windsor (for achieving equality of tax obligation for married gays and lesbians and therefore advancing gay rights), Bashir Assad (for "good OR evil" eh) and Ted Cruz for well being Ted Cruz I guess!

I don't disagree with the choice of the pope who certainly is "significant" but if I were to choose I'd have picked Edward Snowden.

How about YOUR choices? Who'd be YOUR "Person of the Year" hmm?...

Pope Francis is a no-brainer. The Papacy had its best year since the 13th century. Lady Catherine Ashton is a close second.

> 1

Snowden and Cruz are person-of-the-year types in the opinion of too few people to make it to the top, the later much more than the former.

The humble Pope Francis dogged by stories that he supported the Argentine military dictatorship (1976-1983) that disappeared up to 30,000 people. Many of the small children and babies of the disappeared secretly adapted by military, police and other officials of that state. Of the disappeared--there are the massed graves found now and again--there are those cremated in the school of naval mechanics--there were those who washed up now and again in barrels in the Rio de Plata and there were those drugged and tossed out of cargo planes still very much alive into jungles but mostly into the Atlantic ocean. Not knowing exactly anything as a continual kind of torture for those who have lost loved ones. Francis might not really be a bad guy but there are questions.

There are two Argentine priests who were tortured and they apparently believed that as archbishop of Buenos Aires Bergoglio may have "turned them over" but according to the Time piece one of the priests has recanted that accusation.

Most priests who were "picked up" for possible "subversive activities" did indeed "disappear" permanently but the archbishop was able to persuade the authorities to release the above two. Francis has admitted that he might have done more at the time and perhaps that's why he's so outspoken now?

Snowden I think has opened up the concept of the "surveillance state" as "accepted" considering the times or a too egregious assumption on the part of the democratic state? It seems that the most "regular" behavior of states IS in fact "surveillance" but in western democracies such is considered in violation of human rights?

This remains a profound question and while I admire what Francis has done and said in order to "modernize" the Catholic church I think what Snowden has done will have more impact as we go along...

As (1) notes in his final sentence, Cruz is "famous
for BEING famous". But he has had a very short tenure of Fame even for that Warholian "15 Minutes". What did he really accomplish in 2013 --even from his own, or a Tea Partian point of view?

I agree with the choices of Francis, Bashir, and Snowden, though not necessarily with
their rankings. But then, I'm not much for rankings; I'd
rather mention the 5 of them in no order except alphabetical.

I wonder how much the "Man of the Year" from the Time Magazine really means?

I do remember a Mr. A Hitler once got it. 1933?

#5--well that's what they say--he shoulda coulda done more.

You seem to be really celebrity crazy Michael. The movie stars, the British royal family--now we're on to Time's person of the year. Personally I'd like to nominate myself for the person of the year award. It's no wonder that people are always chasing around these pie in the sky hopes--with the way the movie industry, the sports industry, the media etc. constantly bombard them. They create these elites for us--our problem is when we start accepting them as somehow better than ourselves.

The award should have gone to Snowden -- no doubt in my mind -- though I got to add that I'd hope Snowden would have refused the award on grounds that Time Magazine isn't morally fit to bestow such an award on anybody who lives on this planet.

>9 dekesolomon:

Meh. On what grounds? It's not an award for being great, but for having an impact. I'd like it if Snowden had had more of an impact, but the sad fact is that he hasn't had it. Neither party will shoulder the cause of privacy and civil rights, and the public have largely yawned. It's hard to compare spheres, but Pope Francis has had a pretty major impact.

and once more la spalding steps forward to brown-nose a pope…..

Well, as I said, I'd have preferred Snowden to win. But he failed. I don't suppose you'd actually give an argument, rather than a stupid, lazy insult. Oh, and use capital letters. It elevates.

