There was the War in Heaven, as documented in Revelations 12:7 that was fought about 6,000 years ago. Now, it's easy to say that it's a religious war, but it's not. The war involved Christian religious figures, not a war over religious ideals.
Besides Jobs, notable nominees inlude U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, the late Tunisian fruit vendor credited for starting the Arab Spring Mohamed Bouazizi and lead organizer of the uprising in Cairo Esraa Abdel Fatah.
Much of the debate focused on whether a deceased individual should be given the distinction, with Eisenberg saying that doing so would be akin to the Oscars giving best director to someone who just died when they really deserved a lifetime achievement award.
If they aren't going to consider deceased individuals, shouldn't Mohamed Bouazizi be crossed off the list, as well?
I know I missed a few more in there like Grenada and Panama.
This myth is BUSTED.
Actually, you're quite wrong. First, many major wars before 1861 were CLEARLY about religion.
Second, there was a religious element to many of the wars you cited. For example, the last 4 clearly had a religious element. Muslim fundamentalists started actions that eventually led to war. Even WWII had a religious element. Many people would not have wanted the U.S. to get involved other than the extermination of Jews. Finally, of course, it's interesting that you chose to leave out all the wars that WERE clearly about religion even during the time period you cited:
I wonder how they decide to do this for Jobs but not Michael Jackson. Both are cultural icons but MJ's influence was broader. I guess his shady history with children and the fact that his last decade was a musical bust did not help. In contrast, Jobs went out on a high.
No, you're wrong. The criteria is "the person who has most influenced the news – for better or for ill – throughout the past year."
By that *criterion* (criteria is the plural form; just being helpful, please don't flame me), Jobs would not qualify. Too many important world events have taken place this year. I think this is for his entire *body of work*.
There are a few good candidates this year, but personally I think Steve Jobs is the best choice.
I respectfully disagree. Look at the world events that have taken place - Arab Spring, Greek crisis, OWS and on and on and on. This has been an extraordinary year for profound social changes. We need to look at this beyond our own sphere of interest.
You could ask the same question of a eulogy: of what use is it for a dead person to have flowers and nice words thrown at their corpse?
Of what use is it for George Washington that we put his face on the U.S. dollar bill or Mount Rushmore? What difference will the honor make now for him?
Maybe the purpose of posthumous awards isn't for the dead.
Maybe it's for the living, the society they belonged to.
The big question remains: Why deny him the award when he was alive, then consider him when dead?
... an award is defined by the people who haven't got it, as much as the people who have.
Mahatma Gandhi never won a Nobel Peace Prize.
When you think of that fact, you realize, it is not Gandhi who was reduced in stature because he never got the award. The award has no meaning because it was not given to Gandhi.
I would put Steve Jobs and Person of the Year in the same category.
My thought is that Time must have its head pretty far up its a$$ to never have given it to him before. The dude took a company on the edge of bankruptcy and turned it into the most valuable company in the world, and somehow in not a single one of the years that he was doing that (years in which the iPod, iTunes, iPhone, and iPad were introduced) did he ever get this silly award.
They might as well just give it to the CEO of Adobe.
So it's an gross injustice that he's never been given this honor, and at the same time it's a silly award.
There are other things going on in the world than shiny toys made in China, you know.
I wonder how they decide to do this for Jobs but not Michael Jackson. Both are cultural icons but MJ's influence was broader. I guess his shady history with children and the fact that his last decade was a musical bust did not help. In contrast, Jobs went out on a high.
ROTFLMAO. Michael Jackson's influence was broader than Steve Jobs? Are you on drugs?
By that *criterion* (criteria is the plural form; just being helpful, please don't flame me), Jobs would not qualify. Too many important world events have taken place this year. I think this is for his entire *body of work*.
ROTFLMAO. Michael Jackson's influence was broader than Steve Jobs? Are you on drugs?
MJ's musical influence was powerful. There are songwriters, singers, dancers that continue to emulate him. His influence on what they do is quite apparent if you get music. Those who study history of music and dance often study MJ. Even at swing dance competitions, which I attend, tributes to him far outnumber those for other artists, combined. Given that there are more people listening to music that those using iPods and iPhones and iMacs, it is fair to suggest that MJ"s influence was broader. Furthermore, Thriller has outsold all other albums by more than two fold. It's 20 years old and still remains on top. Which one of Apple's products has stood the same test of time as that?
