Full Version: 2005 Persons of the Year
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?
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?
1.)Does Bono and Bill and Melinda Gates deserve to be named TIME magazine's people of the year? Explain your answer.
I've seen a lot of Persons of the Year and griped about a lot of them as well. I've seen tyrants and warmongers make the cover; those bother me the most.
TIME's criterion for this honor is newsworthiness of the person(s) named, and in this they did fudge it some. But I like the way they fudged it.
These wealthy people could be like the publishing magnate Rupert Murdoch who, it is claimed, doesn't give anything to charity despite his abundant wealth. But if he made a move this year for an famously unbuyable, successful mega-corporation and managed to take it over, his picture and name would have been on the cover. I wouldn't have wanted that.
It is much better to recognize those who don't have to give anyone anything take the initiative and work to make life more survivable, especially for many people whose odds at having a good life are so poor.
Passing on kindness and help might not be as newsworthy as Hurricane Katrina's damage, but it's sure good to know of altruistic individuals on every level of the socioeconomic scale when there is so much need everywhere.
2.)Who should be TIME's person of the year besides A.D.'s own Jaime?
Of course Jaime is a wonderful person to know. I'm not sure, however, that she would welcome the focus of the public eye or be able to handle it at this time. Let's wait until she's at least a middle-aged philanthropist with a personal secretary before we nominate her.
Whaddaya say, Jaime?
3.)Does Cindi Sheehan deserve the title instead?, why or why not?
I hope Ms. Sheehan can find comfort among her friends this Christmas as she remembers her son.
Cindy Sheehan has guts, and she now has plenty of people backing her up on her cause. I respect her for trying to put Bush's feet to the fire regarding the war, but the truth is, when it comes to getting President Bush's attention, she has to take a number just like the rest of us peons. I've tried contacting this man, too (and without a group standing behind me), and I am sure that my important communications (IMO) made it into the shredder and then the "circular file" along with most of the rest.
But if I had been not just a concerned citizen but one of his major contributors...
I've seen a lot of Persons of the Year and griped about a lot of them as well. I've seen tyrants and warmongers make the cover; those bother me the most.
TIME's criterion for this honor is newsworthiness of the person(s) named, and in this they did fudge it some. But I like the way they fudged it.
These wealthy people could be like the publishing magnate Rupert Murdoch who, it is claimed, doesn't give anything to charity despite his abundant wealth. But if he made a move this year for an famously unbuyable, successful mega-corporation and managed to take it over, his picture and name would have been on the cover. I wouldn't have wanted that.
It is much better to recognize those who don't have to give anyone anything take the initiative and work to make life more survivable, especially for many people whose odds at having a good life are so poor.
Passing on kindness and help might not be as newsworthy as Hurricane Katrina's damage, but it's sure good to know of altruistic individuals on every level of the socioeconomic scale when there is so much need everywhere.
2.)Who should be TIME's person of the year besides A.D.'s own Jaime?
Of course Jaime is a wonderful person to know. I'm not sure, however, that she would welcome the focus of the public eye or be able to handle it at this time. Let's wait until she's at least a middle-aged philanthropist with a personal secretary before we nominate her.
Whaddaya say, Jaime?3.)Does Cindi Sheehan deserve the title instead?, why or why not?
I hope Ms. Sheehan can find comfort among her friends this Christmas as she remembers her son.
Cindy Sheehan has guts, and she now has plenty of people backing her up on her cause. I respect her for trying to put Bush's feet to the fire regarding the war, but the truth is, when it comes to getting President Bush's attention, she has to take a number just like the rest of us peons. I've tried contacting this man, too (and without a group standing behind me), and I am sure that my important communications (IMO) made it into the shredder and then the "circular file" along with most of the rest.
But if I had been not just a concerned citizen but one of his major contributors...
Well, these are teh same folks who named Adolf Hitler "Man of the Year" in 1938, it doesn't suprise me that these boneheads would name one of the world's richest geeks, his wife as part of Time's "People of the Year". Give Bono credit though. While he has been an activist for sometime, he has never sought any more recognition for his work, and has actually brought international issues to the attention of otherwise oblivious laymen.
So, if you had to stick with the winners, it would be best to leave Mr. and Mrs. Microsoft out.
Who should be TIME's person of the year besides A.D.'s own Jaime?
Tough question...
