±«Óãtv

The only answer is, of course, Steve Jobs.

Sorry to be so predictable but I think it should be Christopher Hitchens. Forget about his atheism - although it would be nice that he posthumously deposed a pope - he also took a chunk out of the brutal Henry Kissinger, the fraudulent Mother Teresa and brightened the lives of many people.

And against heavy odds, he managed to live out most of the year, and his writing about his cancer is some of the most moving I've ever read, for its clarity, for its complete absence of self-pity (today I've seen him mentioned in the same breath as John Diamond, who wallowed in self-pity), for its sheer stoicism. Anyone touched by that disease, directly or indirectly, should read him, whatever his views on what they may believe. I honestly didn't know how far he'd deteriorated and was glad to see his last article in Vanity Fair the other day, and always held out hope he might have a chance. To read today that his son and a friend had to carry him from his bed to his chair at the window in his hospital room to bash out those 3,000 to deadline... Well, less said the better now probably. I vote the Hitch.

On the basis that the person of the year does not have to be someone we like or admire, then I would say that the person who most defined 2011 was Muammar Gaddafi.

As for nominating someone I admire, then the accolade should go to Giles Fraser.

Carlos Tevez.

I can narrow it down to 3-
Firstly, Omid Djalili for making me laugh so much; he's a British-Iranian stand-up comic who went to Uni in Coleraine(!) & was in Ireland earlier this month on tour.

Secondly, Jim Al-Khalili, Iraqi-born British theoretical physicist, for his 2011 documentaries- Everything and Nothing, 2 linked programmes on Cosmology- ('Everything' about astrophysics and the big bang - with 'Nothing' about quantum
physics.)

And his 2011 'shock and Awe' series, in which he illuminates the history of electricity. Explaining how the sparks of rivalry between 2 competing ideologies- traditional Christianity & Enlightment thought led to Volta upping his game, with rational & enlightened science overcoming superstition & magic.

Thirdly, Attenborough for his 2011 Frozen Planet series with its focus on the consequence of climate change- apparantly the last episode wasn't going to be aired in the States, over fear of controversy and "the reaction it might draw from America's climate change skeptics" in the run-up to a presidential election where climate change is a 'touchy' subject

Its a difficult one, isn't it.

First choice for single person would be Mr Martin McAleese, for all work he did to support his wife in what she accomplished and also for the the silent unpublished behind the scenes work he did to bring sides together in the north

2nd as a couple Mr and Mrs Martin and MAry McAleese

as an idea whose time has come in these days of economic gloom, it would be I dont know what it is like for people who depend on their bank these days, I remember when I use to, but for the past 11 years that I have been a credit union member, I have had few financial worries, I know if I need a loan in a hurry I can get one and don't have to risk my home, and I have the satisfaction of knowing that the profits on my savings and interest is helping others.

Enda Kenny.

romejellybeen.

Christopher Hitchens who died as courageously as he lived, who never wrote a dull sentence in his life, who spoke his mind with such utter(ing) precision, who inspired & infuriated...and for all the reasons that you yourself included in your own article.
"His life was gentle; and the elements
So mixed in him, that Nature might stand up,
And say to all the world, THIS WAS A MAN!"
(William Shakespeare)

I am pulling my hair out, ouch that hurt, I named a world leader from 2011, a couple including that world leader, and a world renowned movement. cannot understand what the problem could be that warrants "This comment has been referred for further consideration.".

I am baffled.

Osama bin Laden.

romejellybeen (@ 7) -

Enda Kenny

I second AF @ 2: Christopher Hitchens.

"Farewell, great voice. Great voice of reason, of humanity, of humour. Great voice against cant, against hypocrisy, against obscurantism and pretension, against all tyrants including God. Farewell, great warrior. You were in a foxhole, Hitch, and you did not flinch. Farewell, great example to us all.
Richard"

[Richard Dawkins]

Previous years it was person of the year in religion, ethics and media. If that were still the case, Hitchens would be my choice. If that limitation doesn't apply, then the previous nominations of Steve Jobs and Edna Kenny would also be good ones.

'The Protester'

15, lol @ Edna- my Gran was called that :p

If the determination is based on morality, and on a positive impact on world politics (& diplomacy), and personal integrity, then Bradley Manning.

Isn't it time that King James (I of England) and Eugene Peterson got some kind of shared award to celebrate their gift of widely accepted and widely read versions of the Bible, translated into English, and understandable by the societies into which the translations were published?

Failing that, in the spirit of the Nobel Prize for Peace, you should prematurely grant an ethical award to Lord Leveson to recognise the change his inquiry and report will bring about in the world of journalism.

Premature is right. Some chance I say. While you have section editors in newspapers who can ask: "What's an alumnus?" with a straight face... Some chance. I kid you not.

The Moderator. I've supervised exams in my time, and reflected that a great title for a Hollywood blockbuster would be 'The Invigilator'(!); but 'The Moderator' works almost as well.

Colm McGinn, no. 18;

"If the determination is based on morality, and on a positive impact on world politics (& diplomacy), and personal integrity, then Bradley Manning."

