Oh, Bah
Posted on December 15, 2010 Posted by John Scalzi 76 Comments
So, what you have to do to become Time’s Person of the Year is make Friendster, only bigger, more annoying to use, and more contemptuous of the concept of privacy. Good to know.
Yeah, I’m not impressed with this particular selection. And no, I wouldn’t have picked Julian Assange either, although I would have ranked him higher up the chart than Zuckerberg, who wouldn’t have been on my list at all. And in fact Time’s entire list of runners-up strikes me as largely stunt casting.
So who would I pick as person of the year? Off the top of my head, I would submit to you John Boehner is a better pick than Zuckerberg. I didn’t vote for the guy, but I suggest that the man in charge of the House legislative agenda for the next two years, and who will have an immense impact on the legislation and direction of the country through to the next presidential election, is a much better realistic choice for Person of the Year than the guy who decided that when I say “No, I don’t want to friend this person,” I don’t really mean it, so Facebook will just put that down as a maybe. The latter annoys me and make me wonder why Facebook has difficulty with the concept of “No means no,” but the former will actually matter as to how the nation will function. This should be a no-brainer.
But John Boehner isn’t even a finalist this year. He wasn’t stuck down a mine, or the 21st Century version of the Free Silver movement, or the guy embarrassing our government by airing the laundry it was too stupid to keep private. And he certainly isn’t as nerd-sexy as a 26-year-old billionaire who has a movie about him, running a company that has replaced AOL as where your grandmother goes to embarrass you online. Time has magazines to sell and traffic to drive to its site. So: Mark Zuckerberg. Enjoy him, why don’t you.
Except for the John Boenner part (mainly because I frankly don’t like the guy) I had a largely similar reaction.
Also, the Time’s description of Facebook employee’s adoration of Zuckerberg didn’t make me think they genuinely like their boss… it made me think it was creepy.
I’m not particularly fond of Boehner either (as a politician, I would note; I know nothing of him as a human being), but, yeah, the Person of the Year Award isn’t (or wasn’t originally) meant to be about nice people, it was meant to be about the people most influencing the world or our nation. Which is why Hitler and the Ayatollah Khomeni were both “Men of the Year” back in the day, which in both cases precipitated howls. I do doubt Time would have the guts these days to make such a choice.
(And to be clear, not comparing Boehner with Hitler or Khomeni.)
The whole “Person of the Year” think strikes me as silly, as it tends to be very subjective.
I had a similar feeling of aggravation when reading through Life’s People Who Died To Early mag. As soon as it talks about people the first three had Jesus when the rest of the mag at least had people that we have proof of them living. And then I had the thought “Wait, he died early, wasn’t that the whole point of him existing”.
So, now you have my inner monologues comparing Mark Zuckerberg, and Boehner to Jesus and all my little brain gnomes are cackling away like Willow’s brownie friends Rool and Franjean.
Kinda messed up? But, Funny…
The choice of Zuckerberg is a bad, but predictable choice, and the runners up are entirely ho-hum as well.
I’m just incredibly happy that Julian “Look At Me!” Assange, the attention whore/minor league Bond villain with a personality that distracts and demeans the actual goal of Wikileaks did not win.
Scalzi, I would argue that the Tea Party would be a better choice than Boehner… if the Tea Party holds true to what they say, and Republicans like Boehner don’t stick to the small government, lower taxes and regulation ideals that the Tea Party holds dear, there may not be a Republican Party in 2 years.
Of course that’s assuming that the Tea Party continues to be a political factor in the next two years… the best way to reduce the power and effectiveness of the Tea Party would be to have a robust, expanding economy which would allow them, and most others, to lapse back into a state of apathy about their ideals.
Finally, I just want to say to Mr. Watkins and others with similar thoughts, how can you not “like” Boehner? I can understand if you don’t like his political views, but if you’ve never met the man how can you say you don’t like him? He might be like Bill Clinton is to me–I don’t like a LOT of his political views, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if I had a beer with him at a bar, I’d end up really, really liking the guy.
Wow. Tell us how you really feel. I did think picking Assange would be a little too reactionary to recent upswing in news for TIME, though it remains to be seen what the lasting impact will be — Zuckerberg’s too, for that matter, though. The people most influencing the world or our nation: Glenn Beck? (Does that ascribe to him too much power?) Wen Jiabao and/or Hu Jintao? Manmohan Singh? David H. Koch? Rupert Murdoch? Warren Buffet?
