Person of the Week - Year in Review

Okay, maybe its a "Four Months in Review", since I just starte Person of the Week in September. Either way, here's a look back at a few of the people that I thought impacted the world in 2005.

Sep. 4-10: Gov. Kathleen Blanco
Sep. 12-15: John Roberts
Sep. 18-24: Oskar Lafontaine (Leader of the German "Left Party")
Sep. 25-Oct. 1: Ronnie Earle (Travis County, TX District Attorney)
Oct. 2-8: Harriet Miers
Oct. 9-15: Angela Merkel (German Chancellor-Elect)
Oct. 16-22: Winston Peters (New Zealand Foreign Minister)
Oct. 23-28: Harriet Miers
Oct. 29-Nov. 5: Senator Harry Reid
Nov. 6- 12: Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf (Liberian President-Elect)
Nov. 21-27: Ariel Sharon
Nov. 28-Dec. 3: Jack Layton (Leader of the New Democratic Party Of Canada)
Dec 4-10: PERSON OF THE YEAR - ARIEL SHARON
Dec. 11-17: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Dec. 18-24: Judah Maccabee (Legendary Jewish Hero)

PERSON OF THE WEEK - Dec. 18-24, 2005

I usually take the responsibility of Person of the Week very seriously, but everyone's entitled to a little lightheartedness every now and then. So, Even though he's been dead for well over two millentia; Judah Macabee, liberator of the Jews and hero of Hannukah, is ConservaGlobe's Person of the Week! (He is definitely dominating my week :)

Runner Up: Gilles Duceppe (Leader of Canada's Bloc Quebecois party [Quebec Seperatists])

Dishonorable mention: Jay Rockefeller

Happy Hannukah!

Okay, maybe I was a LITTLE harsh.

I was reading today that Bolivian president-elect Evo Morales has said that he will in fact try to linit cocaine production (so obviously he's not thinking of legalizing cocaine). His policy is to crack down on drug manufacturers, but not coca farmers, or as he puts it "zero cocaine and zero drug trafficking, but not zero coca or zero cocaleros (coca farmers)." He also says that he ready, in principle, to work with the US to stop drug production.

So, maybe I was a little harsh, but I'm still no fan of Evo Morales. I don't think that socialism do Bolivia (or any other country) any good. In fact, it will probably cause greater poverty in a country that is already the poorest in South America. Socialism claims to make every one equal, but this is not the reality. Socialist weath-redistribution schemes have backfired in Eastern Europe, Africa, and many other areas. There is not enough money in any goverment's coffers to make every poor man richer, but the aim of Socialism is ensure that nobody is any better off than anyone else. Hence, Socialists enforce monetary equality the only way they can, by making sure that everyone becomes poor (so everyone starves, but the government can feel good about itself because they are all starving equally).

I also still think that, no matter how good his intentions , Morales' attempts to increase coca production WILL cause an increase in drug trafficking, and I think that he his dreaming when he says that he can decrease cocaine production while increasing the coca crop. You would have to be high on something to believe that such a ridiculaous strategy would work.

"High" in the Andes - Morales wins Bolivian election

The votes are in in Bolivia's presidential election, and ultra-leftist coca farmer Evo Morales has won. This is bad news not just for the U.S., but for any country trying to keep kids off drugs.

Now, I'm not really bothered by the fact that yet another radical had been elected president of a Latin American country. While I am disappointed, I am not surprised. The world community is already dealing with whole slew of Fidel Castro wannabes throughout the region, and yet another would not be a major problem. However, Evo Morales is more than just a raging socialist, he is also a lifelong advocate for the cultivation of the coca plant (as he is himself a coca farmer, or cocalero).

If you are not familiar with the coca plant, its leaves are the raw material from which cocaine is distilled; and many Latin American governments (with the help of the U.S.) are working to decrease coca production. Now, I will be the first to acknowledge that there are legal uses for coca leaves. For example, Coca-Cola is flavored with compounds extracted from coca (although it no longer contains actual cocaine) and coca leaves play a very important role in indigenous cultures in the Andes (they are chewed as a mild stimulant, and used in many rituals). However, these uses do not account for the vast amount of coca production in Andean countries. THERE IS ONLY ONE USE FOR A COCA CROP AS LARGE AS BOLIVIA'S, COCAINE PRODUCTION.

MORALES HAS PLEDGED TO HALT BOLIVIAN COOPERATION WITH THE U.S.-LED "WAR ON DRUGS", AND CEASE ALL EFFORTS TO CURTAIL COCA PRODUCTION. Is he interested in compromise? No! Is he interested in keeping drugs out of the hands of kids worldwide? No! Does he seem to realize the dangers of cocaine at all? No! (I have heard that he actually wants cocaine legalized, but I cannot confirm this.)

