View Full Version : First great man of the 21st century
I was listening to some of Winston Churchill's wartime speaches yesterday and was reminded how much I have admired Churchill the man over Churchill the politician. I thought then about President Kennedy who was assasinated in 1963 or was it 1962? My memory fails me. He was an icon to me as a kid. I knew nothing of the man or the politician. There was just something about his prescence as an image on the television screen that connected with me. These guys were giants of the 20th century.
The 21st century started with an American president who has been ridiculed and spoken about with sarcasm not only on a world wide basis but also on caithness.org. He even makes me cringe at times with some of his articulate booboos.
However I have a sneaky suspicion that by the end of the 21st century Gearge W Bush will be spoken about as a giant of the 21st century. I would nominate him myself right now without any further ado. His stance against islamic fundamentalism manifesting itself in terrorism is what illuminates his greatness for me. Its not a popular stance amongst the liberal minded citizens of the so-called free world but my usual question to those who demean President Bush is, what would you have done instead? Some of his other political beliefs do not resonate with me but then that says as much about me as it does about president Bush.
I would be interested to hear others views on great men or women of the 20th century and their reasons for nominating them.
I agree with you Gleeber, GWB is not perfect by any measure but he will be judged as one the greatest statesmen of his time. Terrorism has been festering for years and quite often previous liberal US administrations have turned the other cheek.
Unfortunately, it took 9/11 to get their notice and now something is getting done about it.
These left wing, hazy pointing, namby pamby, heart-bleeding,do-gooder, whingers just need a firm hand and words of comfort that it will be all right in the end!!
What made me sick was the liberal democrats and the French saying they now applaud the elections, when, if they had their way, Saddam would be still persecuting his own citizens.
How hypocritical is that?
I look forward to the US intervention in Northern Ireland then..........or is it only Islamic terrorists that require to be fought?
I have no problem with that!! :evil
Brizer2k2
13-Feb-05, 14:31
How can anyone call George W Bush a "great man"???
He has bombed the hell out of 2 countries for no reason at all apart from rumours that certain people have been living there or supported there again without any proff at all.
No proof of weapons of mass destuction either. all fabricated nonsense made up to make the US and UK people believe it was all justified.
The plain truth is that it was all set up to make huge corporations millions in the new contracts to rebuild Iraq.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent people, women, children and the elderly killed and murdered.
Unfortunately Tony Blair is in his back pocket and putting our troops lives at risk in a so called war which has nothing to do with us at all !!!
Sorry Gleeber, But G dubbya as the man of the century, I disagree with you, Chrurchill, JFK, are the men of the 20th century, but our so called ally G Dubbya is not even in the running to be nominated.
Admitedly I have not decided on a possible candidate for the position of 21st century Man.
The only reason in my humble opinion that your nominee went to Iraq was becuse of that 3 letterd word OIL. We had Islamic fundamentalists in Bosnia, Macedonia with all the undemocratic types of government that could be imagimed, but did G Dubbya commit the weight and might of the American war machine against any of the forementioned states...no.....reason, No Oil. Ok there was a small token group of American forces but they were part of the NATO peace keeping force.
Now before I upset my personal friends from America, I am not having a go at the American people in any way, they have paid a dear price with the amount of casualtys that occured in Iraq. But a question for the G Dubbya as nominee voters. "Where are the Weapons on Mass Destruction?
Golach
shakes head.. there are a lot more isues than iraq and GWB... lets take a wee look into america itself..
The dollar is crap
There is no work
No benifits..
No health
Dental
children
elderly
nadda
Unless you have a lovley upper class job and a private sceme..
how do i know this?
because my family is living it..
