Well actually there are other worse ideological shills than Time Magazine in 2006 indeed they probably would not even make my top 50 list. Hell Warren Kinsella is so obscure he would not even make my top 1000 ideological shills. Although he probably would make my top ten self-absorbed list just behind Tony Blair. Alas back to the main point: top ideological shills of 2006.
So why does Time get my vote for Number One Ideological Shill of 2006 even though I say they do not make my top 100? Simple, Hugo Chavez won their on line poll for Person of the Year by a wide margin and who does Time give the person of the year to? All of us websters.
Leaving aside the fact that ‘person’ is singular and ‘we’ is plural (hey it is Time and it is written at a grade eight level so I suppose we can’t be too sticky on agreement) there is the question of WTF this could possibly mean except to say that ideologically Chavez was unpalatable and the times (pun intended) are so conservative that Time just could not fathom Chavez on the cover. So like Time Magazine I am giving my Top Ideological Shill of the award to a milk-toast nebulous entity with a grade eight reading and comprehension level.
Canadian Observer 
December 18, 2006 at 9:34 am
And then they gave world newsmaker to the President of Iran. You know who the Americans are really terrirfied of. And it ain’t Hugo.
December 18, 2006 at 9:43 am
For sure. Iran is to Chavez what the US blockade is to Castro.
December 18, 2006 at 11:33 am
Time is to Chavez as Newsweek is to “somebody else no one really cares about who didn’t really effect the news all that much except for one silly speech at the U.N.”
Say what you will about Time picking you as the Person of the Year but their snub of Chavez has nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with the fact that there is a list of newsmakers as long as my arm who were more important in 2006 than Hugo Chavez. Hell, I’d give this thing to Borat before I gave it to Chavez, and THAT’s saying something!
December 18, 2006 at 4:52 pm
That is too funy lol. Did you just put “Time” and “nothing to do with ideology” in the same sentence? I guess the xmas parties and boozing started early this year. Indeed it is saying something that you would give it to Borat before you would give it to Chavez…something ideological is what you would be saying.
December 18, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Well, I’m not saying Time has nothing to do with ideology, I’m saying this decision on Time’s POY not being Chavez has nothing to do with ideology.
I would have been astounded, absolutely astounded, if Mr. Chavez had been chosen. By what standard is he the person who most shaped 2006? How was ANYTHING Chavez did more impactful on 2006 than any other international politician? I jut don’t understand. What did Chavez do that was so earthshattering? Why is it so obvious that Time’s person of the year should be the President of Venezuela?
Time also didn’t pick my sister as “Person of the Year”. Was that an ideological choice too???
Now, I AM surprised it wasn’t Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and if you were making an argument that Time’s snub of Ahmadinejad was ideological I’d get it. But Chavez? Hugo Chavez? The highlight of his year was calling Bush the Devil at the U.N. Funny? Certainly. Year defining? Not within a country mile of it.
I ask again WHY CHAVEZ?
If your answer is simply “because an online poll says so” well, think about that for a second.
December 18, 2006 at 5:57 pm
I should clarify too that I’m not saying that I would have made Borat person of the year. I’m simply saying that, as I go down the (EXTREMELY) long list of people who had a greater impact on the year that was 2006, I can even see something as immaterial as Borat being higher on the list. Other radical thoughts I had to demonstrate how little an impact Chavez had on 2006 included Kevin Federline, and that woman from the “Head On” commercials (apply directly to the forehead!). Those two were, I decided, just BARELY too radical to suggest, and I will admit that Mr. Chavez had a greater impact than K-Fed and annoying headache lady on 2006.
Barely.
As for that point about my reference to Borat saying something ideological, I’m curious. Is thinking Borat is a better POY candidate than Chavez right-wing or left-wing?
December 18, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Lord you really can’t tell the difference between Hugo Chavez and your sister?
December 18, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Sure I can canadian observer, don’t be silly.
What I’m saying is that Hugo Chavez didn’t get picked because he had basically no impact on 2006 (just like my sister). Nothing ideological about it.
I’m certianly willing to be convinced though. Explain to me what Chavez did in 2006 that makes him worthy of being named person of the year. Maybe there is something, but I don’t remember hearing about it.
December 18, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Out of curiosity, did anyone see CNN’s special on the picking of Time’s POY? Was Chavez even discussed? I know Ahmadinejad was discussed extensively, as was a triumverate of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (they were going to call them either the “axis of incompetence” or the “axis of ignorance” – they moved on before deciding I think) but I didn’t see the whole program. Did Chavez get a mention?
