Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

BMG Named Time Person of the Year

By

In the metaphorical sense that BMG, to the extent it is anything, is a collection of all the individuals that use it.

The magazine gave its award to every individual who creates and uses content on the web.

Take that Ayn Rand and Thomas Carlyle. A toast to Tolstoy, who wrote at the beginning of War and Peace, “In historical events great men — so called — are but the labels that serve to give a name to an event, and like labels, they have the least possible connection with the event itself.”

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I mean, this is the same mag who gave Bush Person of the Year in 2004, long after it was obvious to everyone else he was a fuckup.

    <

    p>
    This series jumped the shark a long time ago. It’s barely a blip on the need-to-know radar.

    • Most of your POTY winners have been politicians.  And 2006 was a year when events in Iraq and at home proved the Democrats right about most every big issue.  2006 was a year when Democrats swept to power in mid-term elections in the House and Senate  without losing a single Democratic seat.  Yet Time decides the “person of the year” isn’t Pelosi, Pahm, Schumer, Dean, or even Webb or Tester.  No, it’s you. (Unless you’re a Democrat).

    • As the folks at time will repeatedly tell anyone who listens, they give it to who the consider the most important newsmaker of the year.

      <

      p>
      Sure, Bush is, was and will foever be a fuckup, but he’s an important fuckup.

      <

      p>
      Remember, there was discussion as to whether they’d name Hilter man of the century.

    • As others have said, Person of the Year has nothing to do with how positive or negative or accidental or purposeful or competent or incompetent someone is – it’s all about how much they’ve affected the news that year.  Bush being a fuckup is neither here nor there, and says nothing about the quality of the “person of the year” designation.  Overall I think they’ve done a great job picking them.

    • This series jumped the shark a long time ago.

      <

      p>
      No, it is Time magazine that jumped the shark (a long time ago). They are about as newsworthy as last week’s USA Today or a re-run of Survivor. What does anyone get from this limp rag anymore?

      <

      p>
      How many obvious candidates for POTY were passed over? Sadr? Achmadinajad? Rumsfeld? Come on, these are the big individuals that all the other little individuals were responding to when they voted out the Republicans.  Time was too chickenshit to pick any of the really important people, because they have learned that, in spite of their highbrow protestations, their readers are too stupid to comprehend the core difference between “important” and “righteous”. They’re just following good corporate business principles. Give the people what they want, and what they want is to feel good about themselves.

      • Like a person hanging on to a cliff’s edge by their fingernails.  Outside of that feature, anybody who got their news and opinions from Time deserved the resulting ignorance.

  2. Have something in common.

    <

    p>
    And unless the onanist posts stop soon, office filters may block people from reading this site at work.

Archives