IE my mother who is 62 has cronic lung disease for teh bast 6 years she has not been able to work.. and only in the last six months was she able to draw disability ...
how it works is you have to be out of work a year drawing nothing.. and then if a Dr proclaims you disabled then you are eliglble.. not get it just eligable..
ok my mum lived with my granny until dec. and is now on her own..she draws about a 1000 a month..
ok she can pay her bills but unfortunatly she can not go to the dr. and she is not eligible for medicade as she recives disability and draws too much.
the last time she had an attack and her oxegen dropped below 80.. the drs didnt even give her oxegen. This was at the A&E by the way.. Her last Drs. visit cost her $400 for an office visit and a Shot to help her breathe..
on the other hand my dad who is trying everything in his power to keep food on the table.. cant get a job.. a man who should be getting ready to retire, is having to beg odd jobs.. he works for cash in hand.. doing anything he can. IE: tree trimming, landscaping, Lumber work.. Now this is not a young man but he is killing himself trying to make enough money to keep him and mom alive.. when you have to pay 25-30 dollars for basic presciptions.. now thats a piece.. and the more expensive ones for breathing and pain.. as my mom has cracked ribs from coughing so much are up in teh hundreds.. but thanks to Georgie boy.. she can get no help as all the money is ging into the war funds... all the plants are closing down in my home town .. you can only draw unemployment for 6 mnths i think and then there is nothing you cant sign back up.. you get no more help...
so man of the century i think not! and that is just the tip of the iceberg!
Sorry Gleeber, But G dubbya as the man of the century, I disagree with you, Chrurchill, JFK, are the men of the 20th century, but our so called ally G Dubbya is not even in the running to be nominated.
Admitedly I have not decided on a possible candidate for the position of 21st century Man.
The only reason in my humble opinion that your nominee went to Iraq was becuse of that 3 letterd word OIL. We had Islamic fundamentalists in Bosnia, Macedonia with all the undemocratic types of government that could be imagimed, but did G Dubbya commit the weight and might of the American war machine against any of the forementioned states...no.....reason, No Oil. Ok there was a small token group of American forces but they were part of the NATO peace keeping force.
Now before I upset my personal friends from America, I am not having a go at the American people in any way, they have paid a dear price with the amount of casualtys that occured in Iraq. But a question for the G Dubbya as nominee voters. "Where are the Weapons on Mass Destruction?
Golach
You have raised some good points here Golach, well worth discussing. But here is my humble opinion.
The american forces in Bosnia were small in comparison because they were part of a NATO operation not because of no oil, that is why the US went in force to Iraq, they did not have NATO or UN backing, big oil/civil contracts are just a means of payment to get Iraq back on its feet
To dispel any perceptions that the US is just for oil, ask yourself whether Vietnam, Somalia, Grenada, Panama, Cuba, Bosnia, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan has vast amounts of oil reserves? Answer NO.
It is easy to make a throw away comment that the Iraq was just about oil, frankly I don't subscribe to the WMD reason for war either, there were no WMDs so what?
Going to war for justice, democracy and freedom are good enough reasons.
The allies before WW2 had enough military intelligence of atrocities and rearmament in Germany, but it took several annexations and invasions to get our notice. If we had acted earlier then 15 million 'unGerman people' would be still alive in 1945, not to mention the millions of German and Japanese and allied servicemen lives lost.
The trouble is when a democratic government makes a case for war, it has to cite the worst reasons otherwise they get criticised by the 'do gooder' doubters.
~~Tides~~
13-Feb-05, 21:52
To dispel any perceptions that the US is just for oil, ask yourself whether Vietnam, Somalia, Grenada, Panama, Cuba, Bosnia, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan has vast amounts of oil reserves? Answer NO.
Yes but was the noble GW running the country?
He cared so much he dodged his millitry service in Vietnam.
Great man? No, Rich man.
The USA is a Machiavellian Plutocratic democracy. I think he has a right to be rich and be elected to run his country!
I really dont see how JFK can be considered one of the men of the 20th century - a slimeball of the highest order.
Whitewater
14-Feb-05, 16:29
First great man of this century must be Jonny Wilkinson who kicked the drop goal to win ENGLAND the rugby World Cup ????? :eyes
So far the politicians have all been plonkers
I really dont see how JFK can be considered one of the men of the 20th century - a slimeball of the highest order.
see now scotsboy i dont agree. i read a biography of him this summer called "an unfinished life" it was fascinating and enightened me to intricacies of American Politics. A fascinating book, a fascinating flawed man certainly but a great great politician.