Let me put this as simply as I can: EVO MORALES IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS MEN IN THE WORLD TODAY! I realize that he says that coca is nothing more than a medicinal herb; but let's face it, Indians can only chew so many leaves. The main purpose of Bolivia's coca crop is to get people high, and Evo Morales' policies WILL cause a drastic increase in drug production.

FOR U.S. READERS: This is just another reason why we should beef up security on our borders. The election of Evo Morales will cause a marked increase in drug traffic over the U.S.-Mexico border (because cocaine will start flooding out of Bolivia). IF YOU WANT TO KEEP KIDS OFF DRUGS, DARE TO SECURE THE BORDER!

Note: I have nothing against Bolivian coca farmers as people, my beef is with people like Morales who encourage the production of coca rather than other crops. The best way to halt cocaine production might be to offer coca farmers subsidies to produce other crops (I usually don't beleive in subsidies, but I'll make an exception here).

PERSON OF THE WEEK - Dec. 11-17, 2005

I know that it seems like old news by now (at least to us news junkies), but it was just a few days ago that Crips founder Stanley "Tookie" Williams was executed. Now, I haven't lived very long compared to some people, but I will say that the lead up to Mr. Williams execution as the biggest debate on the death penalty that I have witnessed in my lifetime.

Based on the previous paragraph, you're probably wondering why I didn't award Person of the Week to Tookie Williams. Well, not to be cynical, but Williams himself played a very small role in this controversy. The actual news makers were all of the people who were protesting his execution (Snoop Dogg, Mike Farell, Jesse Jackson, etc.). So, why isn't one of theme Person of the Week? Two words, they lost. The man who had the greatest impact was the man who actually controlled the fate of Tookie Williams, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Now, we could debate the merits of the death penalty all day, but you have to admit that it took guts to reject Williams' appeal for clemency. It would have been very easy (not to mention politically expedient) to bow to the whims of anti-death penalty crowd. After all, California is not exactly a red state, so I doubt that public support for the death penalty is very strong. But Arnold isn't driven by polls, he did what he thought was right.

Personally, I agree with the decision. I do not believe in the reduction of sentences based on personal turnarounds while in prison. In my book; 20 years means 20 years, life means life, and death means death. Now, we could argue about the merits of the death penalty until the cows come home, but the fact remains that the death penalty is in force in California. The Governor should have a respect for the law, meaning that clemency should only be granted based on the belief that a person is innocent, never on a governor's personal beliefs. If a governor pardons grants clemency to a criminal based on personal opposition to the death penalty. That (in my mind) would be a violation of separation of powers.

So for showing a tremendous amount of chutzpah in refusing to pardon Tookie Williams, Arnold Schwarzenegger is ConservaGlobe's Person of the Week!

For the record, I do not believe that governors or presidents should have the right to grant clemency unless they can cite evidence of judicial misconduct. Corrupt politicians could use pardons to get their cronies out of jail, essentially ensuring that any friend of the governor/president is above the law.

Peron of the Year, who did better?

PLEASE COMMENT ON WHO PICKED A BETTER PERSON OF THE YEAR.

WAS IT ME (Ariel Sharon) OR TIME MAGAZINE (Bono, Bill and Melinda Gates)?

I'm not looking for a pat on the back, I want honest opinions. If you think TIME did a better job, say so. (please support your opinion with fact). Also, feel free to comment on who you think should have been Person of the Year.

Tag: Person of the Year

TIME picks a cop-out...again

For the record, TIME magazine has selected three "Persons of the Year": Bono, Bill Gates, and Gates' wife Melinda. The stated reason for the choice was that these three individuals have done more than anyone else to fight AIDS, Poverty, etc.

Disclaimer: Before I begin railing against TIME for such a poor choice, let me state that I have great respect for both Bono and Mr. Gates (I know next to nothing about Mrs. Gates, but I sure that she is probably also a very nice person). I may be on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Bono, he is the one celebrity political activist who I have respect for. He is an expert on AIDS and Africa; he puts his money where his mouth is; and he works to find real, constructive solutions rather than just screaming that the politicians aren't doing enough. Bill Gates is the quintessential American success story. He dropped out of college in order to follow his dream, and it made him the wealthiest man in the world. Kudos to Bill Gates for playing by his own rules and changing the World in the process.

That said, I think that TIME magazine has chosen politically motivated cop-out as "Person of the Year" FOR THE FIFTH CONSECUTIVE YEAR!

