When I saw this in the mail, I almost threw it away unopened. What do the Time editors think they are doing?
The cover blurb mentions four "protest" movements. I have yet to open the issue, so I don't know if others are discussed, but these four pretty are much cover the gamut:
- "Arab Spring" – This is a mixed bag. Starting in Tunisia, several brutal, falsely Muslim dictators were overthrown. In a few cases, however, Egypt in particular, this has led to a great strengthening of radical Islamic factions. This would be a bad thing for the world even if America didn't exist. (It would probably be even worse…)
- Athens – I suppose the people have a right to protest, but they have badly mis-aimed. They ought to be directing their anger at several prior administrations, plus the current one, that got them into this economic morass, and because they did so. But without the proposed austerity measures—and more to come, you can be sure—the country will go belly-up and descend into overt civil war.
- Occupy Wall Street (or wherever) – This began as a marginally good thing, to "defend" the "other 99%", which is anybody but the super-rich. It soon descended to an extended Woodstock, without the good music, but with rampant immorality (not just sexual), defecation everywhere, and a filthy, smelly mass of ingrates who represent quite a different 1%, the irresponsible 1% who don't want to work but want government to support their every whim. The Mayors were right to drive them out.
- Moscow – Loosely based on Arab Spring, this doomed movement is up against a very different foe. Let us recall that Mr. Putin once directed the KGB, and there is enough of the old apparatus in place to cause huge mischief. This will mainly just set back Russian progress by another generation.
While the impact of this year's protest movements has indeed been significant, they certainly don't deserve to be lumped indiscriminately together as Time's "person of the year".