Personally, and I can imagine the flack I'm going to get, but I think the late Pope John Paul II should have, at the very least been included. He recieved the honor once before in 1994 (according to Time's List of Winners, the Pontiff Pope traveled the globe to express his conservative views, which were rather liberal compared to the current Bishop of Rome).
In his pontificate, he helped heal the wounds left by the Church during World War II, he equaled the United State's strength in bringing down the Soviet Union's grip on Eastern Europe, he spoke out against increasing anti-semitism and mid-east violence, and weathered a scandal that nearly brought down the integrity of the Church.
I think it would be a fitting tribute to a true man of peace...
In any event...it's better than Bill Gates....
Edited to add....
Does Cindi Sheehan deserve the title instead?, why or why not?
In all the ways one can express, no. She was a grieving woman who 1) turned her sons death into a political tool and 2) was taken advantage of by the anti-war movement who has obviously moved on from their cause du jour.
So, if you had to stick with the winners, it would be best to leave Mr. and Mrs. Microsoft out.
Who should be TIME's person of the year besides A.D.'s own Jaime?
Tough question...Personally, and I can imagine the flack I'm going to get, but I think the late Pope John Paul II should have, at the very least been included. He recieved the honor once before in 1994 (according to Time's List of Winners, the Pontiff Pope traveled the globe to express his conservative views, which were rather liberal compared to the current Bishop of Rome).
In his pontificate, he helped heal the wounds left by the Church during World War II, he equaled the United State's strength in bringing down the Soviet Union's grip on Eastern Europe, he spoke out against increasing anti-semitism and mid-east violence, and weathered a scandal that nearly brought down the integrity of the Church.
I think it would be a fitting tribute to a true man of peace...
In any event...it's better than Bill Gates....
Edited to add....
Does Cindi Sheehan deserve the title instead?, why or why not?
In all the ways one can express, no. She was a grieving woman who 1) turned her sons death into a political tool and 2) was taken advantage of by the anti-war movement who has obviously moved on from their cause du jour.
1.)Does Bono and Bill and Melinda Gates deserve to be named TIME magazine's people of the year? Explain your answer.
In all actuality, it should be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, not Bill and Melinda Gates personally who deserved the title.
2.)Who should be TIME's person of the year besides A.D.'s own Jaime?
Seeing as how I don't know that much about Jaime, I couldn't say whether she would be a better choice than let's say...me??
3.)Does Cindi Sheehan deserve the title instead?, why or why not?
While I admire the effort she has put into protesting the war on terror aka the war in Iraq, I don't see many results, so I would have to say, no she does not deserve the title.
In all actuality, it should be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, not Bill and Melinda Gates personally who deserved the title.
2.)Who should be TIME's person of the year besides A.D.'s own Jaime?
Seeing as how I don't know that much about Jaime, I couldn't say whether she would be a better choice than let's say...me??
3.)Does Cindi Sheehan deserve the title instead?, why or why not?
While I admire the effort she has put into protesting the war on terror aka the war in Iraq, I don't see many results, so I would have to say, no she does not deserve the title.
Titus, I've got to agree with you, Pope John Paul II would have been a wonderful person of the year for TIME Magazine. I'm glad he was thus honored in 1994, so it wasn't as though the man was passed up altogether.
Besides, I understand that Pope John Paul II has been recommended for sainthood. Surely that distinction outranks the yearly pronouncement of some magazine!
Besides, I understand that Pope John Paul II has been recommended for sainthood. Surely that distinction outranks the yearly pronouncement of some magazine!
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.
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.
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.
I despise it when rich people are given some sort of award, honor, or recognition of any kind when they perform benevolent acts. These people have plenty of money and resources and they give a large amount of their already superfluous time or money to poor people and we fall all over them. I think TIME magazine ought to find someone who does something outstanding, not someONE who is outstanding. Most people that win the award are widely known.
2.)Who should be TIME's person of the year besides A.D.'s own Jaime?
Someone ordinary who does something extraordinary.
3.)Does Cindi Sheehan deserve the title instead?, why or why not?
She deserves consideration for creating such a strong movement. Ultimately, I don't think there is anything extraordinary about protesting. Had she gotten the President to do a complete withdrawal, I would think she would be deserving.
Titus, a good writer always gives credit to their source, since these thoughts were implanted into your head by FOX News you should give them a little credit.
When you say anit-war movement, are you talking about the majority of Americans? Allow me to shed some light on this absent anti-war movement you are referring to; today's news:
Sheehan protests outside U.S. Embassy in Spain
Reality is a difficult place to live.