> 12 timspalding -- I don't see how you can say Snowden "failed" at anything. I wasn't aware that he had entered a contest. Nor do I see that it matters if anybody listened to him or not. What he did was display tremendous courage and a willingness to sacrifice his personal career -- even his life -- by doing what he did in what can fairly be called his attempt to save mankind from itself.

re: Pope Francis -- You have on other threads seen me write in favor of Pope Francis. I like him a lot. I think that (if he isn't killed first) he might actually save the Roman Church from the horde of stiff-necked, self-righteous buttholes who populate the upper stories of the Vatican. I concede that Francis has made some splendid gestures (a Popemobile from Rent-A-Wreck, moved out of the Papal palace, refused to condemn LGBTs and all of that) but -- gestures aside -- what has he actually accomplished for the people of the world to date? I'm still rooting for him and hope God will bless his good intentions with good results, but I haven't seen any yet.

Of course I'm not Catholic and you are, so maybe you can name a few MATERIAL, POSITIVE changes your new Pope hath wrought. I look every day, but haven't yet seen any in the mainstream news. If Francis ever has ex-Pope Benedict crucified six inches above a large, slow fire, I'll accept that as a material, positive development. But, alas, Francis hasn't got 'round to doing that either.

>13 dekesolomon:

Well, he failed at the thing Time magazine was testing--impact on the world. It may be a stupid notion. Indeed, clearly it is stupid to some extent. But it's explicitly about impact on the world, not courage and so forth. (After all, it keeps going to impactful but odious individuals--Hitler and Khomeini, for example.) If I were on the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, I'd nominate him—and Pope Francis too, but Snowden above Francis. I hope, however, his courage does indeed someday have an effect. And I grieve that, so far, it has not.

For Pope Francis, I'd argue his impact is clear. In his line of work, what you say and what people think of you matters. He's electrified the media, become the most talked-about topic on Facebook and etc. I think there's "policy meat" there too, of course. But consider that MLK got the Time nod, and even the Nobel Prize, before he really changed anything.

I guess who you think made the biggest impact in 2013 depends in part on where you live. Here in China, there's no doubt our new head of state, Xi Jinping, would make most people's shortlist. He hasn't made many changes yet, except for reforming the one-child policy. But you can feel the wind shifting. I think 2014 might be his year.

I'd also nominate the Ukrainian protester as person of the year. This is a pivotal moment for Ukraine, and also for Russia and Europe. Which way will Ukraine lean? West, to Europe, or east, to Russia? Or will it tear apart, with the eastern, Russian-speaking regions rejoining Russia?

14

You could also say Dietrich Bonhoeffer failed, in many ways, but in the end, he would have made a better person of the year than most people in his day.

>16 Arctic-Stranger:

Yeah, I disagree. It's not an award for being a good person. He can be a saint, but not Time person of the year.

Well Bonhoeffer was hardly a saint.

I think there is something about the noble effort that fails. To fail gloriously can have a major impact as well. I am not sure I would put Snowdon in that category, but Gandhi certainly belongs.

>18 Arctic-Stranger:: "the noble effort that fails"

Isn't that the classical definition of tragedy?

First of all, it's not an award per se, so the recipient can't really turn it down.

Secondly, I think that Snowden has had quite an impact in getting NSA data collection noticed, lawsuits about it are working their way through federal courts, and the major internet entities all had to do damage control for their parts.

I don't know what concrete impacts Pope Francis has had outside of the Catholic church.

>18 Arctic-Stranger:

We can reasonably surmise he died in the friendship of God. He was a saint. Not all saints were "saints." :)

Secondly, I think that Snowden has had quite an impact in getting NSA data collection noticed, lawsuits about it are working their way through federal courts, and the major internet entities all had to do damage control for their parts.

Right. I think we'll see. I hope things turn out well. If he ends up having that effect next year or five years from now, we should make him person of the year then.

Agreed on sainthood. When all is said and done, my vote goes to Francis. A man such as this, int his kind of of office, we have not seen a long time.

21> If he ends up having that effect next year or five years from now, we should make him person of the year then.

That's what I was thinking about Pope Francis. He's only been Pope for less than a year and he'll likely be Pope for quite a few more, so what's the rush?

Okay, so who wins for actual rather than potential change, or tone in rhetoric, attitudes and etc.?

