I can't argue with the Pope being chosen, and I can see the argument for
Snowden. But why was Miley Cyrus even in consideration? All she did was be
another example of a former Disney channel star going completely and utterly
disgusting. Her major contribution to society was to help make twerking a
household word. She should not have even been on the long list for this.
Totally agree with samwise. What world do we live in that would suggest Miley
Cyrus is a potential "person of the year". Ya, hollywood is all good.
Miley Cyrus in the headline?After that, what reader is going to take
the award seriously or pay attention to the worthiness of the other 7 people
nominated? Come on, DN!As far as negatively affecting America, Ted
Cruz might have been the choice.As far as positively affecting
America, and promoting the words of Jesus and the Golden Rule, it might have
been Edith Windsor, whose unfair estate tax caused the lawsuit that overturned
most of DOMA.Thanks to Edith Windsor, thousands of American service
members, and now other public employees and employees of national corporations,
have equal rights and benefits for their legal spouses.The Windsor
case resulted in the largest step in Civil Rights in many years.I do
agree, however, that it is nice to have a pope who seems to pay more attention
to the message of Jesus than to the politics and richness of his church. For
adding to hope for much of the world, he deserves the magazine's title.
If anyone cyrus was on the list I should have been on it, too.
A chimp holding a broom stick is a better choice than Miley Cyrus for just about
any award, including beauty, or brains or talent for that matter.
I'll renew my Time subscription for the office for another year... if Cyrus
would have won, Time would never grace my office waiting room ever again. I am
dumb but it would have insulted my intelligence to make that poor young woman a
"person of the year" for anything except for "what is wrong with our
society person of the year". Bad enough she made a final list...
Maybe I’m getting old but this article left me dumbfounded at the idea of
people sitting around the table trying to decide who we should honor (with a
silly magazine cover, no less) – “let’s see, do we go with the
vapid & far less talented Madonna clone, an extremist & always
opportunistic politician, a murdering dictator, a human rights activist (good
choice), or a man trying to teach a calcified & morally suspect institution
and its members how to follow the teachings of their founder?” The fact that this discussion even occurred should tell us everything we need
to know about the disease called moral relativism and how this cancer has
infected & deranged society. Or is this inconsequential (and
dubious) honor simply based on twitter followers?