I'm really surprised to see that the news came out a couple days ago. I didn't see anyone talking about it. I just happen to spot a link in the sidebar over at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Ryan is runner-up for Time's Person of the Year." I clicked thinking it was about Ryan Braun, then realized it was Paul Ryan. As for the actual Time Person of the Year... do you know? Do you care?
The person of the year, it turns out, it "The Protester." I didn't read the article. I just did a search for the word "Wisconsin," and when nothing came up, I felt... I felt... nothing.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८५ टिप्पण्या:
Time Magazine is still around?
This was the first question at the bar trivia I was at last night, which means it was supposed to be the easiest, based on the assumption that everyone would know the answer.
"...I felt... I felt... nothing."
I suppose that's better than the contempt and disdain (redundant, I know) I feel for both Time Magazine and the notion that "The Protestor" (especially the OWS kind) could be considered Time's Person of the Year.
Oh well. Drive on.
I'm sure the cover will sell a lot of issues.
It looks like TIME is hellbent on withering away, like Newsweek.
Soon, they will be sold for a dollar to Jezebel.
Askewhatguy must do his drinking in a retirement community bar and grille.
Google askew for a giggle.
TIME voted to soon - and picked the wrong protester,...
WI protesters are not fancy enough for TIME people. They were talking about the Arab Spring people I think. I have not seen the picture but if it is one of those little OWS people, TIME was just humoring them for sales.
I do miss the sexy shots of Sarah Palin's legs on the covers of National Mags.
But where is Time magazine? I haven't seen one in years.
The cover photo that sells best today is Tim Tebow's. He is selling what the complete man's image looks like, which is a rare commodity.
Time Magazine has fewer pages and has less compelling content than the weekly Menard's sale flyer.
Crack wrote:
TIME voted to soon - and picked the wrong protester,...
I'm a bit perplexed by your link. Are you offering yourself as eponymous "Person of the Year", being a noted protester against the General Decline yourself? Or, perhaps you're referring to Joe Frazier and/or Christopher Hitchens, two notable protesters who have sadly passed this year?
Time Magazine's Choice for Person of the Year Points to 20%+ Equity Gains in 2012.
Interesting.
The magazine cover contrary indicator premise is discussed here.
Doesn't "runner up" imply a vote? Would anyone on the TIME editorial board or its readership "vote" for Paul Ryan?
I don't really care except to observe that the "Person of the Year" should be a real person. Bill Gates, Nelson Mandela, etc. This is as silly as giving the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who hadn't really done anything to foster peace.
He is selling what the complete man's image looks like, which is a rare commodity.
His head seems too small in proportion to the rest of his body.
When Time made the computer its Person of the Year, people stopped paying attention.
For about 20 years before that, it was like asking who won Miss America or what horse won the Kentucky Derby; people were only mildly interested.
This one solidifies Time's slide into complete irrelevance.
Andy R. said...
This was the first question at the bar trivia I was at last night, which means it was supposed to be the easiest, based on the assumption that everyone would know the answer.
Now we know what fuels Hatman's comments.
DaveW stole my thunder. Same thought exactly.
This is as silly as giving the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who hadn't really done anything to foster peace.
Time Magazine's editorial staff are remarkably young - all under thirty - and are thus members of the soccer league generation. Getting and giving rewards for no accomplishment is both familiar and normal for them.
I gave up caring about the Person of the Year about the Time gave up naming actual PEOPLE for the distinction (for example, when they gave it to "The Computer"). Talk about self-parody.
Man of the Year was sort of interesting before it fell victim to political correctness and editorial group-think. Alas, that was a long time ago at this point.
Agreed. I would say that the Wisconsin protests set both the stage and to a certain extent the tone for the OWS protest. The Wisconsin protests were quite a bit better behaved, and probably cleaner, but no less fervent. Too bad Time missed the ball on that one.
I won't read the story. But I heard about it on the radio. They're lumping all protesters together, as though OWS has anything in common with Arab Spring. Maybe they're right as far as OWS having an impact; just not the impact that was intended.
The other 4 members of my family are all liberals. They think OWS is disgusting. Then there was the blocking of west coast ports last Monday when OWS doubled down on stupid.
This is the first time since 1930 that the "Person's Of The Year" slept on the ground and shit in a bucket. It's about time they get back to the classics.