>24 timspalding: so who wins for actual rather than potential change

I don't suggest it seriously for a global impact, but in the US you could make a real case for Obama purely on the fact that his administration legitimized gay unions at the federal level and made health care coverage possible on a widespread scale.

>25 southernbooklady:: "his administration legitimized gay unions at the federal level"

This may be purely a technical point, but it was the Supreme Court that did this, not the Executive ("his administration").

But his administration chose not to defend DOMA. And once it was struck down, it had a cascading effect on many other similar state laws and constitutional amendments. And it also set in motion recognition of gay unions for social security benefits, military benefits, inheritance and tax status....all that had the implicit and sometimes even explicit support of the administration; as an impact it was real, and it was massive.

>27 southernbooklady:: Surely. (I just get prickly when the separation of powers gets fuzzy -- however necessary it may be in the context of the modern global politico-economy, executive overreach should always be treated with a note of caution.)

> 19 -- Nate Campbell -- No, Nate. That isn't the classical definition of tragedy, but it's close.

Greek tragedy deals with great and noble people and often with their gods. More specifically, Greek tragedy centers on failure or a betrayal. The great person has a special talent or (maybe) a favorite tool -- something he or she relies upon to win over adversity. Suppose you're a genius. Suppose, like Oedipus, you like to solve riddles. Finally, like Oedipus, you solve a riddle, the solution of which causes your own undoing. You have been betrayed by the very things (your brains and your talent) that have always helped you in the past.

Thus tragedy is not failure. YOU might call it "the noble effort that does not fail." The people who make the noble effort triumph and, by doing so, bring about their own, inescapable destruction.

THAT is classical tragedy.

The people who make the noble effort triumph and, by doing so, bring about their own, inescapable destruction.

That would be Bonhoeffer. He deliberately returned to Germany, he took on Hitler on the radio, he joined a plot to kill Hitler, and he died about three days before his camp was liberated.

Everyone we talk about here is a "celebrity" of sorts; it's unavoidable.

Hitler ought to have been "Man of the Year" as ought to have Stalin -- who effected the 1930s and '40s and even beyond more than they?

I consider Time magazine an American cultural icon, not necessarily an "oracle" (O Swami!) and I find the choices of its editors often interesting and usually apt. I as I said have no especial disagreement re Pope Francis but I also would agree(!) with my heckler above that Snowden would have been MY choice.

As for "sainthood" I just watched Michael Curtiz' 1961 "Francis of Assisi" with Bradford Dillman as a bit of uh a "sanctimonious" saint and Stuart Whitman as his knightly rival for the beautiful Clare (played by the beautiful Dolores Hart who is now a REAL "mother superior") curses Francis for luring this dishy dame into penury and chastity and I thought he indeed made a "point."

It's not a bad film by the way -- it takes on the "difficult" questions about Francis moreso than Franco Zeffirelli's hippy dippy but thoroughly enjoyable (and lovable!) "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" and I recommend it as a "thoughtful" presentation of the problematics of "sainthood" and just Who Is...

Snowden by a long shot, although the US political machine would never have allowed that to happen.

22 - 'Agreed on sainthood. When all is said and done, my vote goes to Francis. A man such as this, int his kind of of office, we have not seen a long time.'

I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this. He is a Pope, the leader of a religious organization, which is against gay rights, including gay marriage, and he has some unanswered questions about his activities in Argentina. His humbleness regarding his abode and other issues is refreshing, but his conservatism is nothing new for many of us and just as threatening as that of his predecessors.

>32 K.J.: I'm generally not a big fan of Popes, or wealthy old white male religious leaders in general, but this Pope is certainly an improvement on the last one. That, at least, is something. I'm willing to give him the benefit of preferring Jesus's teachings on wealth to the current Christian beliefs on the subject. I'm wondering if he can be impeached. Don't you think The Powers That Be would kinda prefer a Borgia about now?

33> Your point is valid, but provides no comfort for those of us for whom he suggests and supports a different level of human rights. He is either a a true man of the god for whom he professes to speak, or a Pope. It is difficult to imagine anyone actually pulling off both roles, simultaneously.