Wow! You'd better tell that to the authorities in the US, who somehow think he should face 22 charges of distributing state secrets and 'aiding the enemy'.

And tortured him for it.

If the determination is based on comedic impact, then I seriously think the accolade should return to Mr Dawkins for his positively hilarious "runaway routine".

One understands children being scared of monsters in the wardrobe, but a grown man scared of William Lane Craig? Who woulda thunk it?

Tell me more. I've been in discussion with a muslim in the past week who gave me a link to a little bit of stiffly edited video in which Dawkins appeared to admit "intelligent design" by a "higher intelligence".

Then there's that stuff on YouTube where he gets "stumped" by a Christian creationist.

No wonder he's wary.

He takes time to explain why he won't debate William Lane Craig here: adopting what I would say is a pretty sensible policy towards religious wonks.

"Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".

"Craig's latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice. To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I'm looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury."

But perhaps this man Lane Craig is preeminent, and I've just somehow overlooked him. You said something about Hitchens being a self-publicist? Or was that someone else?

Let's quote some William Lane Craig, shall we. Let's have a look at what he thinks. Decide if, after this, you would share the same air as this man.

Here he is attempting to justify the massacre of children:

"But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."

God was doing them a favour, you see.

Here he decrying the trauma the poor Israelites who carried out the massacre of the women and children must have undergone:

"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing."

Poor things.

Here he is trying to show how God was really being fair - the Canaanites only had to run away - when he ordered their destruction:

"I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.
It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God's command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair."

Wouldn't it be handy if those pesky Arabs just ran away! Then nobody would have to die at all!

You can find these musings at Craig's website here:

(Why do I distrust people with porcelain smiles...?)

At 14:49 26th Oct 2011, Andrew wrote:

More fun and games at Dickie Dawkins expense;



And from Tim Stanley over at the Telegraph;

For bravely putting up with all the acclaim for a film in which her father, King George VI, is portrayed as having obnoxious contempt for one of his most devoted servants, and suffering from Tourette's syndrome, and for her historic visit to the Republic of Ireland, i would like to suggest Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

She gets Person of the Year for having a grumpy dad and visiting a neighbour? Give it to me then!

You'd have to ask Will but i'm not sure people can nominate themselves AF.

Christopher Hitchens for his fortitude in carrying on his important work knowing that the effort was probably detrimental to his health.

Richard Dawkins for Magic of Reality

Have to give Bradley Manning a mention, sometimes you have to do what is right. If there were more whistleblowers there would be fewer places for lies and hypocrisy to hide and less institutionalised abuse.

Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor who triggered uprisings across the Arab world that led to the Arab spring

@ 30. I wasn't nominating myself. I was just wondering about your criteria. I have a grumpy dad and visit neighbours all the time. It seems you think this qualifies the Queen for the accolade. For the benefit of the irony-free, I'd say that's somewhat ridiculous.

Will, have you considered the heroes, which are the subject of ?

Oops. Bad grammar moment:

"...heroes, which..."

should, of course, be

"...heroes, who..."

My person of the year would have to be Sean Crummey. A very funny and talented man who made us all laugh. He'll be very sorely missed.

A very sad loss, in my opinion.

Realize this suggestion is late, but what about Dan Barker for his 'vision' in setting up the 'Clergy Project' - as well as his great book 'Godless'? Maybe also Brian Cox or David Attenborough? Exclude all the religious headbins, please!

I nominate Dr William Lane Craig for his wonderful, erudite and well informed - a bloodbath that the author of that philosophically challenged tome obviously anticipated, hence his now famous "no show" routine.

I nominate and hope that all the supernaturalists here will dig deep to aid him in his wonderful work.

paul james (@ 39) -

I think that atheists ought to dig deep to support his cause. This will show their commitment to something called "freedom of speech". (Such a commitment has been called into question, and so this generous act would provide such wondrous assurance on this matter, dontcha think?)

Oh, silly me! I forgot. Freethinking only works according to the "Henry Ford" paradigm: "you are allowed to think as freely as you like as long as you only draw those conclusions which are deemed to be ideologically *acceptable*".

Ah well... saved the atheists a few bob then. Sorry Ken...

And on that note, may I take this opportunity to wish you a Happy New Year (anno domini), Mr James. (You may be an ideological opponent, but I've thoroughly enjoyed my sparring with you. If I could, I'd buy you a drink out of gratitude. And no, that last comment wasn't TIC.)

LSV
Never mind free speech old chap, I wanted a full size Ark instead of this Titanic nonsense down the docks.
BTW mine's a May Queen if you're in the chair.

Sr Elizabeth Johnson has been chosen as person of the year by NCR.

What is going on - the Queen and Mary McAleese pick up this coveted award!! Right, put Mary McAleese to one side.

Last year it was won by someone ancient who stumbles through a few prepared lines when travelling abroad at great expense to taxpayers. It is the same with the Queen, except that when she travels abroad she doesn't bring a disability scooter with her.

It is either madness or someone seeking an MBE!

43, Lmao
Our wee 'Theo' @ 28 must be blushin :p

Why even limit the award to our species?
Can think of a few who warrant the award more than a human -