When I think of 2010… I might think of Deepwater as the defining event. Unsure. The January earthquake in Haiti was horrible. The volcano in Iceland. Austerity measures in Greece and now Ireland. The Gaza blockade. A fruitless climate change conference. Then the cool: a 24-hour solar-powered flight; the first isolated anti-matter; various genome breakthroughs; the (over-read but still interesting) arsenic-based life form. Liu Xiaobo’s Nobel Peace Prize.
Dunno. But… Bah. Bah indeed.
#5 by Lubert Das:
Seriously, how much influence do you suppose Assange really has on how he comes across in the media, especially the US media?
As with Assange, I guess I sometimes get stuck on that whole judging-a-person-by-their-actions thing. For some reason, I can’t get through that to the important stuff like whether they look like a Bond villain or talk nice over a couple of beers.
Totally off topic, I like the new evolved look. Yes, it has been a day or two since I stopped by.
Time (the magazine, not the concept – unless we’ve invented a time machine) is irrelevant and their Person of the Year moreso.
I hate Boehner, but I suppose he could be Person of the Year next year. Though anything that passes the House has to get past the Senate, so he might not be that influential in the coming two years (I hope).
Assange would’ve been a better choice but there’s no way Time has the stones to make that pick.
The BBC had a subtle commentary on the selection this morning, pointing out that “Hitler, Stalin and the Ayatollah Khomeini have all won in the past.”
Agree @ Gregg Bender
It’s just another pointless ejaculation from our masturbatory celebrity culture. Or, in more PG terms:
*Barf*
Well, by your own definition submitted in comment #2, “people most influencing the world or our nation,” like it or not Zuckerberg and Facebook have become INCREDIBLY influential. A vast number of people and businesses (who are now people too, or are they aliens?) use Facebook on a daily — nah, hourly — basis. Kids use it as the basis of their communication instead of email, which they see as something for their parents’ generation. Concerns about privacy are very willingly left at the door as everyone runs to participate in this global phenomenon. Seems pretty influential to me.
#7 by Bearpaw:
“Seriously, how much influence do you suppose Assange really has on how he comes across in the media, especially the US media?”
Quite a lot actually… IMO, this guy makes Bono from U2 look humble. What Wikileaks is trying to do (very important) is being distracted by the actions, real or concocted, of Assange. Don’t you think that the message of Wikileaks would be more effectively received by the media if they had a more understated spokesman?
chinkle:
Meh. If we’re going by what kids use to communicate, whomever invented text messaging should be Person of the Year.
Beyond that, ubiquity is indeed a form of influence, but I find it a fairly inconsequential form. If Facebook vaporized or declined in popularity, it could very easily be replaced; just ask MySpace (or the earlier-mentioned Friendster or AOL) about that.
Bearpaw, Lubert Das:
I’m not sure this thread will benefit from being yet another general thread about Mr. Assange.
I figure if Assange can dump enough dirt that causes the american public to demand an end to these stupid wars, then he *deserves* to be person of the year.
#12 by chinkle:
I must disagree… I think Facebook is as ephemeral as any fad on the internet. I may be wrong, but in 10 years I think Facebook will be as relevant to people as America OnLine is to people today.
99% of the Internet is ephemeral–relying upon the fads, memes, and trends–here today, gone tomorrow. The only constant IS change.
Facebook will go the way of MySpace, Napster, etc.
My own personal realization of this is Homestar Runner (www.homestarrunner.com). A few years ago, I could count on a weekly visit to this site for a new Strong Bad email to make my day… now the web site lies idle.
My first reaction was, “Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!”
My second reaction was, “WTF???”
My third reaction was, “Oh, right, they wanted to sell more magazines…”
Journalism, at least as it is understood by anyone over 35, is dead. My list of the people who had the biggest effect on the news in the last year did NOT resemble that of Time Magazine at all. I agree with Mr. Scalzi, Representative Boehner would have been a better choice, as would have Sarah Palin (whose politics and public persona I really, REALLY do not like).
Sigh….
Really, apart from his company arbitrarily changing their privacy agreement with their users and a movie coming out about him, what did Zuckerberg do to be person of this particular year? Facebook has been growing steadily for some time and the main reason it’s been getting a lot of talk lately has more to do with the movie than any real event.
It’s too early for Boehner; next year maybe if he can control the message, but right now he’s largely just the beneficiary of the election results. The Tea Party, on the other hand, would have been my choice. They largely dominated political coverage and had a major influence on the election in many places, though not always in the way they hoped.