Snowden by a long shot, although the US political machine would never have allowed that to happen.

Wha?! The Military-Industrial Complex prevented Time magazine from publishing that?

35 You lost me Tim. Point?

Another movie I like is "Prince of Foxes" wherein Orson Welles plays Cesare Borgia, son of the pope (son of a pope! "SOP"?) as his erudite, cynical and somewhat "satanic" alternative to the usual heroic or romantic.

He clearly influences Tyrone Power's character (as he does in "The Black Rose" which I like better because Welles plays "Asiatic" also and Cecile Aubry plays French cutie) and then Power of course can't be like "that" and consequently "sacrifices" Faustian gains for his own self respect, not to mention to achieve the affections of the leading lady!

Orson Welles played Cardinal Wolsey in "A Man For All Seasons" in much the same vein -- "Asiatic," cynical but smarter than the average cardinal. I missed him when he died in that movie and I uh "miss him" yet...

35 You lost me Tim. Point?

I think Time magazine could have picked Snowden if they wanted to. They didn't want to. The "US Political machine" does not control them. That at least is what I think when they aren't watching.

Another movie I like is "Prince of Foxes" wherein Orson Welles plays Cesare Borgia, son of the pope (son of a pope! "SOP"?) as his erudite, cynical and somewhat "satanic" alternative to the usual heroic or romantic.

Oh, I've never seen that, although I love Welles. Anyone else think I should run out and see it?

"Prince of Foxes" and "The Black Rose" are "entertainments" not directed or written by Welles (the able Henrys, King and Hathaway, directed the above respectively) although Welles often "changed" some of his dialogue in films he only acted in as per "The Third Man" eh...

The Third Man is such a great film.

Oh yeah and the famous scene at the amusement park where Harry Lime confronts Holli (and vice versa) has the "five hundred years of peace" in Switzerland versus "murder" etc., "under the Medicis and Borgias in Italy" which produces Michelangelo and so on whereas in the Swiss realm what is produced? "The cuckoo clock!"

Welles wrote these lines and apparently director Carol Reed and writer Graham Greene had no "objections" but then how could they?!...

No, absolutely brilliant movie—goes on my top 5, or even 3.

The Military-Industrial Complex blahblahblah

If they are it would be the Industrial Intelligence Complex. I hazard to guess agents of religion .. .

"...Reed and . . .Greene had no objections (to the "Cuckoo
Clock" Speech".)

I didn't know that Welles was
the writer as well as the actor. Thanks, @Michael_Welch.
(I did know that The Third Man was a screen play before it was a novel - - not such a
abnormal sequence now, but
it was unusual in those days.)

Welles wrote as I said that ONE speech it seems but of course not the entire script. I speculate that he may well have "augmented" his own dialogue in other films in which he "only" appeared, such as "Prince of Foxes" and "The Black Rose"; after all Peter Ustinov, a talented writer-director as well as an actor, did the same, particularly re "Spartacus," a film for which he won best supporting actor for 1960...

"Welles wrote. . .that ONE ("Cuckoo Clockspeech. . ."
Understood. I meant that I didnʻt know he had written
even that. It did seem strange that Greene, a religionist, would have written it, but I thought it might be his image of a "Gottglauber"
who "still do(es) .. believe in God", but does NOT let the belief affect his basic personal philosophy.
My study of Greco-Roman classics, b t w, doesnʻt uphold
the Welles/Lime caveat. Great works were miore likely to be produced before or after a war* or other major upheaval -- sometimes, granted, IMMEDIATELY before or after. Even the
Third Man situation is itself
a post-war, not a wartime
situation.

*Except of course works like
Periclesʻs funeral oration (not known as P. spoke it, but only through Thucydidesʻs paraphrase of it), or Ciceroʻs Catiliniarians and Philippics,
composed during the actual crises: these depended on the war or crisis for their existence.

Greene was a Catholic; we Catholics can be a bit "off beat" you know...