1.)Does Bono and Bill and Melinda Gates deserve to be named TIME magazine's people of the year? Explain your answer.
I despise it when rich people are given some sort of award, honor, or recognition of any kind when they perform benevolent acts. These people have plenty of money and resources and they give a large amount of their already superfluous time or money to poor people and we fall all over them. I think TIME magazine ought to find someone who does something outstanding, not someONE who is outstanding. Most people that win the award are widely known.
2.)Who should be TIME's person of the year besides A.D.'s own Jaime?
Someone ordinary who does something extraordinary.
3.)Does Cindi Sheehan deserve the title instead?, why or why not?
She deserves consideration for creating such a strong movement. Ultimately, I don't think there is anything extraordinary about protesting. Had she gotten the President to do a complete withdrawal, I would think she would be deserving.
QUOTE
In all the ways one can express, no. She was a grieving woman who 1) turned her sons death into a political tool and 2) was taken advantage of by the anti-war movement who has obviously moved on from their cause du jour.
Titus, a good writer always gives credit to their source, since these thoughts were implanted into your head by FOX News you should give them a little credit.
When you say anit-war movement, are you talking about the majority of Americans? Allow me to shed some light on this absent anti-war movement you are referring to; today's news:
Sheehan protests outside U.S. Embassy in Spain
Reality is a difficult place to live.
I agree with Titus that the former Pope would've been a good selection. With his death, a dynamic period in the church's history ended. One doesn't have to be a catholic in order to know that, or to sense that something really big happened upon his passing. I'm not certain I agree that the person or event who wins necessarily has to be a cause for "good." Hitler as person of the year in '38 was worthy, although for negative events, the guy shaped the world at that period and time-unquestionably. Sometimes, bad people and events have won, and perhaps deservedly so.
I was a little surprised when I saw this years's choice, but not shocked. I don't envy the editors of Time, because there was no clear choice this year.
1. This is an OK choice, not great and not bad. These folks did make the news quite a bit. Let me point out that, as nebraska29 has indicated, this is not an "honor" intended to go to "good" people. The only criterion is making the news. Hitler was a perfectly logical choice in 1938.
2. As I suggested above, this is a tough choice. Here are some ideas, based only on newsworthiness. (I also keep in mind the fact that Time has named things besides human beings in the past.)
Religion of the Year: Islam (or possibly "Islam in Crisis")
Event of the Year: The Tsunami (or possibly "Killer Storms" or, as I suggested in a previous thread, "The Dangerous Earth.")
If I have to limit myself to a human being or a group of human beings, I suppose I have no choice but to go with the Bush administration.
Persons of the Year: The White House: An Administration Faces New Challenges
I don't think I can say that Pope John II was quite newsworthy enough this year to be named.
3. This would be a silly choice. No matter how much you might agree with her or disagree with her, she simply doesn't come up to the level of world-shaking news.
1. This is an OK choice, not great and not bad. These folks did make the news quite a bit. Let me point out that, as nebraska29 has indicated, this is not an "honor" intended to go to "good" people. The only criterion is making the news. Hitler was a perfectly logical choice in 1938.
2. As I suggested above, this is a tough choice. Here are some ideas, based only on newsworthiness. (I also keep in mind the fact that Time has named things besides human beings in the past.)
Religion of the Year: Islam (or possibly "Islam in Crisis")
Event of the Year: The Tsunami (or possibly "Killer Storms" or, as I suggested in a previous thread, "The Dangerous Earth.")
If I have to limit myself to a human being or a group of human beings, I suppose I have no choice but to go with the Bush administration.
Persons of the Year: The White House: An Administration Faces New Challenges
I don't think I can say that Pope John II was quite newsworthy enough this year to be named.
3. This would be a silly choice. No matter how much you might agree with her or disagree with her, she simply doesn't come up to the level of world-shaking news.
1.)Does Bono and Bill and Melinda Gates deserve to be named TIME magazine's people of the year? Explain your answer.
I applaud their work in health and education, I wish more people of means would make the time, effort and contribution. Their foundation and Bill's life story epitomize what the American dream can be. It is certainly a more logical choice than the suspects we were discussing here on AD earlier.
2.)Who should be TIME's person of the year besides A.D.'s own Jaime?
Jaime would always get my vote, but I'm OK with the present choices.
3.)Does Cindi Sheehan deserve the title instead?, why or why not?