Time Magazine's Choice for Person of the Year Points to 20%+ Equity Gains in 2012.
Who knew that the 99% will benefit the 1% even more??? But it should also help pension funds...
Time is irrelevant.
This is the first time since 1930 that the "Person's Of The Year" slept on the ground and shit in a bucket.
If only the Person of the Year had consistently shit in a bucket I'd have more confidence.
No protesters here. Just citizens peacefully assembling, consulting for the common good, and petitioning their government.
Quaestor,
I'm a bit perplexed by your link. Are you offering yourself as eponymous "Person of the Year", being a noted protester against the General Decline yourself? Or, perhaps you're referring to Joe Frazier and/or Christopher Hitchens, two notable protesters who have sadly passed this year?
Sorry - wrong link - I meant Hitchens.
Class of Persons of the Year.
That is much less interesting than a Person of the Year.
Time, Time, Time,
See what's become of you
It was noticed well enough to become a small jokey meme; e.g., "Time's POY was arrested in Oakland yesterday...."
I was Time's Person of the Year in 1968 when they also named protestors.
A friend said we were "The Revolting Generation."
I don't really care except to observe that the "Person of the Year" should be a real person. Bill Gates, Nelson Mandela, etc.
Remember when the Person of the Year was "You"? (2006, I think.) That strikes me as even sillier, even though technically speaking it referred to a real person--all the me's that make up the we, I suppose.
Pogo
"Time, Time, Time,
See what's become of you"
Book Ends. Thank you for the memory.
It looks like TIME is hellbent on withering away
Last time I got a haircut the only magazines in the magazine bucket were People and Sports Illustrated. I think there were still some on the table at the Dentist's office.
Time and other media: too busy being a conglomerate to protect the public's interest.
I'm not interested in them.
This was the first question at the bar trivia I was at last night, which means it was supposed to be the easiest, based on the assumption that everyone would know the answer.
Lara Logan could not be reached for comment...
How about Time, Inc. as Norma Desmond?
TIME adamantly denies the protest of November 2010 and the tsunami protest coming on November 2012. Watch how UNEXPECTED it will be and how SURPRISED they'll be, along with the WashPostNYTimesABCCBSNBCCNN and of course Assoc Press, when they report the tragedy the day after.
You may not have noticed, but conservative bloggers have been amusing themselves for days photoshopping Time covers of the guy taking a crap on a police car.
hmm, apparently Althouse noticed ...
btw, this isn't the first time AA has contradicted herself in the thread title lol.
Great example of Drudge visuals right now, Obama with the word "end" over the top of his head.
This is why Drudge is thriving and Time is passing.
MadMan...You are right, Tim Tebow's head does not seem to be large enough for his shoulders when he is wearing shoulder pads. Or maybe he is a bionic man with a time clock set for the fourth quarter
But that is nothing compared to the size of James Harrison's helmet when it smashes into a Quarterback's face.
Chuck:
I drove an extra half-hour to my dentist for many years partly because of his magazines. He had "Aviation Week", "Approach", "Atlantic", and "Scientific American", in addition to the usual other junk.
(Approach mag is the house journal of Marine Corps aviation. and of course, this was before Sci Am jumped the shark. Dr. B was a retired A-4 driver, like my father.)
Crack, do you believe in good and evil?
I don't see how an atheist can answer that question as an affirmative. If there is no good and evil, there are no morals but what we make up in our own minds. And if we decide that genocide, or slavery, or pedophilia is okay, then is it okay?
Is the sum total of what you believe is that you believe nothing?
I agree with the stand on not sacrificing your children though. Does that make me an apostate?
I think that anyone who takes the stories, parables, and tales in any holy book remember that the book was written not by a perfect God, but by imperfect vessels. A teacup cannot hold the ocean.
I can't say that Jesus absolutely lived and died as described by the Bible. I would bet against it matter of fact. How can such a limited thing describe all the wonders of a life lived.
But if such a device makes us all a little nicer to each other than whats the harm?
Atheist like to point out how many people died in religious wars, and that is a valid point. My point is that as bad as religion is, think how much worse the alternative is.
With no compunction, or restraint, how bad can human nature become?
I've seen enough stuff for me to believe in God. Apparently, you've seen enough shit to make you disbelieve.
