It's time for the A&E network to name the 'Person Of the Year.' To be considered for "Biography of the Year," a person must have had a significant impact on America and the lives of its people.

I used to think that this was just another mvie star personality contest until I realized that past 'winners' include Adolph Hitler, Ayutollah Khomeni and O J Simpson.

Any ideas? My vote would have to go to Osama bin Laden who, with just a handful of supporters, changed not only America, but also the world and the lives we live in a most negative way.

In many respects, this monster has achieved his goal - to create terror. But he has to live with his own terror as well. Can you imagine his life of constant looking over his shoulder, the constant fear of capture, never staying in one place too long, wondering who he can really trust?

While Bin Laden may have changed the lives of American citizens wherever they may be in the world, he has not changed my life one iota, and many non Americans would say the same.
His attacks on Americans stem from their foreign policy and would expect a continuation until the USA abandon their support for Israel

I find it hard to believe that the country in which you live hasn't altered its disaster and evacuation plans or implemented increased security at airports and other public places since 09/11.

Also, don't your newspapers print stories about alQueda? Your TV broadcast the latest developments in the war on terror?

If yes, you probably haven't noticed. If no, I'd move.

the only place that has increased security is the American Embassy and the airport but the embassy is the heaviest guarded.The government have said there there are increased security measures in place but you cannot stop a determined terrorist no matter how hard you try

I'd have to think that Bin Laden and co's acts of terrorism on the US had little impact on the lives of the billion or so people in China, or the millions of people in Sub Saharan Africa.
In any case the year is now 2004 not 2001 and the "award" is for a significant impact on America. So the non-American minority need not worry ourselves about it.
Nevertheless I'd be very surprised indeed if the award didn't go to George W Bush. I'd be just as surprised if election years didnt always give "person of the year" to the winner.
That's just the way things work.

If I had to vote for 2004's Person of The Year, it not be Bush or Kerry; it would be President William Jefferson Clinton.

by supporting the Israeli's,the US have alienated the arab nations and I abhor the situation that the Palestinian people find themselves in.
I would dearly love to see both Arab and Israeli's living in peace and it can happen if the West takes the initiative

That is a better explanation, as the way you put it earlier gave the impression you weren't actually concerned about what happened to Israel, but of course I agree if there's a way both can live there together that is what should be happening. And there were many times they did for periods, until whatever event happened to spoil the balance, regardless of 'who started it' in each particular case. Arabs and Jews have actually spent longer living in harmony throughout history than not. The current antipathy is a relatively new phenomenon and not representative of historical attitudes. Some Europeans were far more antisemitic in earlier centuries than any Arab or Muslim countries at the time. And it hasn't all been like this since Israel was created. There's a long history and a minority on both sides were responsible for stirring up bad feeling, both by anti-Palestinian laws restricting their rights, and regular attempts for neighbouring countries to attack Israel. But what are countries supposed to do? Be neutral or support the Arabs are the alternatives. Fair enough to be neutral, but why support the Arabs instead? They have the money and resources to do what they like to Israel already, while Israel are hardly big enough to constantly defend themselves from hostile nations on all sides. It's not a fair fight otherwise.

Sorry for going off track here, feel free to repost this topic separately if necessary .

I would hardly say US support of Israel against Palestine evens things up. It has always seemed a lopsided situation to me. But that's another thread. So is the response to bin Laden's attacks on America stemming from our foreign policy. I have to agree, to an extent, but saying it like that almost removes the onus of responsibility from Osama's shoulders and puts it back on us. Do we need to change some things in order for us to be safer? Sure. Is it our fault a lunatic religoius zealot killed thousands of people, surely not. And speaking of that, it's important to remember that the attacks on the World Trade Center were carried out specifically because it would effect people from many nations. And it has.

That said, I don't think Osama is a great choice for this "award". I'd say, it'll be someone more in the news lately. George W. maybe. Pretty good money could also be put on Yasser Arafat, but only because he died this year. But then, it'd be hard to measure how much impact he had on Americans.

"Is it our fault a lunatic religoius zealot killed thousands of people"

Are we talking about Osama or Bush here.
Sorry somebody was gonna say that, thought id get in first.
Incidently nice to see Rufus lets you use zealot in here.
Dying really shouldn't count should it. It will but it shouldn.t

Heh, Quogequox, it's a fair question. But yes, I was talking about Osama.

Is zealot a bad word?

No, dying shouldn't really count, but they like people who've been in the news, and dying certainly can put one there. Like I said, I'm not sure about Arafat's impact on Americans, compared to the impact of Bush or pretty nearly any member of his administration. But his having died recently will probably put him on the list of potentials.

I tried putting zealot in a quiz i was writing but Rufus didn't like the word "alot"!
Stupid robot!

I would have a serious problem with naming a man like Osamo Bin Laden or Yassir Arafat as Person of the Year. They may have affected the world, but in a negative manner. To recognize what they have done is one thing; to reward it, that's something else.

If I were to pick a person of the year, I would have to choose Michael Moore. Whatever your politics are, you must admit that he has stimulated politics for younger people like no other. I see young people (13-16) debating both sides of his movie when coming out of the theater. One would say "It's propaganda" while the other would say "Its just the facts given in an entertaining manner". I personally admire the man.

So Bush was named Man of the Year by Time, for "changing the face of politics." Wow. Yeah, he has shown that people can cheat and lie, and win. And now, it seems it has spilled over into Texas schools... imagine that.

Newspaper finds evidence of cheating by Texas schools

Doesn't that make ya sick? What did Bush do that was so important this year? Aside from conducting the most underhanded and silliest campaign I, for one, can remember. I was expecting Laci Peterson to be named, believe it or not. Her story was much more compelling than Bushy's was. And her situation got massive amounts of TV airing time (which, I guess, shouldn't make anyone a "Person Of The Year"...).

All I can say is that it does fit in with Time's statement that even people who have negatively affected the world can be chosed as Persons of the Year.

For me if i had to chose an American, and let me say i dont think that small nation needs any more plaudits to add to its over the top big headed attitude it would be

Lance Armstrong...legend and a sportsman of the highest calibre

But...Margaret Hassan for me.
She was a good hearted, freedom baring woman who gave her soul to the people of Iraq and stood up to be counted when the going got tough.

The needless waste of a beautiful woman was for me the worst thing to come out of this totally unjust war and invasion.

Margeret Hassan woman/person of the year.
R.I.P