@ Lubert #5: you are correct. I don’t like his politics. I’ve never met the man, so I suppose I cannot dislike him, personally. However, I’ll also say I don’t like his presentation of himself. He sounds condescending, and I don’t like that either. I strongly suspect that this condescending attitude extends into his personal sphere, so I strongly suspect I would not like him personally, either. But you know who I dislike more than Boehner (whose name I misspelled earlier)? Lindsey Graham of SC. I will not go into further detail, but my loathing of every sound that comes out of his mouth cannot be expressed in words.
I think that the reasoning from this comes from a slightly different angle: the impact that Facebook manages to accomplish is incredible – good and bad – and the fact that people’s choices are dictated by someone who’s been pushing back privacy is more relevant and recognizable to the average person on the street, rather than someone such as John Boehner, which isn’t as relevant. (Although, I agree with you – people should be looking more towards something besides the trival)
Guess Assange was too controversial. Wouldn’t he have sold mags, too? He sure is making the end of 2010 something spectacular.
If you think the leaks were important, instead of Assange, you should vote for Bradley Manning.
Points taken. It just seems to me that Facebook has served as a giant wake up call to companies: if you want your message to reach individuals, you must engage in social media. Although Friendster, AOL, and MySpace came before Facebook, and others will surely follow after FB falls out of favor, I think that FB has been that driving force to change the way corporations interact with their consumers. It’s forced them to have a presence on Facebook, Twitter, foursquare, etc.
Zuckerberg didn’t merely create a social networking site: he built America’s Gateway to Farmville.
The criteria is a bit slippery. If they were to break it down into subcategories, now…
Entertainment – maybe Conan for his tilting at NBCs windmill
Politics – I think that Boehner still doesn’t stand up here. Maybe the brothers Koch, whose quiet infusion of cash against progressive candidates swung the election would be a good choice.
You see my point, I hope. With a single category, it’s hard to say who might be most important. But Zuckerberg – that strikes me as being a bit overdone.
Eh, Time’s PotY Godwined itself 70 years ago.
So, what you have to do to become Time’s Person of the Year is make Friendster, only bigger, more annoying to use, and more contemptuous of the concept of privacy
AWESOME! Funniest thing I have read all week.
You just summed up in about 15 words why I could care less about Facebook.
#22 by Mike:
I think you bring up an excellent point re: Bradley Manning.
It also brings up what the heck the US Government is going to do with him… My guess is that the Obama Administration will leave him in custody, without charging him if possible (lots of options like that when you’re a member of the US Military), until after the 2012 election…
Kick that can down the road and hope someone else has to deal with it… it’s one of the favorite sports of Presidents throughout history.
Zuckerberg didn’t actually DO anything. Arguing that he’s influential is false…if anything, FACEBOOK is influential. Zuckerberg has an influence over them, but he’s also equally culpable of their many lapses (how many times this year were privacy issues with Facebook a topic of discussion)? Boehner might be a better choice, but again…he really hasn’t done anything of specific note (beyond the rest of his colleagues, in any case). Being the point man for the GOP does not translate into ‘man of the year’. Next year, if he wields significant influence, perhaps. But by the measuring stick of accomplishment, we might better look to Obama, who managed to push through legislation once thought unpassable this year.
I can’t help but think there must have plenty of other people of equal or greater importance, like the CERN team, the relief workers in Haiti or SOMEONE more than Zuckerberg.
Ever since the refusal to do 2001’s only possible choice (marketing: “we’re going to sell any magazines with _that_ guy on the cover”? ) no one at Time has paid attention to the “most significant impact” qualification.
For the past few decades Time’s Man of the Year has also chosen people who have just jumped the shark. I don’t mind confirmation that Zuckerberg has jumped the shark.
My thought would have been–as much as it sort of grabs my gag reflex–the Tea Party Movement (or whatever they want to call it). I don’t expect it to be around in 5 or 10 years, but I thought it had a huge impact this year and no, I’m totally unimpressed with Zuckerberg as an option, let alone as the choice. Christ, how about the head of BP?
Demetrios nails it (and John, you’re slipping into ‘get off my lawn’ territory.. :P ) – Zuckerberg didn’t do anything particular in 2010 vs, say, 2009. Facebook is undeniably influential, but not important and the influence can’t be traced to something done in 2010. That said Boehner didn’t do anything in 2010 particularly either, so he strikes me as a bad choice using the “person who had a big impact in 2010”. Aside from exceptional circumstances, though, we rarely see the Great Man theory in action in any one year. The idea of one person standing out is a fiction made up to sell issues in most years.