I don't pity you. I think you would be angry if I did, and rightfully so. But let me say, I do feel sad that you have endured so much pain.
So Time thinks more of protesting than governing -- and the second runner-up is Kate Middleton! Add to that the link that connects Ryan to the "simple competence" of Althouse's choice for President and Time's 2008 POTY -- and I get the message that "Nobody really gives a shit."
I noticed because people on Facebook mentioned it.
The same ones who think that Occupy Whatever is "winning" because of posturing in Congress.
(I.e., whats-his-name's proposed go-nowhere Amendment to Take The Evil Money Out Of Elections, At Least If It's Not Union And NGO Money.)
Pff, I say.
Tits should be the person of the year.
With a giant pair of jugs on the cover staring out at us.
It would sell billions.
You can't go wrong with tits.
tits.
Crack, do you believe in good and evil?
I don't see how an atheist can answer that question as an affirmative. If there is no good and evil, there are no morals but what we make up in our own minds. And if we decide that genocide, or slavery, or pedophilia is okay, then is it okay?
It's nice to honor Christopher Hitchens on this day of his passing with a reprisal of this canard that he often capably destroyed in fifty words or less.
But 2009 was the Tea Party right? Nope.
I resent the notion that good & evil strictly comes from believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the sky.
I'll take Time of Newsweek, but the only time I read it is if I am waiting for an appointment and there are no other magazines or newspapers to read.
Like land phones and first class mail, Time is a product from another era. When the older folks die off, they are not geting younger customers to replace them.
Example, my brother is quite a bit older then me. He is a child of the 70s. Even though he is a moderately conservative Republican, he subscribes to Time and Newsweek. And I was surprised about this, but he watches the 5:30 PM evening network news. And he watches it on CBS! Why? Because that is what people did in the 70s.
I used to devour each issue of Time as soon as I pulled it out of my mailbox.
Sometime in the 90s, the magazine crossed over some divide, I felt like I wasn't learning anything new by reading it. The articles had become banal and mundane. I canceled my subscription after getting the magazine for twenty years.
I've long since placed Time in that category of once proud, interesting institutions that have jumped the shark into irrelevance, like the Nobel Peace Prize, the Academy Awards, Amnesty International, etc.
Actually much of good and evil comes from natural law. Law that comes from God. That is one of the reasons Catholic Von Stauffenberg broke German law and tried to kill Hitler. Because the laws coming from God overruled Nazi law.
the Atheists in the German gov't and military obeyed German law.
Crack, do you believe in good and evil?
I don't see how an atheist can answer that question as an affirmative. If there is no good and evil, there are no morals but what we make up in our own minds. And if we decide that genocide, or slavery, or pedophilia is okay, then is it okay?
I'm Atheist and yes, there is good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical, black and white, fire and rain. What does that got to do with Jesus or God beyond providing a scary unknowable punishment for not doing the right thing, but mostly not worshipping the particular God above all others? Rather self-absorbed, that.
Beyond that, Hitchins would be as bad a choice for TIME as the Protesters. If it wasn't for his incessant self-promotion, no one would know who the hell he was because his affect on the world has been nil.
A better choice would have been that techno-tyrant, Steve Jobs. Now there's a guy who changed the world for better or worse.
I stopped following Time's Person of the Year after I won in 2006. Obviously, each subsequent year would be anticlimactic.
And could you jerkoffs stop polluting every thread with the same religious/anti-religious back-and-forth horseshit? I know Hitchens just deep-sixed, but that's no excuse to rehash the same stupid shit that's been said, over and over ad infinitum, since human history began.
If any religious or atheist person here thinks they've come up with some explosive, novel, astonishing new argument or theory, let me know through email. And stop polluting the threads! THIS ONE'S ABOUT TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR.
Vrry feww things lasst D Pax Americana is endinn, n we dunno wwhat wee will becomm Manyy thinggs will b swept away Time n Newsweek hvv gonn agonal Do not moorn 4 what is passd, but reech eegerlii 4 d futurr
I noticed and wrote a particularly brilliant fucking post on it.
I gave up caring about the Person of the Year about the Time gave up naming actual PEOPLE for the distinction
Well said.
