Conference back40::soapbox

What the hell did he do?

            Tell us when the MotY is an Episcopalian, whyntcha?  :-)

>Tell us when the MotY is an Episcopalian, whyntcha?  :-)

I would dare say more MotYim have been Episcopalian than Roman Catholic.

/john

    jack had a ligit question. just what did the pope do this past year to
    earn this award? i would think that the UN commander in bosnia would be
    more worthy. not so much for achievements, but for surviving with so
    many shackles on.

    I would've said "The American Voter", for grabbing the reins and
    doing something to attempt to slow down the runaways in DeeCee.
    
    Or if it must be a specific person, then Jimmeh.  Clinton would've
    popped a vein or two, so that's probably why Time didn't do it.
    
    Chris

    Rush Limbaugh

    Jeff Dhamer. Too bad he wasnt born a few years earlier. He could have
    been great in Nam.... 'Hungry boy? Well he is a gun, a knife, and a
    fork. You can hunt Charlie, and eat all you catch! Yep. Charlie wears
    black jammies. Our guys wear green stuff'.

    Re: .7
    
    	Your remarks are objectionable.

    .8 your remarks are too.;)

	Carter has done more too. So what has the Pope done this year? Besides
become immobile.


Glen

    Newt Gingrich
    
    Did the most to mobilize the Repubs and overcome 40 years
    of dim hegemony.  Next Congress will be unlike any we've
    seen in over a generation.
       

    I didn`t Newt say much until the elections were over. I think it was
    the Dem`s own fault for losing...they were their own worst enemy.
    

    
    Newt will be Time's choice, I bet.  This is not an endorsement.
    I believe in 1939 they chose Hitler.  Correct by their criteria.
    
      bb

>    Newt will be Time's choice, I bet.

How much do you want to bet?

    
    Pope John Paul II currently has both a best selling book and a hot
    selling CD in the market.
    
    Paul
    

    
    Gee, I shouldn't say, "I bet" in the 'Box !  I'm deluged with
    offers, and am going to weasel out.  Maybe somebody already
    has the scoop and I'm a sucker.  The Pope certainly wouldn't be
    a bad choice.  I can also see them pulling a funny, like when they
    made the IBM PC man of the year (yes, they really did).  For example,
    they could pick "Congressional Republicans" and put a melange of
    GOP heads on the cover, Dole/Gingrich larger than the others.  To my
    purist mind, these choices cannot be "Man of the Year".  By the way
    I would have no such objection to their selection of female
    individuals, since I'm one of those who think that women are men
    in the logic of the English language.
    
      bb

>I'll only bet a drink at the next bash...

bb will be buying drinks at the next bash!

/john

    
    Great, I'll check my calendar for January.

 I don't drink, but I'll have a large diet coke!





Jim

    
    RE: .8
    
    This troubles me....
    

    >Pope John Paul II currently has both a best selling book and a hot
    >    selling CD in the market.
    
    Using this as a criteria, Tim Allen should get the nod!
    
    ...Tom
                                      

    
    RE: .20  Jim.
    
    And what will you do with the large diet coke if you don't drink?

| <<< Note 194.13 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>


| Newt will be Time's choice, I bet. This is not an endorsement. I believe in 
| 1939 they chose Hitler.  Correct by their criteria.


	bb, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were comparing Eye of Newt to
Hitler..... :-)

    
    There are parallels, actually.  A dozen years outside power.
    Outrageous statements nobody but he believes.  The Reagan
    connection, the attractiveness to the middle class, the expert
    use of media, repetition with telling effect, a great smile,
    a messy personal life, a myth, the horror of liberals plus their
    complete ineffectiveness in opposing him, etc.  But I doubt there
    is the underlying hatred and racial madness of Adolph.  That was
    very German.  And there is no military parallel, of course.
    
      bb

Well, you can talk about Newt in the Newt topic, 'cuz he's NOT Time's MotY.

/john

    Newt isn't involved in the occult like Hitler was!

>    Newt isn't involved in the occult like Hitler was!

What about eye of Newt?

	bb, Newt, like Hitler, both have permanant bad hair days..... 

	

    
    
>    And what will you do with the large diet coke if you don't drink?



 Toss it over my shoulder and recite the Gettysburg address while hopping
 on one foot ;-)

    
    Would that be hopping on your left foot or right foot?

    re.27
    One man's occultism, another man's republicanism.
    
    Marty :^)

    
>    Would that be hopping on your left foot or right foot?