My sympathy for Ms. Sheehan has run it's course. I suppose Code Pink took what they could get, but we're not exactly talking MENSA material here. I mourn the loss of her son, but hopefully her book sales can assuage her grief.
A paltry 100 protestors in Spain does not qualify her for Time's person of the year. Her 15 minutes may finally be up.
I applaud their work in health and education, I wish more people of means would make the time, effort and contribution. Their foundation and Bill's life story epitomize what the American dream can be. It is certainly a more logical choice than the suspects we were discussing here on AD earlier.
2.)Who should be TIME's person of the year besides A.D.'s own Jaime?
Jaime would always get my vote, but I'm OK with the present choices.
3.)Does Cindi Sheehan deserve the title instead?, why or why not?
My sympathy for Ms. Sheehan has run it's course. I suppose Code Pink took what they could get, but we're not exactly talking MENSA material here. I mourn the loss of her son, but hopefully her book sales can assuage her grief.
A paltry 100 protestors in Spain does not qualify her for Time's person of the year. Her 15 minutes may finally be up.
QUOTE
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?"
1) No more so than the countless other humans who are giving far more, including comfortable lives, to help alleviate human suffering across the globe.
2) The persons of the year should be those persons I "identified" in no. 1 above, though I doubt that we could get a mag cover large enough to hold the group photo, so maybe that explains the omission [I'm being generous here].
3) Cindy Sheehan. If she had won, well, I'd have renounced my faith, joined the Flat Earth Society, and become a vegan. Lucky for me, she didn't, so I still have my faith, am living on an oval earth, and am about to leave work to go dine on a Surf and Turf [with the baked potato coming with everything, even the bacon bits]. In any event, please see:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/08/m...dy-sheehan.html
And, of course, her patent anti-Semitic remarks have earned her the praise of David Duke and his friends at Stormfront? Need I say more?
2) The persons of the year should be those persons I "identified" in no. 1 above, though I doubt that we could get a mag cover large enough to hold the group photo, so maybe that explains the omission [I'm being generous here].
3) Cindy Sheehan. If she had won, well, I'd have renounced my faith, joined the Flat Earth Society, and become a vegan. Lucky for me, she didn't, so I still have my faith, am living on an oval earth, and am about to leave work to go dine on a Surf and Turf [with the baked potato coming with everything, even the bacon bits]. In any event, please see:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/08/m...dy-sheehan.html
And, of course, her patent anti-Semitic remarks have earned her the praise of David Duke and his friends at Stormfront? Need I say more?
1.)Does Bono and Bill and Melinda Gates deserve to be named TIME magazine's people of the year? Explain your answer.
I haven't heard much about the Gates charity work that much. Usually, when Time names a person of the year, they usually go with someone who made the headlines, regardless of whether that person is a Saint or a Despot.
2.)Who should be TIME's person of the year besides A.D.'s own Jaime?
I agree with some other posters that the late Pope should be named. His funeral definately made the front page news. His work towards ending communism would definately earn him a lifetime achievement award.
3.)Does Cindi Sheehan deserve the title instead?, why or why not?
She would definately be a good candidate for it.
I haven't heard much about the Gates charity work that much. Usually, when Time names a person of the year, they usually go with someone who made the headlines, regardless of whether that person is a Saint or a Despot.
2.)Who should be TIME's person of the year besides A.D.'s own Jaime?
I agree with some other posters that the late Pope should be named. His funeral definately made the front page news. His work towards ending communism would definately earn him a lifetime achievement award.
3.)Does Cindi Sheehan deserve the title instead?, why or why not?
She would definately be a good candidate for it.
I think someone suggested Mother Nature.
The hurricanes, the floods, the Tsunamis, the mud slides.
Mother Nature sure has been in the spotlight, IMHO.
The hurricanes, the floods, the Tsunamis, the mud slides.
Mother Nature sure has been in the spotlight, IMHO.
QUOTE
I haven't heard much about the Gates charity work that much. Usually, when Time names a person of the year, they usually go with someone who made the headlines, regardless of whether that person is a Saint or a Despot.
Well that's just the thing. How many covers of magazines and newspapers ahve they graced just this year? They are playing the same tune and it's nothing different than they did in previous years. Gee, must be rough to have enough money to donate it to philanthropic causes, or to create your own., wow....no one has ever thought of that before.
I agree with RedCedar to some extent, mother nature has royally taken control of the news cycles, and with obvious reason.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 19 2005, 10:15 PM)
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.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.