MJ did all this virtually by himself. SJ surrounded himself with great engineers, and could not have made any of his products by himself.
Let's not forget, the world wide masses that mourned MJ's passing easily outnumbered those paying respects to Steve Jobs. And he died well after the height of popularity.
I understand it's standard here to mock an opinion contradictory to your own. If that elevates your intellectual self-esteem, that's fine. But there are ways to disagree without disrespecting someone, particularly when you may well be wrong. You may gain a short moment of self-gratification by putting down someone, but you gain a lot more respect by showing an open mind. Shame on you.
Those are all great candidates, and to some degree I agree with you. It's certainly hard to pick a single person this year.
But I think President Obama had a cogent point when he said:
"The world has lost a visionary. And there may be no greater tribute to Steve’s success than the fact that much of the world learned of his passing on a device he invented."
I don't disagree with Obama and do not dismiss the significance of Jobs. However, please consider the scales involved here: His products may improve the lifestyle of tens of millions by a small amount. But, the leaders of Arab Spring, the work of Bill Gates, etc., have actually saved and liberated lives. How much worse will the lives of iPad and iPHone owners be without their beloved devices? Do they make the difference between life and death?
Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's worth seriously pondering one's perspective on what real impact is about: Lifestyle improvement vs. social changes in an entire regions or saving millions of lives by eradicating polio and malaria.
Comments
Let's pull a "Myth Busters" on this one:
Civil War: Not religion
World War I: Not religion
World War II: Not religion
The Cold War: Not religion
Korean War: Not religion
Vietnam War: Not religion
Iraq Iran War: Oil, not religion
Kuwait Iraq War: Oil, not religion
Iraq War: Oil, not WMD, not religion
Afghanistan War: Natural Resources, not Bin Laden, not religion
I know I missed a few more in there like Grenada and Panama.
This myth is BUSTED.
Yes, because no wars were ever fought before 1861
Yes, because no wars were ever fought before 1861
There was the War in Heaven, as documented in Revelations 12:7 that was fought about 6,000 years ago. Now, it's easy to say that it's a religious war, but it's not. The war involved Christian religious figures, not a war over religious ideals.
Incorrect. The selections are based on what the magazine describes as who they believed had a stronger influence on history.
No, you're wrong. The criteria is "the person who has most influenced the news ? for better or for ill ? throughout the past year."
Besides Jobs, notable nominees inlude U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, the late Tunisian fruit vendor credited for starting the Arab Spring Mohamed Bouazizi and lead organizer of the uprising in Cairo Esraa Abdel Fatah.
Much of the debate focused on whether a deceased individual should be given the distinction, with Eisenberg saying that doing so would be akin to the Oscars giving best director to someone who just died when they really deserved a lifetime achievement award.
If they aren't going to consider deceased individuals, shouldn't Mohamed Bouazizi be crossed off the list, as well?
Let's pull a "Myth Busters" on this one:
Civil War: Not religion
World War I: Not religion
World War II: Not religion
The Cold War: Not religion
Korean War: Not religion
Vietnam War: Not religion
Iraq Iran War: Oil, not religion
Kuwait Iraq War: Oil, not religion
Iraq War: Oil, not WMD, not religion
Afghanistan War: Natural Resources, not Bin Laden, not religion
I know I missed a few more in there like Grenada and Panama.
This myth is BUSTED.
Actually, you're quite wrong. First, many major wars before 1861 were CLEARLY about religion.
Second, there was a religious element to many of the wars you cited. For example, the last 4 clearly had a religious element. Muslim fundamentalists started actions that eventually led to war. Even WWII had a religious element. Many people would not have wanted the U.S. to get involved other than the extermination of Jews. Finally, of course, it's interesting that you chose to leave out all the wars that WERE clearly about religion even during the time period you cited:
- 1948 Arab Israeli war
- 1967 Six Day war
- And plenty more (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Israel)
Oh, and btw, maybe no one ever told you, but the Cold War wasn't a war. I don't recall any troops that were called into action.