Well, as someone who doesn’t love Facebook, I can say that it is a big deal and not just for the kids. It really does have practical applications and it’s one hell of a way to get your word out – no matter what word that is.
If we’re looking at the large scale, Sarah Palin is the biggest example of the power of Facebook. She reaches right out to her base directly via Facebook which means she isn’t having to go through the mouthpiece of the mainstream media. For her, Facebook is a powerful tool that allows her ‘just folks’ rhetoric to flourish. Time Magazine chronicled her very effective use of Facebook here: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2036045,00.html
On the small scale, and this is purely anecdotal, I had a friend who wanted to start a baking business in Columbus, Ohio. She’s a social media coordinator for a local business, and she decided her only route of advertisement/communication with her customers would be a combination of Facebook and Twitter. She swiftly built up a thriving small business based on word of mouth, great shared reviews, and Twitter give-aways. I was completely taken aback by how quick she got up to speed.
So, for me, Facebook is a thing I look at once a day to read silly updates. But if you notice, it’s jacked into almost every site you go to. Heck, even the people who trapped my wayward raccoons a few months ago asked me to Like them on Facebook. Like it or not (ha!) Facebook has been a big deal this year. Maybe it should have been the person of the year, not its creator.
I should think that by conclusively proving you can drop the internet on someones head that you, Mr. Scalzi, should be person of the year. Perhaps Neil Gaiman and Wil Wheaton could join you. Persons of the Year!
Lubert Das @ 5:
It’s unreasonable for others to make the personal decision not to like Boehner, but you can claim to know the internal psychology of Assange?
Looking at the picture. Is anyone else getting an a increasingly powerful urge to take his lunch money?
rickg:
“you’re slipping into ‘get off my lawn’ territory”
Slipping into? Hell, I’ve been there for years!
John, I’m older than you, you young punk. Don’t let the kids generation gap you…
Aasange is a media whore/attention monger only to those who wish to ignore that he is pointing out the emperor has no clothes.
I wouldn’t give assange poty only because he hasn’t caused a massive change yet. maybe next year.
Bradley Manning has been held in solitary confinement for the last seven months. probably be there a lot longer. he has not been convicted of anything, but Bush long since established that trials are optional. obama appears to be happy to continue the lawlessness.
Rickg:
But I do have a lawn! And I do want you off it!
If the criteria is “the people most influencing the world”, than Zuckenberg is a better candidate than Boehner for this year at least.
a. Boehner’s influence may be felt next year, but not this year. If the award is representative of this calendar year, this isn’t his year.
b. Facebook may be temporary king of the internet, but it is king and it has a great deal larger presence than just kids.
c. Zuckenberg is person largely responsible for Facebook. So while I get that its the intangible website and not the person, you can make those sorts of arguments for just about any candidate for the “award”. For example, is it the position of House Majority Leader that creates the power, or is Boehner?
I don’t like Zuckenberg or Facebook, but Boehner does not beat him the influence category. Particularly when you consider it in a world context. To consider Boehner is to take a very US-Centric view of the world.
Sara:
Yes, because US policy doesn’t affect the rest of the world at all. Beyond that, of course, if one checks the Time Person of the Year award winners, one does see Time has a quite a few US-centric winners (as it would, being a magazine with its primary market in the US).
I would also dispute that Boehner’s influence during the last year was trivial, incidentally; he was the head of the GOP’s House contingent when it won the largest House victory (in terms of seats gained) in something like 80 years. With due deference to the Tea Partiers, he was not a disinterested observer in that process. Note also 2008’s Person of the Year was then president-elect Obama, about whom the same argument could be made as you are now currently making against Rep. Boehner.
(pitches tent JUST INSIDE of John’s lawn…)
US Politics do influence the world. But not to such a great extent as Facebook.
I agree Time’s choice rationale makes no sense to their purported purpose. Including the timing of the timing of the influence.
Mostly such lists and awards are nonsense. A tribute the human desire for absolutes and clean linear connections. And, as someone else noted, it is subjective. I think Facebook’s daily involved influence to a broader population is more weighty than the less personally involved influence of politics. But more to the point, it is impossible to truly gauge ONE specific thing that influences.