I'm organizing a protest against Time's choice of person of the year, and I'm asking them to pay for my airplane ticket to New York.
Next stop on Time's circular trip down the old porcelain edifice is the "Newsweek stop" where the entire magazine and all of its assets are sold for a dollar. It's not far away.
I note that of the last ten "Person of the Year" selection, 5 were not single persons — "The Whistleblowers", "The American Soldier", "The Good Samaritans", "You", and "The Protester."
It's time to peacefully euthanize Time.
Another attempt by a MSM element to bring validity to what is being protested???
Which is exactly what again???
A dubious choice from an increasingly irrelevant magazine.
wv - towpse
In a perfect universe, where Time Magazine was relevant and interesting, who would Time's Person of the Year be?
If we're looking for the person who most shaped the news, it would undoubtedly be Mohamed Bouazizi--the man whose self-immolation sparked the Arab Spring and subsequent movements based on the Arab Spring.
But people would be all, like, "Who?" And the editors didn't want to have to go through the trouble of actually flying to Tunisia and finding a picture of the guy. Probably they could have published a picture of any generic Arab--or use an Arab-flavored mockup of a Spanish politician--and claimed it was him, and who would know?
Waittt! Howw izz it dat hizz Wonness, d only ratial choizz (tm), is not d Person a d yeer? Hee shood b 4 evry singl yeer he izz asscendantt Arent all eventts in dis world affecced eithr by hizz actionss or choizzs not 2 act? Hee is d transformativ seminnal figur of our dayzz. Yyy, evry newzz articl sezz: "In , happened. [A spokesman for] President Obama said ..."
Look 4 a correctio from Time, n soon D Won's peeps will not let this oversiitt stand. It cantt It musttt nottt
Ratts!! HTML correctiio: "In <somewhere>, <something> happened. [A spokesman for] President Obama said ..."
If d peeps @ Time had even 1/2 a brain among em, dey would hv pikked Steve Jobs, whom even d notoriallii pikky ProffAA luvvs
It woulda been worth itt jes to seee d headss of both Apple h888ers and fanboii go splodeeyy at d samm time!!!
Reellly, think about it: d transform of computii from oozzy CLI's to glorii grafics, rescuu of Apple bakk to fabuloos int'l brand, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad, Siri. Truly, Jobs, likk Hercules b4 him, was a childd of Zeus
We may not see hizz like again Only Bezos comess closss, n we know Bezos izz a mere mortal
Telling Good from evil becomes easy after someone points it out. Men need that teacher. They get great benefit from learning good and evil identifications which are a part of every life situation, but only come into clear understanding once the truth is taught.
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was good enough to give men His written Torah to teach them good and evil. Most of our legal concepts, and our understanding what Justice/Righteousness is, come directly to us from of the books of Moses.
Not that atheists cannot learn these concepts too, but they are downloading indirectly from the God who spoke The Law through Moses.
No protesters here. Just citizens peacefully assembling, consulting for the common good, and petitioning their government.
Oh? Were there Tea Party protests this year?
andanista, you're Johnny Cash..walkn' the line. Keep it up until Barney says, "email me". It's his single bullet.
Is Andinista clutter, boring, or both?
"The man or woman (or group or idea) that had the greatest impact during the past year, for good or for ill," chosen by editors who had the least impact during the past year, for good or ill.
<..yawn..>
Carnifex,
Crack, do you believe in good and evil?
Yes.
I don't see how an atheist can answer that question as an affirmative. If there is no good and evil, there are no morals but what we make up in our own minds. And if we decide that genocide, or slavery, or pedophilia is okay, then is it okay?
I'm going to agree with everyone else and say this is a pretty juvenile question. Many of the world's evils are endorsed in the Bible, so, really, a religious person should be asking these questions of himself in regards to his "beliefs."
Is the sum total of what you believe is that you believe nothing?
No - I don't endorse the concept of believing. As I recently posted on my blog, you can "believe" the Earth is flat all you want, but all you're doing is making the world a more fucked up place. The same goes for religion.
I've always thought of good and evil as being outside of the material, reason and nature.
That is one of the reason's I'm not an atheist, that and the belief that "A man needs to know his limitations."
Belief in good and evil is pretty much the extent of my religious beliefs. Is there a term for such a thing? I call it "hopeful agnosticism" because I hope that good is stronger and purposeful.