This is "Person of the Year", not a lifetime acheivement award. To put it quite frankly, I've barely heard anything about either Bono or the Gateses all year. Sure, they've made a few statements about fighting poverty, but that does not qualify them as "the person who affected the world the most in the year 2005; for good or evil, for better or for worse". Bono and Gates have both had a profound impact on the world, but their impact was stretched over many years.

Usually TIME does a pretty good job of at least picking people who had a big impact, but I can think of tons of people who impacted the world more than Bono or Gates. What about Benedict XVI, Condi Rice, Steve Jobs, Angela Merkel, John Paul II, President Bush, Kim Jong Il, Jalal Talabani, Ibrahim Al-Jaafri, Ayatollah Sistani, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Mahmoud Ahminenaijad, Mohammed el-Baredai, John Murtha, Ronnie Earle, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Mahmoud Abbas, Ray Nagin, Kathleen Blanco, Mike Brown, Robert Mugabe, Tony Blair, Hugo Chavez, or Ariel Sharon?

So, nothing against Bono or Bill and Melinda Gates, but I don't think that they qualify as "Persons of the Year". And I'm not just saying that because I don't like TIME. If they had picked almost anyone on the list in the previous paragraph (or many others who are not metioned), I would have at least given them some credit for trying.

So, I've made my choice, and now TIME has made theirs. Who you think did a better job is obviously subjective, but I'm interested in what all of you think.

PLEASE COMMENT ON WHO PICKED A BETTER PERSON OF THE YEAR.

WAS IT ME (Ariel Sharon)
OR TIME MAGAZINE (Bono, Bill and Melinda Gates)?

I'm not looking for a pat on the back, I want honest opinions. If you think TIME did a better job, say so. (please support your opinion with fact).

Also, feel free to comment on who you think should have been Person of the Year.

Tag: Person of the Year

PERSON OF THE YEAR 2005!

For good or for evil? For better or for worse? Only time will tell, but one thing is for certain - this man impacted the World more than anyone else in the year 2005.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon first came to power as a hardliner. He had built a reputation as an unabashed right-winger and defender of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. He seemed to be just the type of take-no-prisoners leader that Israel needed at the height of the intafada in 2001. The Palestinians had such a distaste for Sharon that they claimed that the reason for the intafada was that Sharon had been allowed to visit the Temple Mount (which the Palestinians claim as their territory, meaning that the visit was an "incursion"). This was the man that Israelis elected in 2001, but he is nowhere to be found in 2005.

The Sharon of today is responsible for the elimination of Jewish settlements in Gaza, not their defense. Who can forget the gut-wrenching images of Israeli settlers barricaded inside their synagogues in the vain hope that that the Army would not storm houses of God. Who could not pity the soldiers who were forced to storm the synagogues and drag their countrymen away form their homes. The one image that is personally seared into my memory is a news photo depicting three female members of the Israeli Defense Force crying their eyes out.

Will the Gaza pullout bring peace to Israel, nobody knows (if you want my personal opinion, look through my archives). However, whether good or bad, Sharon's decision to unilaterally pull Jewish settlers out of Gaza was one of the gutsiest move that I have ever seen a politician make. He was willing to alienate many people in his country (not to mention his political party) to do what he thought was necessary to bring peace. So, while his opinions may have changed, he is still the same take-no-prisoners, "my way or the highway" kindred spirit that he has always been.

The political divisions created by the pullout have caused a devastating divide in the Likud Party, as many members were furious at Sharon for his about-face concerning settlements. So deep was the divide that Sharon decided that he could not govern at the head of such a quarrelsome faction. Hence, he bolted the party that he helped create and founded a new centrist party called Kadima. Polls indicate that Kadima will storm to victory in next year's election, trampling Likud in the process. Many speculate that this new party could fall apart when Sharon steps down as leader. However, if the party is able to function without Sharon, then it will change the face of Israeli politics forever. Likud, and everything it stands for (conservatism, support for settlements, not giving Palestinian terrorists and inch), could be relegated to the fringe of the political spectrum. If this happens, Israel will no longer have a viable conservative party, and the only choice that the people will have will be between moderate leftism (Kadima) and radical leftism (Labor Party). This sea change in political alignment could eventually have more of an effect on the future of the Middle East then the Gaza pullout.

The Ariel Sharon that the World will remember is not the man who once fought tooth and nail to ensure that Jewish settlements in Gaza remained in place. Instead, he will be remembered as the man who evicted every single Israeli settler from their homes in the Gaza Strip. He will not be remembered for helping create the Likud Party, but for single-handedly tearing it apart. These developments could be positive or negative, but they are earth-shattering either way.

Let me be blunt. I disagree with Mr. Sharon, I am horrified and repulsed by his decisions concerning Gaza and Likud, and I think that this situation will eventually blow up in his (and Israel's) face. That said, I promised to pull no punches and give the title of "Person of the Year" to the man or woman who I thought had the greatest impact on the World, regardless of my personal opinion of them. Ariel Sharon may have made the biggest step towards peace in the Middle East since the conflict began - and if he didn't, he still changed Israel (and the world) forever.

Right or wrong, good or bad, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon turned the World upside-down in 2005. As such, he has more than earned the right to be ConservaGlobe's inaugural Person of the Year!

Tags: Person of the Year, Sharon, Ariel Sharon, Israel, Middle East, News, Politics, Current Affairs, Current Events, current-events

Important Announcement

The time has come. Tommorrow I will name my choice for Person of the Year, TIME should follow next week. I have already made my choice, but I need to get my graphics made and such. TIME has a list of nominees on their website; and while it contains many qualified nominees, my choice is not on it.

The reason I am doing this is that TIME has made me extremely angry with their choices over the last four years. They say that thier definition of "Person of the Year" is "the person who affected the world the most, for better or for worse, for god or evil". However, for years they have selected politically correct choices who were (in my opinion) copouts. I beleive that there are two reasons for this. First, they are motivated by a leftist political agenda and cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that conservatives can do good. This is why the award went to "The American Soldier" in 2003, because TIME did not want to give Bush a pat on the back. Instead, they gave the awad to Bush in 2004, when (in their eyes) the war was not going as well. Second, they do not have the chutzpah to be brutally honest and give the award to someone evil, knowing that many people will unsubscribe in protest (This happened in 1938, when the title went to Hitler; and again in 1979 when it went to Ayatollah Khomeini). Hence, TIME did not have the intestinal fortitude to give the title to Bin Laden in 2001 or Zarqawi in 2005, even though both of these men fit the definition better then anyone else.

Lastly, I think TIME has defeated the purpose of "Person of the Year" many times giving the title to people groups or inanimate objects ( 1975: "U.S. Women", 1965: "25 and Under", 1982: "The Personal Computer", 1988: "Endangered Earth", 2003: "The American Soldier"). This makes me extremely angry, as the purpose is to acknowledge the ONE SINGLE PERSON who made the greatest contribution. Every year that time has made one of these choices, some deserving individual has been deprived of a title that was rightfully theirs. TIME MAY MAKE THIS MISTAKE AGAIN IN 2005 BY NAMING "MOTHER NATURE" AS PERSON OF THE YEAR.

Hence, I feel a need to challenge TIME by naming my own Person of the Year. I will attempt to fit their definition as best I can. I wil give credit where credit is due, and I will pull no punches.


So, tune in tommorrow. When I pit myself against TIME magazine.

Who will select a better "Person of the Year"?

Only time will tell.

Tag: Person of the Year

PERSON OF THE WEEK - Nov 28-Dec 3, 2005

Sorry I haven't been posting, sorry I'm late on Person of the Week, and sorry I don't have a fancy graphic for the second week in a row. But guess what, I'm a busy person, Maybe I'll blog more on winter break (not to mention bug Te chnorati tech support about why my posts aren't registering. But that's all beside the point, here's the Person of the Week Column

This is a landmark for Person of the Week, it is the first time that ConservaGlobe has EVER given the award to a leftist for doing something POSTIVE.

If you didn't already know, Canda's governing Liberal Party, led by Prime Minister Paul Martin, was thrown out of office this week by a no confidence vote in Parliament (triggering an early election). Two of the thre oppostion parties in Parliament, the Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebecois, have been trying to oust the Liberals for some time, but needed the help of the socialist New Democratic Party (NDP) to form a majority in Parliament. The NDP was closer in ideology to the Liberals then any other party, so they were naturally inclined to prop up a Liberal minority government. However, the Liberals have been embroiled in a corruption scandal, and NDP leader Jack Layton finally decided that the best thing for Canada would be to topple such a corrupt goverment. So, the NDP, Bloc Quebecois, and Conservatives joined forces to vote the Government out of office.

The good thing is that the Conservatives have a reasonable chance of forming a government in the coming election. So, while Jack Layton may spend the next few months telling Canada how evil and imperialist Conservative leader Stephen Harper is, it is his own vote against the Liberal government that could make Harper the next Prime Minister.

So, for finally voting to topple the Liberal Candadian government....

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADER JACK LAYTON
IS CONSERVAGLOBE'S PERSON OF THE WEEK!

(Note: Layton may have gotten the award, but STEPHEN HARPER ROCKS!)