And yet you let John Boehner’s opponent onto your lawn. Literally.
Not original I know but… If there was only a category for “Most Annoying Man of the Year” by Time or anyone else Zuckerberg would be a sure thing. And yes, I do have a facebook page having been persuaded that it was a good way to keep in touch with a extremely geographically separated family but that doesn’t mean I have to like either it or the man dagnabit.
Boehner would not be my choice but then neither would Assange. Both of them seem to me to be small people elevated by circumstances to some extent beyond their control.
John… I can’t agree with you here: <blockquote….Note also 2008′s Person of the Year was then president-elect Obama, about whom the same argument could be made as you are now currently making against Rep. Boehner.
Obama, merely by getting elected, was significant. First black president? Yeah, I think that qualifies him as making a mark in 2008. Had Hillary been nominated and won, I’d make the same argument for her. Either was breaking a barrier that was meaningful. Boehner’s sole claim (aside from being weepy) would be his role in the midterm elections, but meh. I’m not sure that outside of Ohio he was seen as the instigator of that victory as much as Gingrich was in ’94. Sure, you can make an argument for him, but no one is really compelling as an individual whose actions this year have made a significant difference. I guess I’ll stick to None of the Above as my choice here.
“nerd-sexy” – WRONG! I do “nerd-sexy” and he is NOT “nerd-sexy” You are nerd sexy, my husband is nerd sexy, Jon Stewart is nerd sexy. Mark Zuckerberg is narcissistic creepy.
Scalzi said: “…make me wonder why Facebook has difficulty with the concept of ‘No means no…'”
IIRC, Zuckerberg’s original inspiration was “Hot or Not,” which was started by two guys who thought it would be a good and useful thing to harness the power of the internet to objectify people by creating a public forum for judging their appearance in the crassest way possible. (And of course, judging “attractiveness” is more often targeted at women, so you get to throw sexism in there, too, which aligns interestingly with your “no means no” comment.) Zuckerberg’s nifty spin was to hack into Harvard’s databases to steal and publicize student’s photos without their permission, so other students could comment on how ugly they were.
I think it’s pretty clear why Facebook doesn’t understand what “no” means: ‘cuz Zuckerberg doesn’t. He’s no person of the year, but I’d vote for him to be added to the “Men Most Likely to Commit Rape” list.
@drmeow: Amen, sister. That guy just looks like the creepy guy who sits behind you in class. He never says a word just sort of sniffs your hair.
speaking of AOL I just got to the part in The Android’s Dream audiobook where Creek boots up the computer and is welcomed by the personal intelligence agent sponsored by AOL “earth’s oldest continually active network”
Rickg:
Meh. Clinton was also Person of the Year in ’92, before he was anything other than president-elect, too. Also: George W. Bush in 2000. The point is still valid across the Time POTY choices.
I think the argument would be that Clinton’s and Obama’s elections were themselves newsworthy. Is being the first Orange-American House Leader really as newsworthy?
Your anti-Oompa Loompa bias SICKENS me.
I’d only defend the choice of Mr. Zuckerberg in that Facebook has, for more ill than good I feel, changed the internet in a fundamental way.
Again, I think it’s a change for the bad, creating a walled off garden where you’re poked by people and data mined <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/13/technology/facebook_id_privacy/"for your fillings by every brand out there. Doing it by convincing people that the HAVE to post all their private information (and occasionally just flicking a switch on the YOUR-PRIVACY-IS-A-LIE-o-matic) in order to be fully involved is something of a masterstroke.
Lets not even talk about the “games” on facebook that plug into your private information and reward you with ability to raise virtual plants and cattle, because that just makes be die a little inside every time one of my friends chats me up about their latest agricultural endeavor and it takes me a second to realize they’re talking about farmville.
I think he’s a good choice as person of the year, and not because of his success or the film, but because of his blast radius.
I’m a bit annoyed that Sal Giunta wasn’t even on the list. I’ll be even more annoyed at how many people will have to Google the name just to know who he is.
Hm. Thank you for once again reaffirming the decision made (whimper) 25 years ago to stop buying Time Magazine … the quality and relevance of their reporting and content in general having fallen below even the cost of a discounted subscription, and the blatancy of their focused advertising had become so annoying that we actually cancelled a GIFT subscription, and every time I’ve looked back I’ve felt no particular sense of loss.
