Sponsored Links

[nebraska29]

I heard about Bill/Melinda Gates and Bono being crowed by TIME as their persons of the year and I can't help but shake my head. While this designation doesn' mean much in all reality, the idea of such an award is important and I don't believe that TIME is living up to that idea. I don't deny that the three individuals have done a lot of good, certainly they've done more than I ever have for others during this past year. With that being said, the award should go to someone who made the largest impact on the world and our lives. The three named individuals have been doing this work for years, what makes this one different from last year, or the one before that? By that criteria alone, they are old news. How about hurricane Katrina? President Bush?, Cindi Sheehan? Katrina undoubtedy was a disaster and will be something remember for years to come. The president has weathered Libby-gate and the entire Plame investigation for months now. Cindi Sheehan has helped the anti-war movement turn the corner so to speak, from anonymity to a larger movement. Love her or hate her, she has impacted discussion on the war here in the states. TIME royally screwed up, thumbs down to TIME whose lead writers and reporters who took an easy out on this.


Questions for debate:

1.)Does Bono and Bill and Melinda Gates deserve to be named TIME magazine's people of the year? Explain your answer.

2.)Who should be TIME's person of the year besides A.D.'s own Jaime?

3.)Does Cindi Sheehan deserve the title instead?, why or why not?

[catquas]

The work of the Gates' and Bono has been immensely more impactful than Cindi Sheehan's questionable advocacy or that nonsense political scandal with Bush and Libby. The people Time chose are focused not on political bickering, but rather on real change for real people who are in the most desperate situations on earth.

From the article:
"The challenge of "stupid poverty"—the people who die for want of a $2 pill because they live on $1 a day—was enough to draw Gates away from Microsoft years before he intended to shift his focus from making money to giving it away. He and Melinda looked around and recognized a systems failure. "Those lives were being treated as if they weren't valuable," Gates told Fortune in 2002. "Well, when you have the resources that could make a very big impact, you can't just say to yourself, 'O.K., when I'm 60, I'll get around to that. Stand by.'"

The Gates thing is not about feel-good charity. If you read the article, you can see that these people are pragmatically focusing on solving real world issues. They are trying to make the greatest impact possible on the poor of the world by providing real aid. He is right, these people are being treated as if their lives are not valuable. The civilian plus military deaths in Iraq amount to about 30,000. As far as I can tell the deaths Katrina caused are, at most, about that amount. Yet every single day over 35,000 people die of starvation in the developing world.

Maybe Time could have chosen better, but I for one can't think of a better option. Americans need to realize that the problems found in our country are nothing compared to the incredible poverty in the poorest countries - and furthermore, a small amount of money can do so much to change people's lives.

Issues surrounding the war in Iraq are important, but they don't need any attention. Neither does the Katrina situation. Sure, more can always be done, but most of us are aware fo that. Time's choice will help direct our attentions to a much bigger problem than both of these - world poverty itself.

[nebraska29]

The work of the Gates' and Bono has been immensely more impactful than Cindi Sheehan's questionable advocacy or that nonsense political scandal with Bush and Libby. The people Time chose are focused not on political bickering, but rather on real change for real people who are in the most desperate situations on earth.

I could see them winning it if they had started this effort this year, but that isn't the case. This is year number three or something like that and it isn't out of the ordinary compared to what other people of similar wealth do with their money. Sheehan has gone from a grieving war mother, to a publicly recognized grieving war mother who has a sitting president running away from her rather than meeting her. Certainly she isn't the first one to try this, but I would argue that she is the first successful grieving war mother to do so, and to have a heck of an impact on the war. I'd even dare say that the reason why we are having such a debate about the war now and whether or not we should pull out is exactly due to efforts on her part. People are thinking now-"well, wait a minute...what is worth it?"

[catquas]

I could see them winning it if they had started this effort this year, but that isn't the case.  This is year number three or something like that and it isn't out of the ordinary compared to what other people of similar wealth do with their money.  Sheehan has gone from a grieving war mother, to a publicly recognized grieving war mother who has a sitting president running away from her rather than meeting her. Certainly she isn't the first one to try this, but I would argue that she is the first successful grieving war mother to do so, and to have a heck of an impact on the war. I'd even dare say that the reason why we are having such a debate about the war now and whether or not we should pull out is exactly due to efforts on her part.  People are thinking now-"well, wait a minute...what is worth it?"

I can't say that I know what other rich people do with their money, but I do really like the idea that they are devoting themselves to making an inpact instead of simply giving their token amount. The fact that they are focusing on the poorest people in the world and doing extensive research on how to use their money most efficiently in helping them is something which I am drawn to.

I'm not completely sure that Cindi Sheehan sparked the debate, but I guess I am biased against her because I saw her talk before her news-making incident and I was not impressed. Her strongest points are ad-hominem and conspiracy theory arguments against President Bush and his supporters. Like how Bush was disrespectful when he met with her and other war moms (again, before she was famous). OK, maybe he wasn't nice to you, but what does that have to do with withdrawing from Iraq. Plus, she called the debate over whether we should withdraw "a battle between good and evil", which got me even more.

So basically giving her person of the year would be contributing to the media's emphasis on ad hominim arguments instead of rational discussion of the real issue.