 Yes

Men, Women and Ideas of the Year, 1927 - 1994
   
1927 Man of the Year: Charles Augustus Lindbergh
1928 Man of the Year: Walter P. Chrysler
1929 Man of the Year: Owen D. Young
1930 Man of the Year: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
1931 Man of the Year: Pierre Laval
1932 Man of the Year: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
1933 Man of the Year: Hugh Samuel Johnson
1934 Man of the Year: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
1935 Man of the Year: Haile Selassie
1936 Woman of the Year: Wallis Warfield Simpson
1937 Man & Wife of the Year: Generalissimo and Mme Chiang Kai-Shek
1938 Man of the Year: Adolf Hitler
1939 Man of the Year: Joseph Stalin
1940 Man of the Year: Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill
1941 Man of the Year: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
1942 Man of the Year: Joseph Stalin
1943 Man of the Year: George Catlett Marshall
1944 Man of the Year: Dwight David Eisenhower
1945 Man of the Year: Harry Truman
1946 Man of the Year: James F. Byrnes
1947 Man of the Year: George Catlett Marshall
1948 Man of the Year: Harry Truman
1949 Man of the Year: Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill
1950 Man of the Year: American Fighting-Man
1951 Man of the Year: Mohammed Mossadegh
1952 Woman of the Year: Elizabeth II
1953 Man of the Year: Konrad Adenauer
1954 Man of the Year: John Foster Dulles
1955 Man of the Year: Harlow Herbert Curtice
1956 Man of the Year: Hungarian Freedom Fighter
1957 Man of the Year: Nikita Krushchev
1958 Man of the Year: Charles De Gaulle
1959 Man of the Year: Dwight David Eisenhower
1960 Men of the Year: U.S. Scientists
1961 Man of the Year: John Fitzgerald Kennedy
1962 Man of the Year: Pope John XXIII
1963 Man of the Year: Martin Luther King Jr.
1964 Man of the Year: Lyndon B. Johnson
1965 Man of the Year: General William Childs Westmoreland
1966 Man of the Year: Twenty-Five and Under
1967 Man of the Year: Lyndon B. Johnson
1968 Men of the Year: Astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell
1969 Man and Woman of the Year: The Middle Americans
1970 Man of the Year: Willy Brandt
1971 Man of the Year: Richard Milhous Nixon
1972 Men of the Year: Nixon and Kissinger
1973 Man of the Year: John J. Sirica
1974 Man of the Year: King Faisal
1975 Women of the Year: American Women
1976 Man of the Year: Jimmy Carter
1977 Man of the Year: Anwar Sadat
1978 Man of the Year: Teng Hsiao-P'ing
1979 Man of the Year: Ayatullah Khomeini
1980 Man of the Year: Ronald Reagan
1981 Man of the Year: Lech Walesa
1982 Machine of the Year: The Computer
1983 Men of the Year: Ronald Regan and Yuri Andropov
1984 Man of the Year: Peter Ueberroth
1985 Man of the Year: Deng Xiaoping
1986 Woman of the Year: Corazon Aquino
1987 Man of the Year: Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev
1988 Planet of the Year: Endangered Earth
1989 Man of the Decade: Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev
1990 Men of the Year: The Two George Bushes
1991 Man of the Year: Ted Turner
1992 Man of the Year: Bill Clinton
1993 Men of the Year: The Peacemakers: Yitzhak Rabin, Nelson Mandela,
			F.W. de Klerk and Yasser Arafat
1994 Man of the Year: Pope John Paul II

Who were:

1929 Man of the Year: Owen D. Young
1931 Man of the Year: Pierre Laval
1933 Man of the Year: Hugh Samuel Johnson
1946 Man of the Year: James F. Byrnes
1955 Man of the Year: Harlow Herbert Curtice

And who are these two guys:

1978 Man of the Year: Teng Hsiao-P'ing
1985 Man of the Year: Deng Xiaoping

    
    >He sought to appease Italy when Mussolini invaded Ethiopia.
    
    and was helped by Samuel Hoare prompting the King to quip
    " no more coals to Newcastle, no more Hoares to Paris" 
    

                                                                 
    Hey, the library at St Lawrence is named after Owen D. Young!  I didn't
    realize he had been Man of the Year.
    
    Owen D Young was a 1894 graduate of St Lawrence University, president
    of General Electric, founder of RCA, author of the German reparation
    payments and fiscal recovery plans after WWI (I think WWI).  He was a
    Democratic presidential candidate in 1932 but withdrew when he decided
    FDR had a better chance of winning.
                                                          
    Also, he was Chairman of the Board of Trustees at St Lawrence.
    

>And who are these two guys:
>
>1978 Man of the Year: Teng Hsiao-P'ing
>1985 Man of the Year: Deng Xiaoping

One and the same:

Official English Spelling of Chinese Changed.

/john

re .39:

I knew that.  I you knew that I knew that.

A Little History . . .