The latter annoys me and make me wonder why Facebook has difficulty with the concept of “No means no,” …
If you believe the Swedes, the runner up also has difficulty with that concept.
if we’re gonna bash Time, might as well let the pros take first swing.
http://mobile.theonion.com/video/time-announces-new-version-of-magazine-aimed-at-ad,17950/
Salvatore Giunta gets my vote. Halls of Fame and top ten lists, bleah.
Didn’t know Zuckerberg qualified. You do, after all, have to be a person. Or a planet.
Wouldn’t this have been more relevant last year, when most people were still pretty excited about Facebook?
Of course I haven’t read Time Magazine in well over a decade, even my dentist doesn’t seem to have copies, and it felt a little flimsy even when I did read it, so presumably I’m not their target audience.
Late nominee, I know, but I’m inclined to Ginger Littleton, myself. Lady looked at the danger, her fears, made a plan, stepped up and did something (other than give a speech.) Her plan failed, in a way, but in that allowed others to execute their plans, making her a hero in my book. Well done, Ms. Littleton.
The whole comparison of Boehner to Obama ’08 or Clinton ’92 just doesn’t wash with me. Boehner was never a STORY. Hell, most people who voted this year couldn’t have told you who he is. Clinton and Obama dominated the news coverage for those years. If you want someone to personify the Tea Party & the political stories of the year, I’d have to go with Sarah Palin. She sure took up a heckuva lot more newsprint (and blogger’s bandwidth) than Boehner. Now, I’m not arguing that she’s WORTH all that attention (the whole Palin phenomenon, both pro & con, leaves me shaking my head), but there’s no denying that her every move receives a remarkable amount of attention.
I have to agree that Zuckerberg has not done anything noteworthy. The internet has always been an time sink, he did not invent social networking, and he hasn’t changed the way we live or communicate. He basically built something (that has become quite popular) on top of something that has already changed fundamentally the way we live and communicate, the internet (which was invented by Al-Gore and he did not get on the cover of TIME for it).
He also created a growing business and is creating jobs. There is more to creating facebook than just the website. He is running a business.
Just because you don’t like his website, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t appreciate what it took to create the business. In a bad economy, his company is hiring people at very high salaries. I have read that some programmers are getting $180,000 base salaries there. These are not wall street bankers stealing your money and manipulating the credit markets. These are people creating things.
Guess:
Since he’s doing such a spectacular job at growing a business, maybe he can hire a UI expert to make his site less damn annoying.
I don’t think it’s as much about “nerd-sexy” as it is about “Well, we don’t really get this whole Facebook thing, but everyone’s talking about it, so we’re going to too. ‘Cause we’re still relevant, damnit!” (See also: the recent 60 Minutes interview asking the *stupidest* questions.)
Well, if Zuckerberg makes it for inventing Facebook (PS he didn’t do it ALONE) then what about the Twitter inventor? That is just as pervasive as as Facebook. If you are inclined to use sites that your parents don’t use, college and high school kids are using Tumblr not Facebook. So what about that creator? In the end, this kind of social networking has changed the way lots of business gets done and the way friends (real friends) stay in touch. Change the world? No, I don’t think so. There are so many other people worthy of this recognition and I don’t think even Mark Zuckerberg would disagree. I don’t think Mark Zuckerberg is a bad guy, so let’s not villify him. Socially inept? Probably. Not in tune to visual social cues? Probably. Capable of blinking? Hardly ever. (Did you see 60 Minutes?)
Julian Assange…another man who if he were tested would probably exhibit markers for several mental disorders. He’s not a hero, he’s a manipulator, probably a narcissist even without the offical recognition of the disorder. Another misguided individual will go to jail for theft of government secrets and Julian Assange is being hailed a hero for publishing the stolen information? Good Lord, are we really so stupid that we are manipulated by him too? He is a sad, sick man who just wants to be famous.
I think Pelosi/Reid is a better choice than Zuckerberg, but what do I know?
Can you really be named Person Of The Year while you still have acne?
Even if they deserved it’s probably for the best that the Tea Party didn’t win because of all the self congratulatory masturbation among the Tea Party it would have caused.
Considering the climate of racism, surveillance and paranoia and as a shout out to 2006, maybe this year’s Time Person of the Year should have been ‘THEM’
Well, I’m not that impressed, but that’s because I’ve already won 3 times…
As always, late to the party. But the idea of Boehner as MotY? Could have seen it had he not chosen Michelle “Why, yes, I want Intelligent Design taught as science!” Bachmann for the House Intel committee.