I need to come back to this for a moment. My last post about being Time Person of The Year 2006, while justified in my mind, certainly isn’t is the actual decision of the magazine.
It does highlight, however, the low standard that the magazine has reached. Declaring ‘You’ as Person of the year 2006 is just lazy on the part of the magazine. Perhaps the people in question went on a Christmas bender and forgot to do the research for Person of the Year. Is it really relevant or news worthy anyway?
Or, is it a sad reflection of the world today (2006) that there just wasn’t anyone better to choose? After all, I’m sure a lot of North Korean people may choose a certain movie fanatic as their person of the year. Or what about the Chinese, would they consider themselves ‘in control’ of the digital age? I don’t think so, considering how Google and Yahoo ‘accomodated’ the Chinese government in 2006.
I’m more inclined to go with the former rather than the latter.
A colleague asked me ‘Who would you choose for Person of the Year?’ Well I’ve been thinking about it and I only have two names at the moment and they are:
Why? Al Gore for his environmental awareness work. Warren Buffett for his amazing wealth-giving-away-thing. You can argue that Al’s environmental work is misleading or that Global Warming doesn’t exist blah blah blah or that Buffet’s generosity saved him a bundle in Tax payments, if you want to argue that go ahead, but remember that this is a blog and my opinion doesn’t really matter. Just like Time’s.
If I can’t be Person of the Year 2006, then for me it is Al Gore.
Who should receive Person of the Year 2006 according to you?