   
   
   For a tradition that has such global resonance today, TIME's Man of
   the Year started out in the most ordinary way. Henry Luce and his
   fellow editors were facing a slow week at the end of the 1927, and
   they couldn't decide who to put on the cover of their fledgling
   newsmagazine. Someone suggested they make up for a lapse that had
   occurred earlier in the year, when they had failed to put Charles
   Lindbergh on the cover after he had completed the first solo flight
   across the Atlantic. The solution: Name the immensely popular Lindy
   Man of the Year
   
   The idea was a big hit, and before long, men such as Mahatma Ghandi
   and Franklin Roosevelt were gracing the cover of the first issue every
   year. The criterion quickly became clear: The Man of the Year was the
   person who, for better or worse, had most influenced events in the
   preceding year. Nor did the person always have to be a man. Wallis
   Simpson was Woman of the Year in 1936 and Generalissimo and Mme Chiang
   Kai-Shek were Couple of the Year for 1937. We took further liberties
   with the formula when the personal computer became Machine of the Year
   in 1982 and Endangered Earth the Planet of the Year in 1988.
   
   Over the decades controversy has surrounded our choices of people who
   would not exactly have been candidates for a Nobel peace prize: Adolph
   Hitler, Joseph Stalin and, more recently, Ayatullah Khomeini. Yet no
   one could deny that these men had an enormous impact on the course of
   history. The Man of the Year reflects a news judgment, not a seal of
   approval.
   
   - - Henry Muller, Editorial Director of Time Inc.

>>I knew that.  I you knew that I knew that.

	you he knew?  what you he knew?
	i you knew you he knew too.

    
    
    tell me time magazine isn't sexist...nearly all the ?of the year were
    men...and 2 of the ones with women were groups of women...not a
    specific person...as if women of the world don't accomplish much...
    
    
    remind me not to buy time
    
    

    Okay don't buy time.  Besides you can't anyway, buy time that is as
    there is a finite amount you are allotted and you cannot get anymore. 
    Once it is gone it is gone forever.  Oh, you meant the magazine Time. 
    Well, don't buy that either.

But can you play for time?

 Reminds me of a joke...


 person #1 Hey, what's green and yellow, crawls on the ground and makes 
           funny noises?


        #2 I don't know, what?



        #1 Time Magazine 
   
        #2 Time Magazine? I don't get it



        #1 Me neither, I get Newsweek!






        

    
    Wade-Gilles is the older transliteration, Pinyin is the more
    PC ...

MAN OF THE YEAR
  
EMPIRE OF THE SPIRIT
   
   BY PAUL GRAY 
   
   People who see him - and countless millions have - do not forget him.
   His appearances generate an electricity unmatched by anyone else on
   earth. That explains, for instance, why in rural Kenyan villages
   thousands of children, plus many cats and roosters and even hotels,
   are named John Paul. Charisma is the only conceivable reason why a CD
   featuring him saying the rosary - in Latin - against a background of
   Bach and Handel is currently ascending the charts in Europe. It also
   accounts for the dazed reaction of a young woman who found herself,
   along with the thousands around her in a sports stadium in Denver,
   cheering and applauding him: "I don't react that way to rock groups.
   What is it that he has?"
   
   Pope John Paul II has, among many other things, the world's bully-est
   pulpit. Few of his predecessors over the past 2,000 years have spoken
   from it as often and as forcefully as he. When he talks, it is not
   only to his flock of nearly a billion; he expects the world to listen.
   And the flock and the world listen, not always liking what they hear.
   This year he cast the net of his message wider than ever: Crossing the
   Threshold of Hope, his meditations on topics ranging from the
   existence of God to the mistreatment of women, became an immediate
   best seller in 12 countries. It is an unprecedented case of mass
   proselytizing by a Pontiff - arcane but personal, expansive but
   resolute about its moral message.
   
   John Paul can also impose his will, and there was no more formidable
   and controversial example of this than the Vatican's intervention at
   the U.N.'s International Conference on Population and Development in
   Cairo in September. There the Pope's emissaries defeated a U.S.-backed
   proposition John Paul feared would encourage abortions worldwide. The
   consequences may be global and - critics predict - catastrophic,
   particularly in the teeming Third World, where John Paul is so
   admired.
   
   The Pontiff was unfazed by the widespread opprobrium. His popular book
   and his unpopular diplomacy, he explained to TIME two weeks ago, share
   one philosophical core: "It always goes back to the sanctity of the
   human being." He added, "The Pope must be a moral force." In a year
   when so many people lamented the decline in moral values or made
   excuses for bad behavior, Pope John Paul II forcefully set forth his
   vision of the good life and urged the world to follow it. For such
   rectitude - or recklessness, as his detractors would have it - he is
   TIME's Man of the Year.
   