Crack, you clearly believe that what Homo Sapiens know and see is all there is. That's a belief. You only have five senses, and a very small world to use them on.
You may alternatively believe that there is a lot beyond what you know, but I think you believe you know the limits of that too. It's all belief and nothing more.
Nothing wrong with that. It was good that some people thought the world was round, even when it appeared to be crazy. Imagine how nuts that idea would be to someone with no knowledge of gravity. You just float a boat upside down around the world?
Look around at your species. Are you really sure these people can know the universe and have told you all you need to know about it? And that's just the universe they know about.
I guess everyone's done talking about the Person of the Year, so it's okay to talk about the boring horseshit.
I always ask anyone claiming to believe in good and evil to define it. Crack casually says the Bible endorses all manner of evil. I'd like to hear his definitions.
I listened to a Cambridge professor (his name escapes me) on the radio a few weeks back. The interviewer pursued his definition of evil until the professor was forced to admit that, yes, basically his ethical system is an expression of aesthetics and nothing more; he'd personally like it if there were less suffering in the world; and he readily admitted that this was purely subjective, based entirely on what he thought should be and not on any abstract, metaphysical, absolute notion of what universally should be. That is, his concept of good and evil is as valid as anyone else's, which renders the words useless. It's Tower of Babel territory: everyone is in chaos by discrepancies in language.
"Is Andinista clutter, boring, or both?"
If the answer is yes, then he's on a par w/most of Althouse's throng.
but, but, but one man's garbage is another man's treasure ie the very fact a certain poster is brought up for discussion indicates some interest, eh.
As always ~ The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. ~ Oscar Wilde
You atheist are skipping over the point... you say yes there is good, and evil, but no there is no final arbiter. Then isn't good and evil determined by the individual?
So if I think its okay to flog bats its good because I get the final say so.
You either have to admit there is a underlaying morality to the universe, or its welcome to the monkey house, do what ever feels good.
And yes I admitted that I find many stories in the Bible false, but also included ALL religious tomes. I didn't jump to the anti-christian meme of only the bible as you guys did. I used the bible a an example not as a be all end all.
But until a atheist can point to something as a final arbiter of good and evil, they are setting themselves in that position. I myself am more humble than that.
As far as Christopher Hitchens goes, again, people assume that the ability to form words into a pleasing sentence makes them a great thinker. It just makes them a great writer.
I like a lot of Hitchens stuff. He reminds me of me a bunch. I just found his stance on God, not religion, shallow.
"I like a lot of Hitchens stuff. He reminds me of me a bunch. I just found his stance on God, not religion, shallow."
Agree and he was stubborn until the end.
You atheist are skipping over the point... you say yes there is good, and evil, but no there is no final arbiter. Then isn't good and evil determined by the individual?
If good and evil are real things then they have value independent of what any arbiter thinks.
The only reason you need an arbiter is if "evil" are defined as "what the arbiter thinks is evil" -- in which case good and evil are STILL being determined by an individual.
In reality, of course, even if an arbiter exists you don't know what he thinks. You just know what you think he thinks -- which is just another way of saying good and evil are determined by your opinion.
Ima tryinn guyss Strugglin w/ a new langua, dat overlayys d old, its difficc 2 get intresstin points across n an intresstin way I cann see n feel d gooll, but itsa wayys off
If good and evil are real things then they have value independent of what any arbiter thinks.
If that arbiter is the creator of the universe then, no, they don't have value independent of what that arbiter thinks. For further reading, see John 1:1.
"Is there an arbiter?" is the question without answer. How we act in the absence of proof is all that matters, and that's true regardless. I expect to die like all before me - not knowing, but having the impact of how I lived remain. That includes questioning belief in all it's forms........unless I get bored.
"I always ask anyone claiming to believe in good and evil to define it."
Why, don't you know the difference? I mean wouldn't that be the reason for asking, or is it something else you're after?
If that arbiter is the creator of the universe then, no, they don't have value independent of what that arbiter thinks. For further reading, see John 1:1.
The above mentality is known as "might makes right". I don't agree with it.
Well, I wouldn't say, "nobody even noticed."
Drudge linked to it with a really classy photo!
Link to a screen capture of the potty POTY is here.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा