Well, for the second time in my life, I have been named Time Magazine's Man of the Year. (In 1966, I was a member of the "under-25 generation."1 It's nice to know, in my tireless pursuit of historical perspective, that Time has pretty much always been worthless.)
While I can't say that I'm insensible of the honor, it's indicative of the sort of sloppy thinking that incites people to write snarky blog posts very much like this one. (And as someone somewhere on the Web pointed out, they honored "You, the Information Age netizen" with a Mylar mirror on their cover -- a gimmick that, even ignoring its lame 1980s Mirrorshades semiotics, doesn't work online.)
My picks for Man of the Year this year? Either Moqtada al-Sadr, or Rahm Emmanuel. Who's got a better one than mine? (We've all got better ones than Time magazine.)
Edited to Add: Breaking News! This is actually my third tour as Man of the Year (and
mollpeartree's fourth), as in 1969 we were both "Middle Americans." And a quick check of the
relevant Wikipedia article reminds me that the whole shooting match started in 1927 because Time was too feckless to put Charles Lindbergh on the cover when he crossed the Atlantic in the first place. Piffle and double-piffle.
[1]Of course,
mollpeartree will no doubt never let me forget that this is her third tour as Time's Man of the Year. She was also so honored in 1975, the year that Time dubbed "American women" the Man of the Year, or Persons of the Year, or whatever.