I don't think many will be surprised at my choice for the 20th century: Albert Einstein.
Curiously, Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/albert_einstein5a.html) listed three of my my best: Einstein, Franklin D Roosevelt (my second choice), and the most important bad guy: Adolf Hitler. But I had forgotten Gandhi.
Others that came to mind were: Churchill, Nelson Mandela, Vladimir Lenin (ruled him out because it all went soo, soo wrong), and {Konrad Adenauer, Billy Brandt & Helmut Schmidt} -- a job lot. :D Reagan was a prat but he won the Cold War; Mikael Gorbachev was a hero but he lost it.
My runners-up in the bad-guy stakes were: Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, {Idi Amin & Milton Obote} (another job lot!), and Mao Tse-Tung.
JFK doesn't even make my list; he made too many errors (Bay of Pigs, etc) and he got out of the Cuban Missile Crisis by the skin of his teeth. Anyone who has read anything about the latter will know that the reality was way different from the popular myth. Heck, he wasn't even the greatest lover of Marilyn Monroe -- that distinction falls to the late great Arthur Miller.
Hmm, I already have too many politicians in my list, so "no more!".
As for great men of the 21st century, in a couple of decades it will either be a case of "GW Who?" or he will be the president who is remembered for presiding over the decline of the US as an economic superpower.
Anyway, what's all this about great men of the 20th century? What about great women?
Mother Theresa? Nah, I vaguely recall many bad things associated with her but I can't find them right now (jjc -- where are you?).
Thatcher? Grrr, surely we can do better than her.
Kylie? A definite improvement on Thatcher.
Golda Meir? I kinda liked her.
Indira Gandhi? She went out under a bit of a cloud.
Benazir Bhutto?
Ok, Golda Meir (http://www.wic.org/bio/gmeir.htm) is my opening gambit. Anyone want to bet on a better one? A tenner goes to anyone who can beat her IMHO.
DrSzin, I kinda have my doubts about your choice, Einstein, as being the man of the 20th century. He worked in a patent office so he was privy to all sorts of ideas so could he have stole somebody else's ideas and binned their patent? Hmmm maybe.
He also famously said something like "God does not play dice with Nature", it seems He does and Heidelberg and Bohr are correct.
More controversially, he advocated splitting the atom with Alpha particles which as you know are repelled by the very thing that they are meant to split.
He also wrote to FDR to encourage him to start the Manhattan Project, which arguably may have been his greatest act, but Einstein described it as his greatest mistake.
I still like our Winnie as the Greatest man of the 20th Century, imperfect but resolute down to the last drop of blood.
For the greatest woman, I would have Margeret Thatcher, not for what she believed in but for her steadfastness, her presence, her straightforwardness and her fortitude.
I agree with you Gleeber, GWB is not perfect by any measure but he will be judged as one the greatest statesmen of his time. Terrorism has been festering for years and quite often previous liberal US administrations have turned the other cheek.
Unfortunately, it took 9/11 to get their notice and now something is getting done about it.
These left wing, hazy pointing, namby pamby, heart-bleeding,do-gooder, whingers just need a firm hand and words of comfort that it will be all right in the end!!
What made me sick was the liberal democrats and the French saying they now applaud the elections, when, if they had their way, Saddam would be still persecuting his own citizens.
How hypocritical is that?
When I first signed on and read gleeber and Reghead posts I thought about how their comments would open a "can of worms" and/or a "bag of snakes". After reading on, my thoughts were confirmed. I see the same type of comments here in the states. I admit that I was surprised with the overwhelming decision with votes for G. W. Bush. He must have something going for him. History is a strange thing. I served during WW2 and I never thought that historian revisionists would attempt to change history of that war in the manner that they have done. I always believed dropping the two A-bombs was a great thing to end the war. At least it got me home sooner without having to make a disasterous landing on the Japanese home land. After seeing the military installations from which Japanese men, women and children would have defended their country, I was convinced we would have lost many additional lives. I guess I am selfishly thinking about me, but I am happy that the two A-bombs were dropped.
Ta Rheghead, you are a hero -- I can waffle on for ever about Einstein:
DrSzin, I kinda have my doubts about your choice, Einstein, as being the man of the 20th century. He worked in a patent office so he was privy to all sorts of ideas so could he have stole somebody else's ideas and binned their patent? Hmmm maybe.
Lol, nice try! It is well-documented that Einstein had been working on the subjects of all three of his famous papers of 1905 for at least five years before he published them.
These three papers were massive. The most famous is the special relativity one, but Einstein was the guy who really started quantum physics. Planck may have invented his constant, but Planck's paper was a muddle and as far as I can make out he didn't really believe what he had done anyway. Einstein's "second" paper took quantum ideas onto a new level. The third paper was a masterpiece of statistical mechanics. Einstein was the guy who showed once and for all that atoms really existed.
But the icing on the cake was his general relativity paper of 1916. It is just awesome. Never before or since in the history of science has 10 years of purely theoretical work produced such a remarkable revolution. I think it is the only huge revolution that has not been guided by experiment.
He also famously said something like "God does not play dice with Nature", it seems He does and Heidelberg and Bohr are correct.
Indeed -- he got that one wrong. But when you are struggling with the greatest-ever revolutions in physics you are bound to get some things wrong. And you will surely admit that quantum physics is as weird as they come!
More controversially, he advocated splitting the atom with Alpha particles which as you know are repelled by the very thing that they are meant to split.
Hmm, I have haven't heard it claimed that Einstein himself advocated splitting the atomic nucleus with alphas. Do you have a reference? Rutherford tried and failed with alphas in 1933, and it was Szilard (not Einstein) who came up with the crucial ideas in 1933 -- namely to use neutrons and thereby start a chain reaction. A brief history of fission is here (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/discovery.html). Anyway, no-one could advocate doing the job with neutrons before 1932 because Chadwick didn't discover the neutron until then!
He also wrote to FDR to encourage him to start the Manhattan Project, which arguably may have been his greatest act, but Einstein described it as his greatest mistake.
Hmm, I wouldn't have described writing that letter as his greatest act. He may have struggled with it, but one could argue that he had to do it, even if he didn't like it one little bit. Actually Einstein claimed two great mistakes, one was the letter, the other was his introduction of the cosmological constant into the field equations of general relativity in order to get a steady-state universe. After the discovery that the universe is expanding it appeared that the cosmological constant was indeed a mistake. However, it has recently made a comeback with the discovery that not only is the universe expanding, but that the expansion is accelerating! This is most easily accounted for by an Einstein-like cosmological constant. Even today, no-one really knows where this cosmological constant comes from, but it appears to dominate the universe. There appears to be more "dark energy" in the universe than there is energy in everyday matter like you, me, the earth, the stars and all that! It's been a remarkable turnaround in a very short time. Cosmology is a hot subject right now!
Einstein spent the latter part of his life trying to unify gravity with electromagnetism. We know now that he was trying to do the wrong thing, and he should perhaps have realised that too. Maybe that was his biggest blunder.
I still like our Winnie as the Greatest man of the 20th Century, imperfect but resolute down to the last drop of blood.
Lol, I thought you meant Winnie Mandela for a sec there! I have no objections to your Winnie. I am not sure who had the harder job, Winnie or Frankie (FDR). Winnie had to fight a war starting from a mess, but Frankie had to get into it before he could fight it.
For the greatest woman, I would have Margeret Thatcher, not for what she believed in but for her steadfastness, her presence, her straightforwardness and her fortitude.
And her stubbornness? Remember the Poll Tax that led to her demise? And the fact that her governments made so many silly errors in economic policy? She was so guided by ideology that she made elementary errors like raising taxes in the middle of a recession and thereby destroying 25% of UK industry in a single year. (I am quoting from memory here, so that figure may be inaccurate.) At least Hitler's Germany was an enormous economic success.