   The Pope is, in Catholic belief, a direct successor of St. Peter's,
   the rock on whom Jesus Christ built his church. As such, John Paul
   sees it as his duty to trouble the living stream of modernity. He
   stands solidly against much that the secular world deems progressive:
   the notion, for example, that humans share with God the right to
   determine who will and will not be born. He also lectures against much
   that the secular world deems inevitable: the abysmal inequalities
   between the wealthy and the wretched of the earth, the sufferings of
   those condemned to lives of squalor, poverty and oppression. "He
   really has a will and a determination to help humanity through
   spirituality," says the Dalai Lama. "That is marvelous. That is good.
   I know how difficult it is for leaders on these issues."
   
   John Paul's impact on the world has already been enormous, ranging
   from the global to the personal. He has covered more than half a
   million miles in his travels. Many believe his support of the trade
   union Solidarity in his native Poland was a precipitating event in the
   collapse of the Soviet bloc. After he was nearly killed in 1981, he
   visited and pardoned his would-be assassin in jail. Asked an awed
   Mehmet Ali Agca: "Tell me why it is that I could not kill you?" Even
   those who contest the words of John Paul do not argue with his
   integrity - or his capacity to forgive those who trespass against him.
   
   His power rests in the word, not the sword. As he has demonstrated
   throughout the 16 years of his papacy, John Paul needs no divisions.
   He is an army of one, and his empire is both as ethereal and as
   ubiquitous as the soul. In a slum in Nairobi, Mary Kamati is dying of
   AIDS. In her mud house hangs a portrait of John Paul. "This is the
   only Pope who has come to this part of the world," she says. During
   his most recent visit, he sprinkled her with holy water. "That," she
   says, eyes trembling, "is the way to heaven."
   
   In 1994 the Pope's health visibly deteriorated. His left hand shakes,
   and he hobbles with a cane, the result of bone-replacement surgery.
   Asked about his health, he offered an "Oh, so-so" to TIME. It is thus
   with increased urgency that John Paul has presented himself, the
   defender of Roman Catholic doctrine, as a moral compass for believers
   and nonbelievers alike. He spread through every means at his disposal
   a message not of expedience or compromise but of right and wrong; amid
   so much fear of the future, John Paul dared to speak of hope. He did
   not say what everyone wanted to hear, and many within and beyond his
   church took offense. But his fidelity to what he believes people need
   to hear remained adamant and unwavering. "He'll go down in history as
   the greatest of our modern Popes," says the Rev. Billy Graham. "He's
   been the strong conscience of the whole Christian world."
   
   And then there was the sorry state of the globe he proposed to save.
   Patches of the Third World sank further into revolutionary bloodshed,
   disease and famine. The developed nations began to resemble weird
   updatings of Hieronymous Bosch: panoramas of tormented bodies, lashed,
   flailed and torn by the instruments of material self-gratification.
   Secular leaders dithered and disagreed and then did nothing about the
   slow death of Bosnia, the massacres in Rwanda.
   
   Private behavior appeared equally adrift. People trained to know
   better showed that they did not, notably the younger members of
   Britain's royal family, who energetically pursued self-implosion, with
   TV documentaries and books their detonators of choice. In Los Angeles
   two separate juries could not agree on a verdict in the trials of Lyle
   and Erik Menendez, young men who admitted killing their parents, at
   close range, with shotguns. The nightly news became a saraband of
   sleaze: Tonya, Lorena, Michael, O.J.; after 10 days of claiming to
   have been the victim of a carjacking, a South Carolina mother
   confessed she pushed the vehicle into a lake with her two tiny sons
   strapped inside.
   
   The secular response to the tawdriness of contemporary life was not
   uplifting; it largely amounted to a mingy, mean spirited
   vindictiveness, a searching for scapegoats. Many interpreted the
   Republican sweep in the November elections as a sign that voters were
   as mad as hell and ready for old-fashioned verities. That seemed to be
   the view of incoming House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who called for a
   constitutional amendment allowing voluntary school prayer in public
   schools. He also suggested it might be a good idea to fill orphanages
   with the children of welfare mothers.
   
   John Paul was personally affected by the turmoil of 1994. He could not
   make planned visits to Beirut and Sarajevo because enmities on the
   ground were too volatile. Rwanda dealt him particular grief: an
   estimated 85% of Rwandans are Christians, and more than 60% of those
   Roman Catholics. Some priests were accessories to massacre. The new
   faith was unable to overcome tribal conflict.
   
   But when circumstances allowed him to act, John Paul did so
   decisively. His major goals have been to clarify church doctrine -
   believers may experience doubt but should be spared confusion - and to
   reach out to the world, seek contacts with other faiths and proclaim
   to all the sanctity of the individual, body and soul.
   
   He made advances on all of these fronts in 1994. The Catechism of the
   Catholic Church appeared in English translation, the first such
   comprehensive document issued since the 16th century. It clearly
   summarizes all the essential beliefs and moral tenets of the church.
   Some Catholics believe it will be the most enduring landmark of John
   Paul's papacy. In June, John Paul oversaw the establishment of
   diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Israel, ending a tense
   standoff that had existed ever since 1948.
   
