1
   

Mother Nature: Woman of the Year?

 
 
Noddy24
 
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 01:10 pm
http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=33466

Quote:
NEW YORK - Time magazine's annual "Person of the Year" for 2005 may not be a person at all.
Mother Nature topped the unofficial list of nominees at a panel discussion held on Monday by the weekly magazine to debate who will grace the cover of the issue that hits newsstands on Dec. 19.

Time does not prepare or publish a formal list of nominees; instead, its editors make the selection privately after reporting by the staff.

The choice is supposed to remain a secret until Dec. 18, when it will be disclosed on the magazine's Web site, but it does become a parlor game in America to ponder who fits the criteria as "the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year, for better or for worse."




Personally, I think putting Mother Nature on the cover of Time would be a dandy idea. I wonder what the fundamentalists would say?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,952 • Replies: 23
No top replies

 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 01:21 pm
Cover her nipples
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 01:48 pm
I think Mother Nature certainly merits the title this year.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 07:22 pm
Mother Nature as Woman of the Year? Hmmm. Depends. If you would give mother credit (or blame, as the case might be) for the hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc., going on recently, would you vote for her?

But, if you blame God for all of it, then that lets Mother Nature off the hook?

Very curious question. Can't wait to hear more responses!
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 07:26 pm
Well, Mother Nature has certainly proven her power this year. (She says, as she waits for the enormous splotch of yellow, orange and red showing on satellite images to mosey on over...)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 07:29 pm
Btw, Momma Angel, note the criteria -- "who you'd vote for" ain't it:

Quote:
"the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year, for better or for worse."
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 07:30 pm
wonderful!
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 07:45 pm
these days, mother nature is giving us rain, rain and more rain ...
but not complaining, just an hour's drive north (ottawa valley) there is freezing rain ... brrrr
forecast for friday morning : minus 6 C - time to get the longjohns out of storage !
hbg
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 07:47 pm
I wonder what the top 'N' lists would be like if they were all about kindness and generousity. They all seem to be about who makes the most money or weilds the most power.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 08:12 pm
sozobe,

LOL. Took me a minute to understand what you meant! I guess I just equated Woman of the Year as being for doing something good or positive. I stand corrected.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 09:01 pm
Nahh, Momma. Some of Time's people of the year have included the most gosh-awful dictators on the planet. The criterion is newsworthiness, not moral rectitude. As for Ma Nature, I think she's a wonderful choice. The past year has certainly seen awesome displays of her power, from the tsunami in Indonesia last December, through the recent series of hurricanes and the eafrthquake in Kashmir. We've been forced to sit up, take notice, and admit that mankind is puny, indeed, compared to Momma Earth. (Womankind, too, of course. Smile)
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 09:03 pm
...and let's not forget the recent series of tornadoes in the US Midwest.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 09:05 pm
Thank you Merry Andrew. Understood. Yes, some of those tornadoes went through Louisiana today. Thankfully, none hit here!
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 07:42 am
tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricaines, floods..

all of those ARE good for the planet.
They balance out an eco system, give water to dry earth, wash away debris, start fires in over crowded forrest, raise water levels of dried streams..the list of benefits could go on and on.

when humans are involved, we tend to forget how the planet takes care of itself in these ways, and just count the death toll.

Im not saying that these things are GOOD for humans. And I am not dismissing the tens of thousands that are lost to these storms..

Mother nature works her ass off every day to try to clean up and erase the damage that humans have done to this planet. The ever warming globe is a reminder of what we have done.
With that, storms are stronger, longer and more devistating.
Global warming has placed things out of balance.
The strength of the storms are in balance with the ' new UN balance' of the planet.

El Nino anyone?

Woman of the year?
Sheeesshh.." she " should be woman of the century.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 04:27 pm
Quote:
Woman of the year?
Sheeesshh.." she " should be woman of the century.


She is not of an age, but for all time.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 05:28 pm
Mother Nature is the force that makes the world work.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 06:51 pm
Ok, I have a question! If I am way off topic, just tell me and I will drop it!

It seems as though more would accept "Mother Nature" as a (maybe) higher type power than God? If I am way off base, just let me know.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 06:59 pm
Momma Angel, the problem is semantic only. It stems from the fact that we personify nature as "Mother Nature" and anthropomorphize God by referring to God as "he." I doubt that anyone who uses this poetic type of speech actually thinks of nature as a "person" or means to define it so.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 07:01 pm
Merry Andrew,

Thank you. I didn't want to assume something. That explained it very well.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 11:34 am
Merry Andrew--

Don't forget Gaia.

http://www.oceansonline.com/gaiaho.htm

Quote:
The Gaia Hypothesis proposes that our planet functions as a single organism that maintains conditions necessary for its survival. Formulated by James Lovelock in the mid-1960s and published in a book in 1979, this controversial idea has spawned several interesting ideas and many new areas of research. While this hypothesis is by no means substantiated, it provides many useful lessons about the interaction of physical, chemical, geological, and biological processes on Earth. Thus, it is a good starting point for our study of oceanography, providing a broad overview of the kinds of processes that will interest us throughout the semester.

Throughout history, the concept of Mother Earth has been a part of human culture in one form or another. Everybody has heard of Mother Earth, but have you ever stopped to think who (or what) Mother Earth is? Consider these explanations.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Mother Nature: Woman of the Year?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 09:55:18