I still prefer Kylie to Maggie :D
Hmm, I have haven't heard it claimed that Einstein himself advocated splitting the atomic nucleus with alphas. Do you have a reference? Rutherford tried and failed with alphas in 1933, and it was Szilard (not Einstein) who came up with the crucial ideas in 1933 -- namely to use neutrons and thereby start a chain reaction.
I watched a documentary on Sky about when Szilard came knocking on Einsteins door. Yes they did meet like that. It was then when Einstein binned his Alpha particle theory.
Doh, I saw that programme too -- thanks for reminding me! There is an account of it here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/einstein_equation_prog_summary.shtml). I guess everyone was using alphas pre-1932 because they didn't have any choice -- no other suitable particle was known. So Einstein will have used alpha-scattering as the basis of his claim that splitting the atomic nucleus would never produce more energy than was put in. He didn't know about the neutron so he didn't suggest using it, nor could anyone else until it was discovered in 1932. The chain-reaction idea requires the neutron too. It's hard to do nuclear physics without the concept of the neutron!
George Brims
14-Feb-05, 22:33
What nonsense Rheghead speaks about "previous liberal US administrations have turned the other cheek". The Bush administration came in quite determined to reverse the previous administration's focus on terrorism and Bin Ladin in particular. From public comments about how "the grownups are in charge now" to the instruction from Atty General Ashcroft that he "didn't want to hear any more about terrorism" it was clear they had their focus elsewhere. They were asleep at the wheel on Sept 11 and they have not yet been held accountasble for it. Some on the other side of the floor are trying but it's an uphill struggle. Rep Henry Waxman recently pointed out that the bush administration ignored 52 reports from the FAA mentioning Al-Qaeda or Bin Ladin, most of them discussing the possibility of a hijacked aircraft being used as a weapon, between Aprill 2001 and Sept 10. Meanwhile they had people working on invasion plans for Iraq (yes BEFORE sept 11 not after).
George Bush is a liar and a scoundrel. I don't think he's a man at all, never mind man of this or any other century.
As for Einstein stealing someone else's ideas, I am all for a good conspiracy theory!! :lol:
For the record George Brims, I think if Gore had won the election, he would have been caught asleep at the wheel on 9/11 and I would be agreeing with Gleeber that history will judge Al Gore as one of the Greatest men of the 21st Century.
That is an alternative universe and pure speculation as well. :o)
George Brims
14-Feb-05, 23:21
How Gore would have done is a matter of speculation. Thanks to the sterling work of the 9/11 Commission, the ineptitude of the Bush administration is a matter of record. Download their report (it's free).
Hi Doc, long time no see.
I think my original post was intended to portray great politicians whom I believe are the ones who have the real say on whether we survive or die as a race. The truth is I have to agree with all the negative stuff put forward by the anti Bush brigade only because its as real for them as my proclamation Of president Bush as the first great politician of the 21st century is for me.
That being said I would have to agree with your nomination of Einstien as the man of the century but only if you agree to share first spot with someone whose ideas explained the inner world of man himself, compared to Einstiens explanation of everything outside of man.
Sigmund Freud!
He discovered mechanisms at work in man (and weemin :D ) which developed a new science which has never been fully utilised or understood by the educated layman. He theorises on the invention of religion and culture or idealism or any other ism which can holds man prisoner in the modern world.
Like Einstiens work a theory is only a theory until it is proven. Freuds work is developing and evolving and will one day be the starting point for anyone seeking the answers which up until now they have found only in religion or God
Amen :D
Mahatma Gandhi gets my vote as a man of the people and Steven Hawken as a man of science..
sassylass
17-Feb-05, 03:15
Lizz you just rang my bell. It makes perfect sense to me, to praise folks who stand out and work for the betterment of our world, rather than self serving politicians.
That being said I would have to agree with your nomination of Einstien as the man of the century but only if you agree to share first spot with someone whose ideas explained the inner world of man himself, compared to Einstiens explanation of everything outside of man.
Sigmund Freud!
I am afraid I am in no position to make any sensible comments on Freud -- sorry.
Like Einstiens work a theory is only a theory until it is proven.
