Thursday, August 30, 2007

You are the person of the year


As much as Time might be supportive of it’s Person of the Year award, this year’s winner goes to show just how meaningless and empty this award can truly be. You, all of the pasty faces self-diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, the light of the monitor screen lighting the otherwise blackened room filled with empty chips bags and hokey gimmick t-shirts and stacked collection of DVDs/pornography, YOU are the person of the year because you were smart enough to figure out how dub Japanese music over a Spongebob Squarepants cartoon and then posting on the internet, your delicate contribution to the world wide web. Time’s choice personally sickens me; this is the kind of schlock that gets critics like Andrew Keen all worked up over the state of society today. Time Magazine ought to be ashamed of their choice, no matter how difficult they attempt. The editors of the magazine should’ve spent a thorough 24 hours observing the internet in it’s finest and crudest forms before declaring YOU the winner: the sex fetishists of a horribly wide variety, the empty headed preteen “vloggers” (who chose video cameras to do their writing work for them), and the inane journeys made in the name of mongloid science (see clip #3). Then they might not be able to truly call YOU the person of the year. This is not the same Time magazine that once voted Adolf Hitler as Man of the Year back in 1938. (
This is the Time magazine that voted in Rudolph “Jerk-off” Giuliani over Osama bin Laden at the end of 2001. For those not in the know, Time says it bases it’s decision on the person that changed the world the most within one year, and regardless of your political philosophy stance, it’s hard to argue that the man who masterminded one of the most without-a-doubt-world-changing event would be beaten out by a greasy smiling city mayor who walked around Ground Zero just to make sure he looked good in the photo-ops, and earn that spot in American hearts that would one day propel him for a shot at the Presidency. If Time Magazine didn’t ruin its credibility right then and there, they have certainly done so now.

No comments: