And the person of the year is:
 

Time magazine named George W. Bush as the person of the year. Although I'm not a big fan of GW, I can't deny that he has had a great influence on the events of 2004.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: http://www.time.com/time/personofthe...004/story.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eagles rather than doves nestle in the Oval Office Christmas tree, pinecones the size of footballs are piled around the fireplace, and the President of the United States is pretty close to lounging in Armchair One. He's wearing a blue pinstripe suit, and his shoes are shined bright enough to shave in. He is loose, lively, framing a point with his hands or extending his arm with his fingers up as though he's throwing a big idea gently across the room.

"I've had a lot going on, so I haven't been in a very reflective mood," says the man who has just replaced half his Cabinet, dispatched 12,000 more troops into battle, arm wrestled lawmakers over an intelligence bill, held his third economic summit and begun to lay the second-term paving stones on which he will walk off into history. Asked about his re-election, he replies, "I think over the Christmas holidays it'll all sink in."

As he says this, George W. Bush is about to set a political record. The first TIME poll since the election has his approval rating at 49%. Gallup has it at 53%, which doesn't sound bad unless you consider that it's the lowest December rating for a re-elected President in Gallup's history. That is not a great concern, however, since he has run his last race, and it is not a surprise to a President who tends to measure his progress by the enemies he makes. "Sometimes you're defined by your critics," he says. "My presidency is one that has drawn some fire, whether it be at home or around the world. Unfortunately, if you're doing big things, most of the time you're never going to be around to see them [to fruition], whether it be cultural change or spreading democracy in parts of the world where people just don't believe it can happen. I understand that. I don't expect many short-term historians to write nice things about me."

Yet even halfway through his presidency, Bush says, he already sees his historic gamble paying off. He watched in satisfaction the inauguration of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. "I'm not suggesting you're looking at the final chapter in Afghanistan, but the elections were amazing. And if you go back and look at the prognosis about Afghanistan—whether it be the decision [for the U.S. to invade] in the first place, the 'quagmire,' whether or not the people can even vote—it's a remarkable experience." Bush views his decision to press for the transformation of Afghanistan and then Iraq—as opposed to "managing calm in the hopes that there won't be another September 11th, that the Salafist [radical Islamist] movement will somehow wither on the vine, that somehow these killers won't get a weapon of mass destruction"—as the heart of not just his foreign policy but his victory. "The election was about the use of American influence," he says. "I can remember people trying to shift the debate. I wanted the debate to be on a lot of issues, but I also wanted everybody to clearly understand exactly what my thinking was. The debates and all the noise and all the rhetoric were aimed at making very clear the stakes in this election when it comes to foreign policy."

In that respect and throughout the 2004 campaign, Bush was guided by his own definition of a winning formula. "People think during elections, 'What's in it for me?'" says communications director Dan Bartlett, and expanding democracy in Iraq, a place voters were watching smolder on the nightly news, was not high on their list. Yet "every time we'd have a speech and attempt to scale back the liberty section, he would get mad at us," Bartlett says. Sometimes the President would simply take his black Sharpie and write the word freedom between two paragraphs to prompt himself to go into his extended argument for America's efforts to plant the seeds of liberty in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

An ordinary politician tells swing voters what they want to hear; Bush invited them to vote for him because he refused to. Ordinary politicians need to be liked; Bush finds the hostility of his critics reassuring. Challengers run as outsiders, promising change; it's an extraordinary politician who tries this while holding the title Leader of the Free World. Ordinary Presidents have made mistakes and then sought to redeem themselves by admitting them; when Bush was told by some fellow Republicans that his fate depended on confessing his errors, he blew them off.

For candidates, getting elected is the test that counts. Ronald Reagan did it by keeping things vague: It's Morning in America. Bill Clinton did it by keeping things small, running in peaceful times on school uniforms and V chips. Bush ran big and bold and specific all at the same time, rivaling Reagan in breadth of vision and Clinton in tactical ingenuity. He surpassed both men in winning bigger majorities in Congress and the statehouses. And he did it all while conducting an increasingly unpopular war, with an economy on tiptoes and a public conflicted about many issues but most of all about him.

The argument over whether his skill won the race and fueled a realignment of American politics or whether he was the lucky winner of a coin-toss election will last just as long as the debates among historians over whether Dwight Eisenhower had a "hidden-hand strategy" in dealing with political problems, Richard Nixon was at all redeemable and Reagan was an "amiable dunce." Democrats may conclude that they don't need to learn a thing, since 70,000 Ohioans changing their minds would have flipped the outcome and flooded the airwaves with commentary about the flamboyantly failed Bush presidency. It may be that a peculiar chemistry of skills and instincts and circumstances gave Bush his victory in a way no future candidates can copy. But that doesn't mean they won't try.

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.

For sharpening the debate until the choices bled, for reframing reality to match his design, for gambling his fortunes—and ours—on his faith in the power of leadership, George W. Bush is TIME's 2004 Person of the Year.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh goodie. Time has lost all credibility. Having a great influence is not the same as a positive one. That's awful, but then again, Time has always sucked at the whole "person of the year" thing anyway.

Wow. History sure has a cynical way of repeating itself.

The person of the year is chosen for his or her influence on the events of the year (positive or negative). This being the case, I can't dispute Time's decision. But I'm sure Time chose someone as loved and hated as Bush to stir up some controversy and more importantly, increase magazine sales.

Just when you think the left is done with the Bush = Hitler...

Well not that I like Bush, but we have to all agree that he has influenced a lot of what has happened the last year. I think it's pretty appropriate that he gets this title.

Oh and please, stop with the Bush = Hitler thing. Sure Bush is bad (IMHO) but he is not as insane as Hitler, honestly...

lots of people liked fascism the last time out.
people who were worried about economic instability, about the status of the Nation. rather than look at the situation squarely--only communists do that---the problem was Resolve which can only be achieved through total mobilization, the leaking of military values into everything, becoming intertwined with psuedo-religious discourse about the Nation itself. this Resolve required an Enemy, preferably one that was not quite locatable...it worked out quite well for these folk..they liked fascism then.

of course, it was easier to like it before the story unfolded.
so we have learned from the past:
this time, folk like a parallel type of ideological "reality"
but they do not like the word fascism.
therefore, bushworld is totally other than fascism-lite.
because we do not like the name.
q.e.d.

curiously, i agree that the bush=hitler equation is not helpful.
it is too inflammatory: it is not quite accurate.
but i do not think that you can erase the underlying matter--whether and how bushworld resembles a kind of fascism--by objecting to the superficial equation of bush with hitler.

as for time magazine.....what is there to say, really?
it is time magazine.

I'm pleased that this good and decent human being and, IMO, great leader is the focus of this important story. Seeing him recently in person, reinforced my admiration for his human qualities.

:lol:

That gave me a chuckle.

If Time was going for the impressive master manipulator, they should have chosen Karl Rove. I mean, why focus on the figure head when you're supposed to be delving deep into the issues?

edit: I bet they'd sell more magazine's with pretty boy George than stodgy old Karl. And isn't that the nature of the biz?

Wow, I guess nowadays it doesn't take much to qualify as a good and decent human being. I'm glad to know that If I ever send 1,000+ Americans and thousands upon thousands of innocent foreign civilians to their deaths for no apparent reason, I'll be looked upon as a good person.

The reason stated in the post above has nothing to do with my previous statement regarding my assessment of the humanity of the President of the United States.

From the Time website...

I think it would be hard to argue that Bush hadn't been the most influential figure of 2004.

Oh really now? Then what in your view constitutes a decent, "humane" person?

Surely it's someone who doesn't kill? Surely it's someone who doesn't steal from the poor to give to the rich? How about someone who doesn't lie? Maybe someone who doesn't destroy the very habitat in which he lives in?

I'm not aware that this man ever killed anyone. I'm not aware of any conviction for theft, either. I do believe he clears brush from his ranch. But I do that too and I'm a pretty decent and "humane" person.

I acknowledge the fact that not everyone shares my assessments here. They are, in fact, my own.

Bush=Hitler IS too inflammatory and somewhat innaccurate, however, there are enough similarities to add a touch of irony to Time's selection. Some parallels do exist. For instance, each believed/s that if the world were shaped in his image it would be better, each relied on recent historical events in an attempt to drum up domestic support, and each was/is impressively successful at painting non-supporters as heritical or un-patriotic.
Time magazine has become the Cosmo of "news" periodicals. You only have to look as far as their regular cover stories on the bible and christianity to see where their bias originates from.

So did... pretty much every leader in history. I cant wait for the Eisenhower = Hitler things now...

Don't forget Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, they ordred men to their deaths as well.

my god, seeing you guys try to attack Art like vultures is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

What dictates that your belief of a better human is more worthwhile then his? He didn't step on your feet by saying the person you believed in was an absolute failure. It's pure illogical hate like that that makes things bad.

Even if you don't agree with Art, or other forum members doesn't mean you are intellectually or morally superior to them. How crass.

I can honestly say some of the members in this thread are absolutely pathetic.

"The ironing is delicious." -- Homer Simpson

Can we stop bickering, please? I am (as Art will attest) one of the worst offenders on this board and I came back to the forum after the weekend and was literally exhausted by the bickering and ad hominem attacks on people. If I think it's too much, we have really sunk pretty low.

it's really too bad there isnt a smilie for throwing up. shrub is the tail of the dog. All those who put him in office are the dog.

I dont know which was the bigger gut shot. Cal losing the rose bowl to inbred texas coaches or watcing these inbred southerners put shrub back in office.
:|

^^^

"French Stewart, your answer? Threive, a combination of the numbers three and five. And your wager? Texas with a dollar sign."

"Simply Shocking."

excuse me while I vomit......

I don't think I've been personally attacked here.

Of course the group collectively known as "Bush supporters" is one of those groups that is often the target of fascinatingly clumsy and quite transparent generalization.

Time also picked Stalin for the years 39 and 42 and ayatollah Khomeni in 79. I vote for Dick Cheney. Emperor of the world.

How true. Here is a smiley for you by the way......we can share this feeling. http://mindscraps.com/s/cwm/3dlil/puke.gif

Yea I may have overreacted Art but not to a point were I would even think of an appology to anyone I offended. I still stand strong that in your post you didn't find a need to put down anyone, while seeing others take stabs at a person they don't even personally know (in this case our president).

There are liberals on this forum who stand for what they believe in and give great evidence, and their are conservatives the same. It's those (on both side) that demean people and their point of views that irk me so.

There are liberals on this forum who stand for what they believe in and give great evidence, and their are conservatives the same. It's those (on both side) that demean people and their point of views that irk me so.[/QUOTE]

Huh? sorry, maybe i did one too many bong hits. But what?.....

So we can't take stabs at someone (the Prez.) we don't even personally know, but you're allowed to praise the same person (the Prez.) you don't even personally know?

How does that work?

OH you could say what you want, thats your right. Me personally I'm not going to spend my time and life trying to put down and make fun of others only because I don't agree with them. There's a difference in defending what you believe in and attacking those who don't believe the same as you. I mean read the few post above us Manx, look how many people (mostly on the left in this thread) start immediately with a snide comment meant to demean either our President or the right.

Doesn't it strike you odd that they start that way? Even after people saying that TIME releases this based on whoever changes the world the most that year. I think a majority of us could agree that Osama is probably bad, and didn't he get on the cover? I bring that point up because some of the reponses on this thread is written by people with complete emotional hate just because of one simple event.

Heh I can't believe in the year 2000 how I too wanted to leave the united states because George Bush won, how I hated our massive alliance with Israel, and how I thought the world was going to end. I remember well blaming Bush in his early years on all our trouble with the economy and with the 9/11 issue. Then I realize I didn't have all the answer, that I was stupid myself. I was cutting down anothers point of view with one I thought was superior when I didn't even have all the answers. I realize then that if I had a healthy discussion and got both sides of the fact, I could come to my own personal realization of the matter and be comfortable with myself. Through personal research and casting emotional feeling aside I've come to realize that "Hey that George Bush guy isn't so bad". This is from a HUGE Clinton fan. I absolutely adored Bill Clinton, and now I'm a George Bush fan.


I really wish those who were nuetral would come out and talk. I wanted at first to show that I was open minded to both sides, but I guess some people may assume I'm too right now. Really do I want someone neutral to come and take a active study and compare the debate style of those on this forum who are left and who are right.

I would put a lot of money on the fact that left debate style would be more Insulting and abusive then the Right.

You could make this claim about any politician. The democratic messiah Bill Clinton would have fit this profile perfectly. Actually Clinton would form a better parallel to Hitler: after both came into power people who supported them and might have incriminating info about them mysteriously started killing themselves.

Not really. I see it as a method of release of built up frustration at the effectual banging your head against the wall process of dealing with conservatives.

Maybe it isn't the kindest, most gentlest thing - but kindness and gentleness seem to have no place in politics, of either ideology.

I'd take that bet in a NY minute. Alas, any neutral study that swings my way would be denounced by conservatives as liberal bias.

;)

no, it´s not the bong hits. You are definately way more high than I.

'

um... off topic, and VERY insulting.

Why thank you Pedro for being so enlightening.

Now tell me in what ways has any of your post on this thread been helpful rather then harmful?

Well that's a pity, I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

I just find it interesting that the traits that some people say come from those "Inbred Southerners" show in your point of view. You know like being offensive, being irrational, and being angry show so glaringly.

I have most certainly not been irrational.

Osam Bin Laden should have been man of the year in 2001 (based on the above quote) instead of Rudy Giuliani, but if picked, I would imagine the people of the US would have set thier hair on fire.

Having picked Bush as man of the year, Time has shown they are willing to pick someone based on the negative influence aspect IMO.

I am dismayed that such a poor excuse for a human being, and, IMO, the
worst president that this country's government has ever been subjected to,
has been chosen as Time's "Man of the Year.

I recognize that the truth about Bush's decency and his humanity probably
lies somewhere below Art's opinion, and somewhere above my opinion. One of
us has an opinion that is much closer to the truth than the other. Here is
some information on historians' opinions:

A polling of historians is hardly a random sample. Its perhaps as biased a sample as one could get. Most historians are self-proclaimed liberals and anti-war to begin with. Nice find.

A lot of the members in this thread are pretty harsh. You can't base your opinions on someone because of a SNL skit or propaganda passed off as a documentary. Cynicisim can blind. Got PRK?

In 3 generations Bush will be viewed as one of the most (positively) influential presidents this nation ever had.

stevo... you are quite correct, IMHO.

Perhaps the study of history has made them liberal and anti-war? And being scholars of history, democrat or not, their opinion of Bush is a valuable one.

3 generations, when Bush and all of those who were actually alive during his joke administration are all dead...yes...only then will we view Bush as the "most (positively) influential presidents this nation ever had." ;)

stevo:

first off, your statement about historians comes from the history news network article itself, and so hardly constitutes an insight. in my experience amongst this peculiar group of people, americanists who would likely be polled for this kind of project would not be among the more left-leaning of the profession. that said, the results are kind of surprising on the surface: but i cannot see how you can possibly argue otherwise. have a look at this list of "achievements" noted by the writer of this same article:

now you might object to some of the drift in rhetoric in the above, but as a basic list of problems, it is not bad.
you might not like these problems, you might prefer to pretend they are not problems, but it is apparent that this is not understood universally as a compelling position.
and given that the above is little more than an outline, it seems to me that you need to be a virtuoso of denial to not see significant problems with the bush regime.

one thing i can say in defense of historians insofar as you can say anything about them as a porfessional group based on this one article, is that they do tend to look at questions like bushworld in broader terms than is generally allowed if your main infromation source is television. in this space, the ideological frame conservatives put around themselves to limit their intake of information simply does not obtain. you might wonder about this in terms that are not simply self-confirming--maybe the problem is that this framework is simply not compelling in itself to folk who traffic in information. maybe it is simply not compelling in space where there is a degree of autonomous thinking. maybe it is simply not compelling.

i do not see in time magazine's goofy "person of the year" competition anything like an evaluation of the administration in terms of actual "achievments"---i do not see anything beyond a curious understanding of "importance" measured most probably in terms of mentions/citations....it would be like trying to determine whether an audi was more or less important than a humvee in world-historical terms by counting the number of times each has appeared in advertisments.

:eek:

Brilliant post roachboy. I'd enjoy reading someone's argument against this list...anyone up for it?

This is Times 'Canadian Edition' Man of the Year, Maher Arar.

Interesting since he as a Canadian was deported by the U.S to Syria apparently because of ties to al queda.

Funny how one man of the year speaks of the injustices in some countries in the world,..ie human rights etc and another man of the year speaks that of the country (U.S) who unjustly treated him, and continue to uncooperate as to why Arar was deported and tortured in the first place.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Ottawa...90421-sun.html


Rights crusader Arar Time's top newsmaker


By MEGAN GILLIS, Ottawa Sun

Local man's ordeal
... and Bush Person of the Year



AN OTTAWA man fighting to uncover the events that led to his deportation and torture in Syria is Time's Canadian Newsmaker of the Year. But Maher Arar never wanted to make the news.

"At the beginning, when I came back, I felt my nightmare would end there," he said yesterday. "Then I learned that would not be the case.

"It has been so hard on me and my family. I just wanted my life back. Now I have accepted I will never have my life and my career back. I just want my children to have theirs."

Arar never expected to be transformed from a workaholic engineer to a passionate rights crusader.

"This whole struggle has changed me completely as a person," he said. "I learned a big lesson: How important it is to speak out about injustice. People can get their rights back if they fight for them."

Time tells Arar's story in an article by Canadian bureau chief Steven Frank. The issue hits newsstands today.

The magazine's choice shows that Canadians have begun to see that everyone is hurt when rights are trampled in the name of security, Arar said.

He vows to keep fighting for the truth about what happened to him to come out but the outcome is now in the hands of Prime Minister Paul Martin and Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan.

The Canadian citizen was arrested at a New York airport as he returned from a family holiday in Tunisia. He was deported to his native Syria, where he was held for months and tortured until he confessed -- falsely -- to training with al-Qaida.

When his wife Monia Mazigh's tireless campaign secured his release, Arar didn't disappear. He pushed for an inquiry and took on the powerful, including U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and former PM Jean Chretien.

'COURAGE'

"For taking on the national security agencies in two countries; for standing up to anonymous allegations with courage, forcefulness and common sense; for stepping into the public realm despite the cost, Maher Arar is Time's Canadian Newsmaker of the Year," Frank wrote.

Arar has become a spokesman against the injustice and fear that have shadowed life in the West since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and raised questions about how Canadian law enforcement shares information with foreign governments, Frank wrote.

It was a tough choice, editor Adi Ignatius said. Editors pondered Auditor General Sheila Fraser, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein and Canada's few Olympic medallists, among others.

"Ultimately, though, there was one person who we felt symbolized the issues that are likely to be of lasting importance to Canada," Ignatius said. "That person is Maher Arar."

I take your comments to mean that American history is unreliable because
you have determined the bias of most historians, and that because of this,
the point of view of most historians is incorrect, but your unbiased view is
accurate. Your opinion and attitude seem alarmingly similar to what I observe
of Bush. You limit only yourself, but you and others of like mind enable
Bush to limit our country, and to an extent, the world.

It's an award from a magazine people, it really shouldn't be spurring this much vitriol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_the_Year

time magazine is indeed a joke.

but the thread seems to have moved quickly away from time magazine and the question of the "person of the year"---see the above link for infotainment on the award and the sorry history of pretending that the history of the united states overrides that of the rest of the world embedded therein---what it is (obviously) more about now is the evaluation of bushworld--which is more complex, and--not surprisingly--more heated.

roach, first off, my statement about historians came from my own HISTORY with them, from teachers, professors, grandparents, not from someone else.

I want to know if you have any stats/data to back up these statements you believe so blindly. Do you have any formal education in economics? Just because someone writes an article bashing bush and his administration's policies doesn't mean it is right. I'd like you to take the time and look through this presentation (don't worry, its only slides) and maybe you will see how you are being lied to by the left.

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20041220_Moore.pdf

I would like to point out a few interesting pieces of information in this presentation first, though. Did you know that under the current Bush tax plan we actually have a more progressive tax system than in 2000? Its true.

With bush's new tax cuts the top 1% pay 32.3% of all income taxes, without it they would only pay 30.5%. The top 10% pay 64.8%, without it they would be paying 62.6%. The top 80% of all wage earners pay 83% of all income taxes, without bush's tax cuts they would be paying 81.8% of them. And do you know what? The bottom 50% of all wage earners pay only 3.6% of all income taxes. Without bush's tax cuts they would be paying 4.1% of them. (when I mean all income taxes it is only individual income taxes, not corprate taxes.) These numbers come from the U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis. you can see the chart on p.8 of the presentation.

If you want to look at the budget deficits (cumulative from 2001-2004) only 22% was due to increased spending and 29% was due to tax relief. The remaining 49% of the deficits was due to the recession, one that was inherited from clinton. (If you remember the market tanked well before the nov.2000 election.)

You should try to catch the whole presentation. I caught it on CSPAN2 "the deuce" last night. Its called "Bullish on Bush" by Stephen Moore. Very informative.

I hope this shows you that you can't just take what other people say as the honest truth when they have nothing but rhetoric to back it up. Do some research for yourself. Look at some facts. look at some numbers. Talk to an economist. Don't just read some partisan dribble that is only steps removed from propaganda.

edit- How Cspan listed the presentation:

Forum
U.S. Economic Agenda
American Enterprise Institute
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 184892 - 12/20/2004 - 1:02 - $29.95

Moore, Stephen, President, Club for Growth
Selb, Gerald, Correspondent, [Wall Street Journal]
Hayward, Steven F., Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Mr. Moore is the author of Bullish On Bush: How George Bush's Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger, published by National Book Network.

Go ahead and order either the presentation the book, or both. If you watch/read it and you aren't enlightened, shit, I'll refund your money. (assuming you can proove to me you bought it and watched/read it.)

the american enterprise institute is presented in your post, stevo, as being non-partisan.

that is absurd: it is among the most powerful and well-funded of the network of rightwing thinktanks that are at the center of the conservative media machine. looking to them for accurate analysis of bushworld would be like reading trotsky for a neutral portrait of stalin. seriously, you have to be critical of sources.

as for your experience with historians: fine. my day job is as a historian. my view of them is different than yours. make of it what you will.
what i will say is that the "discovery" that history is political is better a first step than an excuse to dismiss: it can lead to a kind of facile nihilism (it is all just bullshit because objectivity is an illusion) or it can just as easily lead to a different, more critical type of reading. you seem to be stuck at the former: i would encourage you to explore the latter.

Well buddy, my day job is an economist and I can take the same numbers from the US Treasury, Office of Tax analysis, do my own impartial, un-biased (that is how we are trained) analysis and come up with roughly the same figures. Numbers don't lie, people do.

Maybe you can't see the facts because you are too blinded by your partisanship to notice the truth when it is presented to you.

And your statement about AEI being at the center of the "conservative media machine" is flippin' hilarious. What machine would you be talking about? Not CNN, CNBC, Time Magazine, The New Yorker, Boston Globe, or the NY Times of course. mmm, perhaps Fox News? Well then, why hasn't Fox News broke a story about this if AEI is at the center of the "conservative media machine"? And being critical of your sources doesn't mean dismissing them strait-off because of who they are....yes I'm talking to you, roach.

And another thing. Based on your posts, revealing that you are an historian only serves to strengthen my arguement that the average historian is liberal and anti-war. I said most historians are self-proclaimed as such, just as you are.

I never said I dismiss history because it has a political bias, I only keep that in mind when studying it and try to know something about the historian presenting it. You assume I'm "stuck in the former" based on one statement about historians. And why are we polling historians now about bush and his policies? Wouldn't it make more sense to let history unfold before we ask historians what they think about it?

Well peeps, I'd love to get back to this post (and forum) later today or tomorrow, but I'll be on the road a lot and pretty busy until the holidays are over, but I'll get back on here as soon as I can, probably once the holidays are over. I might be able to fit in a post or two, but I'm not sure. So have a merry christmas, roach (and everyone else), and a happy new year.

aei, heritage, cato, brookings, hoover....

you're an economist? well, live and learn, eh?

for what it is worth (writing as i go through a mix of music for the road, on which i shall be soon) i am not an americanist.
in my professional functions, i am fairly explicit about my politics--only part of which surface in these forums (this is sometimes like one of those rock em sock em robot games, you know? its hard to be terribly complex when you are everyone else are like plastic guys whacking each other...no-one wants their head to suddenly shoot skyward--got to stay focussed on the moving hand before your face)--and their conceptual underpinnings. in general i work out from the conceptual frameworks and try to pose questions about how history is staged/narrated and leave them open enough for students to think for themselves. i try to provide a range of materials as well,

maybe sometime we could have a conversation about what, from my viewpoint, are the boundaries that shape classical economics ideologically, about the politics of stats and their organization (like a switch in category makes the working class go away), about the impossibility of making "objective" statements, about the problems of pretending otherwise.

for the moment, all is shaped by jamming this post in between the flurry of last minute activities...i'll be for the most part out of here until the new year, so i hope all enjoy a lovely holidaze.....

It is certainly safe to say, the opinion of historians is, today, no better then anyone elses. Right now it is a current event, with no time to lend it the perspective of history.

The ultimate assessment of a president depends as much on what occurs after, as what happens during. It is not what Bush does today, so much as how his actions effect tomorrow. And until tomorrow, do not know.

I would suggest that history's best measure occurs after all those that lived during an event are dead.

I wouldn't go that far. Wouldn't you agree that having a good working knowledge of history would give you a perspective on current events that somebody that knows nothing of history would lack? You know, some arguments in favor of the policy of preemption use what we learned from WW2 as evidence that we can't sit idly by. You know, it's the danger of becoming isolationalist. So you say historians are biased, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. History is useful and so we need historians.

Well said. Love him or hate him, you can't deny his impact; especially since the campaign season was so long this year, he was constantly in the news