Just for the record... Einstein's special relativity has long since been verified experimentally to an enormous degree of accuracy. Furthermore, there are many things that simply wouldn't have worked if special relativity were wrong -- Dounreay's DFR and PFR being notable local examples. General Relativity (or the relativistic theory of gravity as it should perhaps be known) is harder to verify experimentally because most GR effects are either very small or very far away. But as far as I am aware, all experiments to test GR are in agreement with its predictions. And the fact that the universe is expanding is perhaps enough in itself.
I have no quibble with Gandhi, but imho Hawking isn't in the same league as Einstein and never will be. That's not a negative thing to say about Hawking, but a very positive comment on Einstein.
Colin Manson
17-Feb-05, 19:21
Is self nomination ok? :p
I'd probably agree on Einstein and Hawking, but I think that Hawking has done a lot more to popularise science in general with one of the greatest unread books of the 20th century.
Personally I think Einstein has done more to popularise science than anyone else. The fact that he is still an icon of science 50 years after his death is a testament to that notion...
I'd probably agree on Einstein and Hawking, but I think that Hawking has done a lot more to popularise science in general with one of the greatest unread books of the 20th century.
:D I suspect it really is unread by most owners. I didn't think it was very good anyway...
Personally I think Einstein has done more to popularise science than anyone else. The fact that he is still an icon of science 50 years after his death is a testament to that notion...
Perhaps, but this may not have been intentional on his part. And I am pretty sure it hasn't been intentional for the last 50 years!
I have only just realised that this year is the 50th anniversary of his death as well as the 100th anniversary of his 1905 revolution.
I have only just realised that this year is the 50th anniversary of his death as well as the 100th anniversary of his 1905 revolution.
Come come now, there have been tv programmes and events up and down the country marking the anniversary of his death! Is particle physics so consuming on your attentions? :o)
Oh dear, I think I am about to be ejected from the Einstein Fan Club for not paying sufficient attention to detail.
I bought a book last year on Abebooks (http://www.abebooks.com) called The Born-Einstein letters. This discussion has reminded me to read it once and for all...
My theory about theories wasnt directed at Einstien. His grasp of the way thing are is not in question
Freud's work appears to be much more questionable and rightly so. Unlike Einstien's world which was "out there" Freud's world pointed the finger at an area behind everybodies noses.
He often exposes us as infantile and helpless. Almost robot like with no real choice in the everyday decisions we make as men and women.
Somehow we scrape through but the road is bumpy and fraught with danger.
His discovery of the so-called unconscious mind is, I believe, as mind blowing a concept as Einstiens famous equation.
Unlike Einstien ideas, Freuds ideas need the support of the individual before they come to fruition. They cannot be proved in the same way as E=MC squared. The power though contained in his ideas are just as powerful as the explosion contained in Einstiens equation but much less destructive.
PS.
How do I use the qoute button that so many of you seem to use to such effect and is it possible to do an E-MC squared with a 2? :confused
E=mc˛
Can everyone see the above as "E = m c-squared" with a small "2" superscript? It may be browser- and operating-system dependent, not to mention dependent on what fonts are available to you. I am not sure how to do this with standard Windows software -- I am currently living in the same world as 307 except that I wear a Red Hat. :cool:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To quote a whole post, you just click on the "quote" icon in the top right-hand corner of the post you wish to quote.
To quote part of a post, you first cut-and-paste or type what you wish to quote, highlight it with your mouse, and then either click on the "Quote" icon to the right of "Message body" or press the "Alt" and "q" keys together.
Alternatively, you can do it by hand. For example:
(quote) This is a quote (/quote)
but with the parentheses () replace by square brackets [] will produce
This is a quote
If you also want to list who you are quoting, then
(quote="Einstein") God does not play dice (/quote)
but again with parentheses () replace by square brackets [] will produce
God does not play dice
The quote starts with the word "quote" in square brackets and ends with "/quote" in square brackets.
There are probably other ways of doing all these things too. I use a combination of all three methods.
God does not play dice :D
(quote="Einstein") God does not play dice (/quote) :eek:
Thanks doc
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.