   In May the Pope released an apostolic letter in which he set to rest,
   for the foreseeable future, the question of the ordination of women.
   His answer, in brief, was no. The document disappointed and outraged
   many Catholic women and men; even some sympathetic to the Pope felt
   that his peremptory tone, his strict argument from precedent, i.e.,
   that Christ appointed only males as his Apostles, represented a missed
   opportunity to teach, to explain an exclusionary policy that
   contemporary believers find outmoded or beyond understanding.
   
   The high or the low point of the Pope's year, depending on who did the
   reporting, came in September. The U.N. population conference convened
   in Cairo, with representatives from 185 nations and the Holy See in
   attendance. On the table was a 113-page plan calling on governments to
   commit $17 billion annually by the year 2000 to curb global population
   growth. About 90% of the draft document had been approved in advance
   by the participants, but the remaining 10% contained some bombshells
   John Paul had seen coming. The most explosive was Paragraph 8.25,
   which owed its inclusion in part to a March 16 directive from the
   Clinton Administration to all U.S. embassies; it stated that "the
   United States believes access to safe, legal and voluntary abortion is
   a fundamental right of all women" and insisted the Cairo conference
   endorse that policy.
   
   John Paul was not in Cairo, but he kept in constant touch with his
   delegation. Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls recalls the Pope's
   reaction to Paragraph 8.25: "He feared that for the first time in the
   history of humanity, abortion was being proposed as a means of
   population control. He put all the prestige of his office at the
   service of this issue." For nine days the Vatican delegates, under his
   direction, lobbied and filibustered; they kept their Latin American
   bloc in line and struck up alliances with Islamic nations opposed to
   abortion. In the end, the Pope won. The Cairo conference inserted an
   explicit statement that "in no case should abortion be promoted as a
   method of family planning"; in return the Vatican gave partial consent
   to the document.
   
   In public relations terms, it was a costly victory. There he goes
   again, the standard argument ran, imposing his sectarian morality on a
   world already hungry and facing billions of new mouths to feed in the
   coming decades. One Spanish critic said the Pope had "become a
   traveling salesman of demographic irrationality." Says dissident Swiss
   theologian Hans Kung: "This Pope is a disaster for our church. There's
   charm there, but he's closed-minded." The British Catholic weekly the
   Tablet summed up Cairo, "Never has the Vatican cared less about being
   unpopular than under Pope John Paul II."
   
   Cairo perfectly crystallized reciprocal conundrums: the problem of the
   Pope in the modern world and the problem the Pope has with the modern
   world. The conflict boils down to different paths of reason and
   standards of truth. In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul
   locates the source of the great schism between faith and logic in the
   writings of the 17th century French philosopher Rene Descartes,
   particularly his assertion "Cogito ergo sum" (I think; therefore I
   am). The Pope points out that Descartes's formulation turned on its
   head St. Thomas Aquinas' 13th century pronouncement that existence
   comes before thought - indeed, makes thought possible. Descartes could
   presumably have written "Sum ergo cogito," but then the history of the
   past 300 years might have been profoundly different.
   
   Although not the only one, Descartes was a major inspiration for the
   scientific revolution and the Enlightenment. Truth became a matter not
   of doctrine or received traditions but of something materially present
   on earth, accessible either through research or sound reasoning. "Know
   then thyself, presume not God to scan," Alexander Pope wrote in
   1733-34. "The proper study of Mankind is Man."
   
   The human intellect, thus liberated, proved prodigious; the fruits of
   its accomplishments are ever present in the developed world and
   tantalizingly seductive to those peering in from outside the gates.
   John Paul is not a fundamentalist who wants to repeal the
   Enlightenment and destroy the tools of technology; the most traveled,
   most broadcast Pope in history knows the advantages of jet airplanes
   and electronics.
   
   Instead he argues that rationalism, by itself, is not enough: "This
   world, which appears to be a great workshop in which knowledge is
   developed by man, which appears as progress and civilization, as a
   modern system of communications, as a structure of democratic freedoms
   without any limitations, this world is not capable of making man
   happy."
   