December 18, 2006 at 6:34 pm
I’d also follow your ideological notion by the way if you were complaining about Muqtada al-Sadr or Kim Jong Il not being POY.
So, so far, putting aside my whole list of possible POY candidates, Chavez is only #4 on my list of international political figures who aren’t in the American’s good graces (actually, he’s at least #7, as I’d also rank Bashar al-Assad, Khaled Mashal and Ismail Haniyeh higher than Chavez).
As far as I’m concerned, Chavez isn’t even at the top of the list of candidates who might have been overlooked for ideological reasons for Pete’s sake.
December 18, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Oh Lord you seem to have more of a hard-on for Chavez than I do. Look it is well known that the US considers Latin and South America as its own back yard and it is well known that during the cold war it was decidedly hot down there. What makes Chavez remarkable is the degree to which he has put the needs of the poor back on the agenda in the L&S America, the degree to which it has not impacted economic growth and the degree to which Chavez has managed to win popular democratic support time and again in the context of a heavily critical private media. All these things make Chavez and Venezuela a real story and real news maker. None of the figures you point to have achieved any of things mentioned above.
But hey if you prefer to focus on figures in the “clash of civilizations” as opposed to the clash of ideas and a real improvement in the lives of people then I suppose that is your right.
December 18, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Guys, please go check this video.
Chavez has done in 7 years what other presidents did not in 40 years.
Uh, oh, Chavez won’t go!!!
HE REMAINS IN POWER TO CONTINUE HELPING PEOPLE IN VENEZUELA AND WORLDWIDE!!!
December 19, 2006 at 11:30 am
I’ll just say that George W. Bush got elected President of the United States TWICE (well, arguably once, but whatever…). Let’s face it, people are stupid. I put no stock whatsoever in Chavez winning an online Time poll.
Now, as for my supposed focus on the “clash of civilizations”, the whole point of your post is that there is something ideological about Time’s snub of Chavez. That they didn’t pick him because he was anti-American. So I’ve shown you 6 anti-American candidates who have all been more impactful on the world at large in 2006 than Chavez, and pointed out that I’d perhaps agree with arguments that any of THEM were snubbed for ideological reasons. It’s hard for me to accept that there was an ideological reasoning behind the Chavez snub, when he doesn’t even crack my top 5 list of worthy candidates who might be snubbed for ideological reasons. Now, when looking for anti-American sentiment, one tends to look in the Middle East, so there is a titlt towards that “clash of civilizations” in the list. However, I could have just as easily provided a list of 6 pro-American (or at least not actively anti-American) candidates who ALSO had a greater impact on thw year that was than Chavez.
I just don’t see how the election of Chavez in Venezuela will have a greater effect on the globe in the future than the election of Hamas in Palestine, or the election of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Or Iran and North Korea’s bellicose rhetoric, and continued pursuit of nuclear weapons. It certainly didn’t have a greater impact on 2006 than dozens of other stories, and I’m not convinced it will have a greater impact going forward into 2007.
You make an excellent argument for why Hugo Chavez should be Latin and South America’s person of the year (though the Castro brothers wouldn’t be a terrible pick as Castro nears the end of his reign). And if anything had happened in Latin or South America that had basically ANY effect on the rest of the world this year, maybe he’d be a logical choice for Time’s POY. But nothing did. Improving the lives of his people and winning elections is all excellent work by Chavez. It’s also kinda his job. If he keeps it up, he may have such an impact on the region that one day he is named Times POY. So far, he’s not even in that league.
I think 2007 will settle the argument. Will we spend 2007 focused on Latin and South America, and Venezuela in particular, or is it possible that one of the following countries will dominate the news –
Iran, Iraq, China, North Korea, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Pakistan, India, Brazil.
We’ll just never agree here I guess, but I’m utterly convinced Chavez didn’t lose out because of ideological considerations. He lost out because there were far too many people ahead of him on the list of possible candidates who had a greater impact on the world in 2006. FAR too many.
December 19, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Lord what you do not seem to be getting is that the precise problem that Chavez represents for the American’s is that his little revolution represents the language of freedom, equality and community of the enlightenment tradition he is ideologically the most repugnant precisely because he can not be painted as anti-western civilization but rather represents that old promise of the development of western civilization. It is hard to go Invade Iraq in the name of freedom and human rights and at the same time come out against Chavez. There is a kind of ideological checkmate. Hence why we were given the award. Better to celebrate the individual than either the so-called enemies of civilization or those like Chavez who seek to move it forward. The putative we / you was a safe ideological harbour for Time in these times.