PDA

View Full Version : and Time's Person of the Year is...


whistlelock
12-16-2009, 09:37 PM
Bernanke!

For his roll in the next Great Depression or recession or swindle or whatever the hell just happened.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1946375_1947251,00.html

maxmordon
12-16-2009, 09:38 PM
Never heard of it before, but seems someone influencial...

William Haskins
12-16-2009, 09:51 PM
Bernanke!

For his roll in the next Great Depression or recession or swindle or whatever the hell just happened.



most awesome freudian slip ever!

Main Entry: roll
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French rouler, roller, from roele wheel, rowel & roule roll
Date: 14th century

7 : to rob (a drunk, sleeping, or unconscious person) usually by going through the pockets;

Don
12-16-2009, 10:00 PM
This has the odd odor of one fox declaring another fox the "Supreme Protector of the Henhouse."

dclary
12-16-2009, 10:21 PM
I have never seen such a cock-and-ball-washing in all my days.

This is fucking horrific. I guess Bernie Madoff came in second?

whistlelock
12-16-2009, 10:25 PM
most awesome freudian slip ever!
I am just gonna go ahead and claim that was on purpose.

My mom assures me I'm really that clever.

:gone:

Bird of Prey
12-16-2009, 11:02 PM
My understanding is that Time's Person of the Year is about influence; it's not necessarily an applause. And to my mind, he's the right choice for this year when it came to influencing the world, starting with the US economy. . . .

justJM
12-16-2009, 11:10 PM
I saw this early this morning. Thanks, Whistlelock. Your thread has outpaced the whiskey I was drowning in to forget.

Bastard.

William Haskins
12-16-2009, 11:25 PM
Woods voted top athlete of the decade

By DOUG FERGUSON (AP) – 4 hours ago

Even after a shocking sex scandal that tarnished Tiger Woods, it was tough to ignore what he achieved on the golf course.

He won 64 times around the world, including 12 majors, and hoisted a trophy on every continent golf is played. He lost only one time with the lead going into the final round. His 56 PGA Tour victories in one incomparable decade were more than anyone except four of golf's greatest players won in their careers.

Woods was selected Wednesday as the Athlete of the Decade by members of The Associated Press in a vote that was more about 10 years of performance than nearly three weeks of salacious headlines.

Just like so many of his victories, it wasn't much of a contest.

Woods received 56 of the 142 votes cast by AP member editors since last month. More than half of the ballots were returned after the Nov. 27 car accident outside his Florida home that set off sensational tales of infidelity.

justJM
12-16-2009, 11:29 PM
Well, in all likelihood, Woods only screwed a dozen or so people this year. So, he's still in the running for awesome.

Zoombie
12-16-2009, 11:35 PM
I have never seen such a cock-and-ball-washing in all my days.

This is fucking horrific. I guess Bernie Madoff came in second?

Hey, DC, "person of the year" is not always synonymous with "good, nice, did great things for everyone and made sunshine shoot out of their forehead."

I mean, remember this POTY?

http://thirdreich.net/AH_Man_of_Year.html

PS: Before anyone shouts "Godwin! Godwin!" I would like to say that I am NOT

REPEAT

NOT! NOT NOT NOT NOT!

Comparing this POTY to Hitler. It is simply to state precedent.

whistlelock
12-17-2009, 12:16 AM
Didn't Bin Laden get it in 01 too?

Zoombie
12-17-2009, 12:21 AM
I think he did.

Anywho, we'll see. If this guy saves the economy or whatever the hell he was supposed to do, then he will be a cheering and happiness POTY. If we spend the next decade with our hobo suits on, eating our shoes, then we'll know that he was one of the sadness and mean POTY.

dclary
12-17-2009, 12:31 AM
Hey, DC, "person of the year" is not always synonymous with "good, nice, did great things for everyone and made sunshine shoot out of their forehead."

I mean, remember this POTY?

http://thirdreich.net/AH_Man_of_Year.html

PS: Before anyone shouts "Godwin! Godwin!" I would like to say that I am NOT

REPEAT

NOT! NOT NOT NOT NOT!

Comparing this POTY to Hitler. It is simply to state precedent.


At the time of the award, Hitler had done great things toward bringing Germany back from the grave they'd dug themselves with that whole WWI fiasco, Zoombers.

But to punctuate how bad picking Bernanke was this time, it would be akin to picking Hitler as man of the year in 1942.

robeiae
12-17-2009, 12:38 AM
Woods voted top athlete of the decade

By DOUG FERGUSON (AP) – 4 hours ago

Even after a shocking sex scandal that tarnished Tiger Woods, it was tough to ignore what he achieved on the golf course.

He won 64 times around the world, including 12 majors, and hoisted a trophy on every continent golf is played. He lost only one time with the lead going into the final round. His 56 PGA Tour victories in one incomparable decade were more than anyone except four of golf's greatest players won in their careers.

Woods was selected Wednesday as the Athlete of the Decade by members of The Associated Press in a vote that was more about 10 years of performance than nearly three weeks of salacious headlines.

Just like so many of his victories, it wasn't much of a contest.

Woods received 56 of the 142 votes cast by AP member editors since last month. More than half of the ballots were returned after the Nov. 27 car accident outside his Florida home that set off sensational tales of infidelity.
What a crock (http://www.examiner.com/x-8182-Tampa-Tennis-Examiner~y2009m12d15-Roger-Federer-Tiger-Woods-among-candidates-for-Athlete-of-the-Decade-award-pictures-and-video).

-15 Grand Slam singles titles;

-21 Grand Slam finals overall, and 17 of the last 18;

-22 consecutive Grand Slam semifinal appearances;

-237 consecutive weeks (about 4 1/2 years) ranked No. 1;

-24 consecutive victories in tournament finals;

-65 consecutive victories on grass courts;

-56 consecutive victories on hard courts.

Who dat?

Zoombie
12-17-2009, 12:41 AM
At the time of the award, Hitler had done great things toward bringing Germany back from the grave they'd dug themselves with that whole WWI fiasco, Zoombers.

But to punctuate how bad picking Bernanke was this time, it would be akin to picking Hitler as man of the year in 1942.

He did change the world even more by 1942.

And the article of 1938 spent a lot of time talking about how Hitler was a bullying, agressive dictator that armed his country to the teeth...

robeiae
12-17-2009, 12:43 AM
I'm actually surprised that Time didn't go with Palin.

Zoombie
12-17-2009, 12:46 AM
I'd have gone for that guy.

You know the one.

The guy who did things.

Woof
12-17-2009, 12:50 AM
Bernanke does look good next to the rogues gallery of past winners:

1938....Adolph Hitler
1939....Joseph Stalin
1942....Joseph Stalin (again!)
1971.... Richard Nixon
1972....Richard Nixon & Henry Kissinger
1974....King Faisal
1978....Deng Xiaoping
1995....Newt Gingrich
2000....George W. Bush
2004....George W. Bush
2007....Vladamir Putin

nighttimer
12-17-2009, 01:05 AM
Bernanke!

For his roll in the next Great Depression or recession or swindle or whatever the hell just happened.

Thank you for reminding me why I canceled my subscription to TIME.

The person(s) of the year should have been the Tea Baggers.

Shadow_Ferret
12-17-2009, 01:10 AM
Bernanke does look good next to the rogues gallery of past winners:

1938....Adolph Hitler
1939....Joseph Stalin
1942....Joseph Stalin (again!)
1971.... Richard Nixon
1972....Richard Nixon & Henry Kissinger
1974....King Faisal
1978....Deng Xiaoping
1995....Newt Gingrich
2000....George W. Bush
2004....George W. Bush
2007....Vladamir Putin
Not to quarrel... oh, what the hell... wasn't Nixon's for his diplomacy and opening talks with China?

nighttimer
12-17-2009, 01:16 AM
I'm actually surprised that Time didn't go with Palin.

She quit her job, got into a stupid fight with David Letterman and sold a shitload of ghost-written books. What's so great about that?

It's not like she won a Nobel Peace Prize or anything...:Shrug:

Woof
12-17-2009, 01:17 AM
Not to quarrel... oh, what the hell... wasn't Nixon's for his diplomacy and opening talks with China?

It probably was, but like so many on the list, he turned out bad. Anyway, as was said earlier, Time's Person of the Year is chosen because they're the most newsworthy or controversial person of that year, not necessarily the nicest one.

robeiae
12-17-2009, 01:25 AM
She quit her job, got into a stupid fight with David Letterman and sold a shitload of ghost-written books. What's so great about that?

It's not like she won a Nobel Peace Prize or anything...:Shrug:They don't always pick "great" people. I figured they'd pick her as some sort of instigator for the wild-eyed right wing tea bagging monsters, or some such thing.

But it's just a magazine. It's not like the Time Person of the Year means anything, really. Just there to sell magazines (which, I think, would have been better served by picking Palin).

Woof
12-17-2009, 01:33 AM
But it's just a magazine. It's not like the Time Person of the Year means anything, really. Just there to sell magazines (which, I think, would have been better served by picking Palin).

The Person of the Year has almost always made an impact internationally. Palin's influence--or lack of it, is confined to the United States.

robeiae
12-17-2009, 01:36 AM
Like Newt Gingrich?

Woof
12-17-2009, 01:39 AM
Yeah, I agree with you there. I don't know why he was chosen. Internal politics was more important in that year, I guess.

Bird of Prey
12-17-2009, 02:19 AM
Yeah, I agree with you there. I don't know why he was chosen. Internal politics was more important in that year, I guess.
It's not internal politics, Woof. The guy had a huge impact on the country and the world. That's the criteria; that's it. It has nothing to do with wrong or right or bad or good. . . .

blacbird
12-17-2009, 02:46 AM
Didn't Bin Laden get it in 01 too?

No. They picked Rudy Giuliani:

http://www.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,1681791,00.html

Which was, frankly, a cop-out. The stated intent of the selection isn't an "award". It's an acknowledgment of "the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or ill, and embodied what was important about the year."

Time previously selected Ayatollah Khomeini, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin (twice).

By their own criteria, in 2001, it's hard to see how it shouldn't have been Bin-Laden.

caw

Woof
12-17-2009, 04:14 AM
It's not internal politics, Woof. The guy had a huge impact on the country and the world. That's the criteria; that's it. It has nothing to do with wrong or right or bad or good. . . .

Certainly he had an impact on domestic politics when he became House speaker, but what was his effect internationally?

Bird of Prey
12-17-2009, 04:28 AM
Certainly he had an impact on domestic politics when he became House speaker, but what was his effect internationally?

Look around you. I consider him at the very least the founder of the Neoconservative party that prefers Ayn Rand materialism and a dog eat dog America - which btw, has a chilling effect on the moral trade of the rest of the world - to, well, anything else. He's the consummate liar, though, claiming it's all for the good of "small government," lol!!

Don
12-17-2009, 04:49 AM
Maybe you have neoconservatives and the Moral Majority confused, BoP.

And neither neoconservatives or the Moral Majority want anything to do with Ayn Rand. They're real big on corporate-government partnerships, or what Ayn Rand disdainfully referred to as the Politics of Pull. I see them more as "alligator eat poodle" proponents, with you and I as the poodles and their corporate buddies as alligators.

At least they're not fooling you with their "small government" mantra. :)

Bird of Prey
12-17-2009, 05:01 AM
Maybe you have neoconservatives and the Moral Majority confused, BoP.

And neither neoconservatives or the Moral Majority want anything to do with Ayn Rand. They're real big on corporate-government partnerships, or what Ayn Rand disdainfully referred to as the Politics of Pull. I see them more as "alligator eat poodle" proponents, with you and I as the poodles and their corporate buddies as alligators.

At least they're not fooling you with their "small government" mantra. :)

don, Rand has always been the justification, that somehow capitalism can produce "morality," when it simply doesn't. . . .

Don
12-17-2009, 05:44 AM
don, Rand has always been the justification, that somehow capitalism can produce "morality," when it simply doesn't. . . .
That's funny, because I've read most of Rand, and I've never noticed her claiming that capitalism can produce morality. Capitalism is morally neutral, just like any other tool. It can be used for good or for evil.

Rand's concept of morality is based on man's nature as man, and sounds remarkably like things you learned in nursery school. You don't take other people's stuff or boss them around, and you don't hit people unless they hit you first. Not exactly evil from where I stand.

She does posit that Capitalism is the ideal economic system for moral people, but not that an economic system can produce moral behavior.

Bird of Prey
12-17-2009, 05:48 AM
That's funny, because I've read most of Rand, and I've never noticed her claiming that capitalism can produce morality. Capitalism is morally neutral, just like any other tool. It can be used for good or for evil.

Rand's concept of morality is based on man's nature as man, and sounds remarkably like things you learned in nursery school. You don't take other people's stuff or boss them around, and you don't hit people unless they hit you first. Not exactly evil from where I stand.

She does posit that Capitalism is the ideal economic system for moral people, but not that an economic system can produce moral behavior.

Regardless, Don, m'dear, she has been - reluctant or not - promoted the leader of the band and utterly manipulated by the wealthy elite as the nouveau justification for broad based selfishness and greed . . . .

Don
12-17-2009, 05:51 AM
I understand, and want to see that abuse recognized for what it is. Thus my explanation.

nighttimer
12-17-2009, 06:21 AM
They don't always pick "great" people. I figured they'd pick her as some sort of instigator for the wild-eyed right wing tea bagging monsters, or some such thing.

If that's the signature accomplishment of the year, then the credit should go to Dick Armey, Glenn Beck and the fairly unbalanced hacks of Faux News who promoted the events.

But it's just a magazine. It's not like the Time Person of the Year means anything, really. Just there to sell magazines (which, I think, would have been better served by picking Palin).

Not necessarily. A lot of people wouldn't buy the magazine precisely because of Sarah Palin being chosen. As I said: what did she DO to deserve the Person of the Year award? Long lines at a bookstore? There were long lines to get into Twilight: New Moon, but that doesn't make Taylor Lautner Man of the Year.

Selling magazines isn't the overriding criteria here. Neither does slack superficiality by the current flavor of the month. Ben Bernanke is a shitty pick for Person of the Year, but at least I can point to what he did---for good or ill---to explain him winning it.

blacbird
12-17-2009, 07:48 AM
Like Newt Gingrich?

He was an appropriate choice for 1994. Your other options were Tanya Harding and O.J. Simpson. Look, Newt was point man for the program that gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress for the first time in four decades, and he was a highly visible point man. It changed the course of U.S. legislative politics and the Clinton Presidency (in my view for the worse, but that doesn't affect the reason for his choice). If you look at the seventy-year history of the Time choices, he ranks way ahead of a lot of them in terms of importance at the moment he was selected.

Some years the choice is obvious to the point of pain. Who would have argued with their choice of Obama last year? Bernanke 2009? Not so obvious. But who else as an alternative? Bernie Madoff? Michael Jackson? Mohammed Ahmadinejad? Pope Irrelevant XVI?

2009 has been a year lacking major heroes or significant villains.

caw

Woof
12-17-2009, 04:36 PM
He was an appropriate choice for 1994. Your other options were Tanya Harding and O.J. Simpson. Look, Newt was point man for the program that gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress for the first time in four decades, and he was a highly visible point man. It changed the course of U.S. legislative politics and the Clinton Presidency (in my view for the worse, but that doesn't affect the reason for his choice). If you look at the seventy-year history of the Time choices, he ranks way ahead of a lot of them in terms of importance at the moment he was selected.

caw

Gingrich was Person of the Year for 1995, actually. And 1995 was not a slow news year. Two of the most significant events that year were the Oklahoma City bombing and the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. In retrospect, I think Time should have chosen Rabin, because his death signaled the beginning of the end for any tangible peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

robeiae
12-17-2009, 05:20 PM
Meh. This is like arguing about the Academy Awards. There's no real measurable standard. And it IS about selling magazines.

Woof
12-17-2009, 05:48 PM
Meh. This is like arguing about the Academy Awards.

What? Where's the limos? The suspense as they open the envelopes? The gowns? The gold-plated statuettes? The rehearsed speeches? The superficial glamor? Naa. It's nothing like the Academy Awards. :D

MarkEsq
12-17-2009, 05:54 PM
Palin's influence--or lack of it, is confined to the United States.

Incorrect. As an Englishman living in Texas with family in France and the UK I can assure you: her candidacy was a joke all over Europe. :)

Woof
12-17-2009, 11:30 PM
Incorrect. As an Englishman living in Texas with family in France and the UK I can assure you: her candidacy was a joke all over Europe. :)

Touché. :D

nighttimer
12-18-2009, 10:27 AM
Meh. This is like arguing about the Academy Awards. There's no real measurable standard. And it IS about selling magazines.

Sure it is. The Person of the Year should be somebody who did something. I'm still waiting in vain for you to make any case Palin did anything to justify even being considered.

And it ISN'T all about selling magazines. Who's gonna rush out to buy a TIME magazine with Ben Bernancke's mug on the cover? :rolleyes

blacbird
12-18-2009, 10:40 AM
Sure it is. The Person of the Year should be somebody who did something. I'm still waiting in vain for you to make any case Palin did anything to justify even being considered.

Well, she did quit being Governor of Alaska. You don't think that merits selection?

caw

nighttimer
12-18-2009, 10:42 AM
Isn't it "The Person of the Year" and not "The Quitter of the Year?" :Huh:

blacbird
12-18-2009, 10:54 AM
¡No mas!

caw

Woof
12-18-2009, 04:50 PM
And it ISN'T all about selling magazines. Who's gonna rush out to buy a TIME magazine with Ben Bernancke's mug on the cover? :rolleyes

The CEO of every bank, insurance company and auto maker?

robeiae
12-18-2009, 05:29 PM
And it ISN'T all about selling magazines. Who's gonna rush out to buy a TIME magazine with Ben Bernancke's mug on the cover?
Then what's it about? Seriously.

You act like it actually means something, like it's a significant thing, like there are actually some standards involved, here.

The fact is, it's a yearly piece that Time runs in the hopes of selling more magazines. They're not doing it for the common good. It's no different than People Magazines Sexiest People of the Year (or whatever the nonsense is called). Or Playboy's Playmate of the Year (though I guess in times past, Heffner may have had a personal standard for that).

Still, I DID think it might be Palin, not just for who she is/what she's done (and that includes the quitting, btw), but also as some sort of symbol, one that could very well be negative, for the most part. The need for people to mock/attack her, even as they proclaim her insignificance, is part of that, of course...

Enzo
12-18-2009, 06:49 PM
Bernanke's a dull choice, but I guess they couldn't find anybody else to represent the biggest story of the past year: the worldwide financial crisis.

nighttimer
12-19-2009, 02:26 AM
Then what's it about? Seriously.

You act like it actually means something, like it's a significant thing, like there are actually some standards involved, here.

It must have some significance. We seem to be debating it at some length.

The fact is, it's a yearly piece that Time runs in the hopes of selling more magazines. They're not doing it for the common good. It's no different than People Magazines Sexiest People of the Year (or whatever the nonsense is called).

That's not a particularly good comparison. I don't see too many threads being created by a poster outraged at a particular Playmate losing out to another. Sexiest Man of the Year and that kind of rubbish is merely based upon popularity and someone's standard of beauty and taste. That is meaningless.

Still, I DID think it might be Palin, not just for who she is/what she's done (and that includes the quitting, btw), but also as some sort of symbol, one that could very well be negative, for the most part. The need for people to mock/attack her, even as they proclaim her insignificance, is part of that, of course...

If Palin is a figure of ridicule it's because she is so ridiculous. The idea that a total neophyte with the sophistication and critical thinking skills of a high school homecoming queen should be the President of the United States is laughable on its face.

You suggest she's a symbol. A symbol of what? Anti-intellectualism and vague "traditional American values?"

Palin makes about as much sense being named "Person of the Year" as Susan Boyle does as the next Playboy centerfold. :e2tomato:

robeiae
12-19-2009, 02:43 AM
You suggest she's a symbol. A symbol of what? Anti-intellectualism and vague "traditional American values?"
Exactly. You seem to be thinking that my expectations were for Palin to be picked because she's "great," in some way. I was thinking of the negatives that many attribute to her--especially the anti-intellectualism--and the overall nasty partisanship that can be laid--in some ways--at her feet.

blacbird
12-19-2009, 09:12 AM
Bernanke's a dull choice, but I guess they couldn't find anybody else to represent the biggest story of the past year: the worldwide financial crisis.

Bingo. On the nose. End of discussion. The only other possible candidate would have been Bernie Madoff.

caw