   In essence, the Pope and his critics are talking at cross-purposes,
   about different universes. His reaffirmations of the church's
   doctrines on sexual matters actually form a small part of his
   teachings, but they have drawn most of the attention of troubled
   Catholics and the Pope's critics in the West. The conviction is
   widespread that sexual morality and conduct are private concerns,
   strictly between individuals and their consciences. But who guides
   those consciences? the Pope would ask. Many population experts see a
   future tide of babies as a problem to be solved; the Pope sees these
   infants-in-waiting as precious lives, the gifts of God. The church's
   doctrine that condoms should not be used under any circumstances has
   provoked, in the age of AIDS, deep anger. Henri Tincq, who writes on
   religious subjects for Paris' Le Monde, sums up this reaction, "The
   church's refusal of condoms even for saving lives is absolutely
   incomprehensible. It disqualifies the church from having any role in
   the whole debate over AIDS." As heartless as John Paul's position may
   seem, it is consistent with his view of the world: the way to halt the
   effects of unsafe sexual practices is to stop the practices.
   
   Those who will never agree with the Pope on birth control, abortion,
   homosexuality and so on may nonetheless have benefited from hearing
   him speak out. Says Father Thomas Reese of the Woodstock Theological
   Center in Washington: "He's the one keeping these issues alive, things
   people should reflect on morally. He can't force them to do things,
   but he provides a constant reminder that these are moral questions,
   not simply medical or economic ones."
   
   John Paul has never stepped back from difficulties, and he looks
   forward to an arduous 1995 agenda. First up is a scheduled 10-day trip
   in January to Papua New Guinea, Australia, Sri Lanka and the
   Philippines, where the Archbishop of Manila is in open conflict with
   the country's Protestant President over population control. The Pope
   is also laying strategy for the 1995 U.N. World Conference on Women in
   Beijing, which figures to be a replay of Cairo. In June, he plans to
   meet with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the leader of the
   Eastern Orthodox Church. John Paul has long spoken of mending the
   breach between the Roman and Eastern churches that became final in
   1054. The Berlin Wall, put up in 1961, came down 11 years into his
   papacy; undoing the effects of a millennium may take him a little
   longer.
   
   The Man of the Year's ideas about what can be accomplished differ from
   those of most mortals. They are far grander, informed by a vision as
   vast as the human determination to bring them into being. After
   discovering the principle of the lever and the fulcrum in the 3rd
   century B.C., Archimedes wrote, "Give me where to stand, and I will
   move the earth." John Paul knows where he stands.
   
   Reported by Thomas Sancton and Greg Burke/Rome, Joseph Ngala/Nairobi
   and John Moody and Richard N. Ostling/New York

	Anyone remember an episode of Night Court when they were fining this
guy for causing traffic jams, and when they panned back it was the pope?? :-)

    
     No, I do not remember that.
    
     Paul
    

    Back to the subject: Barney, the evil manipulator of future
    generations.
    
    8^P

    Barney is an alien from space. And plans to eat all the children he can
    catch in his space ship.

    and back to .35:
    
    Byrne was Secretary of State. Don't recall who Johnson and Curtice
    were.
    
    The choice of Laval in 1930 is an example of a bad miss -- I doubt he
    did anything of substantial interest in some brief Third Republic tenure.
    
    Awaiting death (which his patron Petain was spared because of his WWI
    fame), Laval wrote a brief memoir in his own defense. Spitting into the
    wind of popular opinion even long before Soapbox era, I used the memoir and
    other sources to write a paper in high school that defended Laval. 
    
    But then, Benedict Arnold was a particular hero of mine since junior
    high  I read about his exploits in Canada, Lake Champagne and Sarasota,
    in Kenneth Roberts "Rabble in Arms".
    
    Kit  

    ... were legendary, but only because the future Mrs. Arnold had truly
    immense feet, and he being ever the gallant, insisted on doing the
    "drink-bubbly-from-the-slipper-bit" after each and every waltz.  This
    was, admittedly, in his pre-traitorous daze.
    
    Hope this helpz.
    
    |-{:-)
    

    
    Wanna bet it's Yitzhak Rabin this year?
    

    
    Colin Powell
    
    -b

    Jim Carrey

       Carry Nation

Liberace

 Kermit T Frog

    You the guy on Binder's 'BoxPage wiv the bulbous eyes & chlorophyll-
    hued epidermis?
    

 Could be

    Homer Simpson

    
    Janet Reno
    

    Bwa!

 Johnnie Cochran

Jerry Garcia

O.J.

snarf

<< Who's he, some kind of baseball player or something?

	Yes, the most famous players the Sox ever had. The name has been passed
down to so many...... but that was during the Gorman years.... :-)

    Time's Man of the Year?  Why, Bill Clinton, of course.  Gotta prime
    the re-election pump.
    
    I was going to buy this week's Time, but I couldn't get past the
    hatchet-job cover they did on Buchanan.
    
    Chris

    He's probably right. Gotta keep a dem at the top, no matter what it
    costs the rest of the country.

 What did they do to Buchanon?

	If we take the Eye of Newt's and the Welfare Handout Kennedy's, combine 
the two, we would probably have a good candidate. One that would please most of
the people. But with Dole, we ain't even close. With Clinton, we're a little
closer. Both have good points, both have bad. Clinton's bad points SEEM fewer
than Doles.


Glen

    re: Buchanan
    
    It's a close-up of him scowling into the camera, with words along
    the lines of   H E L L   R A I S E R   or something similar in huge
    letters, and a similarly unflattering subtitle(s).  I gave it about
    a two-second glance before I moved on, thus my lack of detail recall.
    
    Chris

>	If we take the Eye of Newt's and the Welfare Handout Kennedy's, combine 
>the two, we would probably have a good candidate. One that would please most of
>the people. But with Dole, we ain't even close. With Clinton, we're a little
>closer. Both have good points, both have bad. Clinton's bad points SEEM fewer
>than Doles.

 I had to read this three times before I could accept that anyone could consider
 any candidate as being worse than Clinton, and Bob Dole no less!!!

 All I can do is shake my head in disbelief  :-(

 Clinton, The only president that I was ever embarassed about ...

 Doug.

                       <<< Note 194.77 by BRITE::FYFE >>>
            -< You can say that after these last three years ???? >-

> Clinton, The only president that I was ever embarassed about ...

President Carter was pretty embarassing, too.

    Hey, Carter was an economic marvel.  After all, he disproved Kensian
    economics by creating an inflationary recession.  20+% prime interest
    rate is something that the Repub's haven't been able to match yet.

    -1 there's time, there's time...

> What did they do to Buchanon?

For one thing, they prolly spelled his name right.

	Gerald, you mean they spelled his name, Right....;-)

 I nominate Mr Feurstein (sp?) owner of Malden Mills in Methuen Mass. His
 business burned to the ground and yet he� is paying his employees for the 
 next 30 days, including Christmas bonuses and extending medical benefits
 for 90 days.


 Jim

    second.
    
    All in favor?

    I

    
    What does Malden Mills make, that I should go out right now 
    and buy a dozen of?
    

    Polarfleece fabric, which is used to make clothes that keep your warm
    and which effectively wick perspiration away from your skin. It's 100%
    synthetic, made from recycled soda bottles.

    They made among other things, Polar Fleece, ECO fleece etc.  They are
    the manufacturer for the likes of L.L. Bean, Patagonia,  EMS, REI, etc. 
    Apparently they also have/had a factory store that you could purchase
    seconds, overruns, and samples at good prices.  Never knew about that
    aspect before.  
    
    Brian

    
    Ahhh, yes, Polarfleece.  There's a Polarfleece sweater on my Xmas
    list already (grey, which is my favorite colour).
    

    Rabin.

<----dead men don't wear plaid.

    
    Jim's right - if I could vote, he'd get mine...
    
    I know people who work there at the Mill, and they always said he was a 
    nice guy - I believe them...
    
    TG                                      

    and !Joan, you could order your flannel lined jeans from L.L. Bean

    
    Chris,
    
    Yeah, I have their catalogue, but the exchange rate is a killer right
    now.  Sears has what I'm looking for.  Me mum's under strict orders
    in this matter.
    

    
      Well, I lost last year to Covert, who predicted the Pope.  I'll
     let my prediction of Newt ride.  It woulda been Powell if he decided
     to run.
    
      Next year, it's a shoo-in for Clinton or Dole or whoever wins the
     prexy election, so they might not choose a politician this time.
     But who made a lot of news this time who wasn't an officeholder ?
     I can't think of any 1995 non-political newsmakers.
    
      bb

    
    re: .93
    
    re: flannel lined jeans from L.L. Bean
    
    Got mine on....
    
    $3.00 in a yard-sale last year... like brand new...
    

    
    .95
    
    OJ?
    

    .87
    
    Polartec(tm), not Polarfleece.
    
    Polartec is a patented material, and it is considered by people who sew
    to be the finest of the polyester cold-weather insulating fabrics.  It
    has an excellent hand, is similar in appearance to wool, does not pill
    as its competitors do, and sews wonderfully.

	!Joan.... that's the man who should be doing time this year... not 
time's man of the year.... ;-)

    
    http://pathfinder.com/@@L4tA5LG8MwIAQNBo/time/special/moy/moy.html
    
    1995's has not been announced yet, I don't think, but it should be
    soon, probably within a week or so.
    

    About 20 years ago TMOY was the Computer.  This year it will be the
    Internet or the Web.
    
    -- Jim

    I can't think of any 1995 non-political newsmakers.
    
    How about Bill Gates?  Windows '95 was a big enough story that he
    might make it.  My other guesses would be Newt or Powell.

    I agree with .90:  Rabin.  Unless he died late enough in the year that
    they already picked someone else.

Other than dying, what, of any import, did Rabin do in 1995 to deserve
the MOTY award?

I'm not questioning the fact that he made noble contributions to the world
in his lifetime, but I don't know that 1995 was necessarily one of his
better years for that.

That doesn't have to be considered in Time's choice.

Rabin is quite likely to get it.

/john

Who I expect (not want) to get picked:  O.J.

Remember, he was all over the news *every single day* until the acquittal, and
for some time after.


Remember, Time's Man of the Year isn't necessarily a mark of admiration.
They picked Hitler one year, and they weren't admiring him.

    
    .103,
    
    Agree with .90?  What about .55?  ;^)
    

    
    bb called it.
    

    It's Newt!

    
    WHERE?!?!
    

    He's everywhere, he's everywhere!!!

So I watched most of the CNN Time's Man of the Year special... and I have to
say that Judy Wood-something continues to unimpress me w/ her obvious 
liberal bias...

example:

Judy:  "What about these charges that GOPAC used funds to illegal help 
        you get elected?" (paraphrased)

Newt:   Gives an answer about why those charges are totally bogus and blows
        Judy away w/ the answer leaving no doubt that it's just the dems 
        looking for anything to get even w/ Newt...

Judy:  "These are very serious charges, right?"

Judy didn't even listen to Newt's answer... just wanted to make the charges
as serious as possible... I could have followed with 10 or more questiones
that would have delt w/ Newt's previous answer but her bias is just too strong.

BTW, Newt's response was:  "It's not serious because it's bogus and not true".

Judy goes on: "If they were, is it a serious charge?"

She is really pathetic.

/scott

    /scott
    
    That was Judy Woodruff and she was an anchor with one of the
    network affiliates here in Atlanta before she was "elevated"
    to her current job ;-}
    
    I caught part of that interview also; got same impression you
    did, she was too busy looking ahead to her next question to really
    pay attention to what Newt was saying.
    

    
      Well, it just goes to show that if you keep picking the same
     person year after year, eventually you'll get it right.
    
      :-)  bb
    
    

    time magazine has selected newt gingrich as their "man of the year"
    
    other candidates included shamir, farrakan (sp), colin powell, and bill
    gates. 
    
    last year, time selected pope john paul II as the man of the year. has
    time gone from one end of the spectrum to the other with this year's
    selection, or was it the right choice. imo, if they did it based on the
    power he has and the controversy he has created, it was the right
    choice. 
    
    discuss...
    
    

    agree with his politics or not, Newt does deserve the only since he b
    rought the drastic changes in the politic winds to Washington.  Being
    able to deliver on what he promised the voters with the COA in one
    session has to stack up favorably with all the Democratically
    controlled Congress has done to dismantle America the previous 4 0
    years.  
    
    INHO, he is the BEST choice for MOY.
    
    NR

    Hey, did you hear??  Newt Gingrich is Time Magazine's Man Of The Year!

re: .118 (Andy)

What wound?  I couldn't give two hoots who Time uses to increase
magazine sales.  

I was making fun of the right-wing-write-only noters who somehow see
this is a triumph.  Funny how Time gets bashed as being liberal;
now it's some sort of visionary rag that's finally seen the light.

Ya, right.

Wasn't Saddam their "pick" one year?  Great company, Newt.

\john

    \john is just jealous since his favorite man, Pee Wee Herman didn't get
    the nod...

Maybe he should take matters into his own hands, then

    Re; "bring drastic changes..." so did uncle Adolph but I'd hardly
        nominate him for that.
    
        ...and no, i'm not drawing a comparison of the men.

    Chip:
    
    Look at how Time judges "MOY", they'll tell you that it's the person
    wiyth the most impact, positively or negatively, during the past 12
    months...that's why Newt got the nod.

    btw, the award isn't called Saint of the Year!

    /John's pissed because Gingrich made some silly contract with America,
    the masses voted in November, and he's attempting to stick with it.  

    
    
    
    And the nooz (at least around here is making sure they mention that
    Sadaam and Adolf were TMOTY in the past.  Anyone comparing Newt
    Gingrich to either one of these inividuals needs to get a reality
    check.
    

>    And the nooz (at least around here is making sure they mention that
>    Sadaam and Adolf were TMOTY in the past.  Anyone comparing Newt
>    Gingrich to either one of these inividuals needs to get a reality
>    check.

Um, they do have something in common.  They've all been TMOTY.

>    /John's pissed because ...

\john, not me.

/john

>>    /John's pissed because ...

>\john, not me.
>
>/john

Heck, /john, this \john's not pissed either.

\john

    You should be Juan more time for old times sake.

    He's don juan before?

    i heard he was dung wong

    
    Juan Harn�.  I like it.
    
    Or even better, Jean Harn�.  'Twould go well with the other
    moderatistes, Levesque and DesMaisons.
    

    
    
    Would that then make this the:
    
    FRANCO-BOX???
    

    
    	If they're moderating this conference, that definitely makes them
    	francophooles.