No, you're wrong. The criteria is "the person who has most influenced the news ? for better or for ill ? throughout the past year."
You are correct, I was wrong. Looks like I grabbed my quote from the criteria used for Person of the Century (won by Albert Einstein).
No, you're wrong. The criteria is "the person who has most influenced the news – for better or for ill – throughout the past year."
By that *criterion* (criteria is the plural form; just being helpful, please don't flame me), Jobs would not qualify. Too many important world events have taken place this year. I think this is for his entire *body of work*.
There are a few good candidates this year, but personally I think Steve Jobs is the best choice.
I respectfully disagree. Look at the world events that have taken place - Arab Spring, Greek crisis, OWS and on and on and on. This has been an extraordinary year for profound social changes. We need to look at this beyond our own sphere of interest.
You could ask the same question of a eulogy: of what use is it for a dead person to have flowers and nice words thrown at their corpse?
Of what use is it for George Washington that we put his face on the U.S. dollar bill or Mount Rushmore? What difference will the honor make now for him?
Maybe the purpose of posthumous awards isn't for the dead.
Maybe it's for the living, the society they belonged to.
The big question remains: Why deny him the award when he was alive, then consider him when dead?
Mahatma Gandhi never won a Nobel Peace Prize.
When you think of that fact, you realize, it is not Gandhi who was reduced in stature because he never got the award. The award has no meaning because it was not given to Gandhi.
I would put Steve Jobs and Person of the Year in the same category.
My thought is that Time must have its head pretty far up its a$$ to never have given it to him before. The dude took a company on the edge of bankruptcy and turned it into the most valuable company in the world, and somehow in not a single one of the years that he was doing that (years in which the iPod, iTunes, iPhone, and iPad were introduced) did he ever get this silly award.
They might as well just give it to the CEO of Adobe.
So it's an gross injustice that he's never been given this honor, and at the same time it's a silly award.
There are other things going on in the world than shiny toys made in China, you know.
I wonder how they decide to do this for Jobs but not Michael Jackson. Both are cultural icons but MJ's influence was broader. I guess his shady history with children and the fact that his last decade was a musical bust did not help. In contrast, Jobs went out on a high.
ROTFLMAO. Michael Jackson's influence was broader than Steve Jobs? Are you on drugs?
By that *criterion* (criteria is the plural form; just being helpful, please don't flame me), Jobs would not qualify. Too many important world events have taken place this year. I think this is for his entire *body of work*.
It's for the year.
ROTFLMAO. Michael Jackson's influence was broader than Steve Jobs? Are you on drugs?
MJ's musical influence was powerful. There are songwriters, singers, dancers that continue to emulate him. His influence on what they do is quite apparent if you get music. Those who study history of music and dance often study MJ. Even at swing dance competitions, which I attend, tributes to him far outnumber those for other artists, combined. Given that there are more people listening to music that those using iPods and iPhones and iMacs, it is fair to suggest that MJ"s influence was broader. Furthermore, Thriller has outsold all other albums by more than two fold. It's 20 years old and still remains on top. Which one of Apple's products has stood the same test of time as that?
MJ did all this virtually by himself. SJ surrounded himself with great engineers, and could not have made any of his products by himself.
Let's not forget, the world wide masses that mourned MJ's passing easily outnumbered those paying respects to Steve Jobs. And he died well after the height of popularity.
I understand it's standard here to mock an opinion contradictory to your own. If that elevates your intellectual self-esteem, that's fine. But there are ways to disagree without disrespecting someone, particularly when you may well be wrong. You may gain a short moment of self-gratification by putting down someone, but you gain a lot more respect by showing an open mind. Shame on you.
It's for the year.
Then he does not qualify. Not close. His life's work is awe-inspiring. His 2011 resume is mostly about his illness and passing.
Those are all great candidates, and to some degree I agree with you. It's certainly hard to pick a single person this year.
But I think President Obama had a cogent point when he said:
"The world has lost a visionary. And there may be no greater tribute to Steve’s success than the fact that much of the world learned of his passing on a device he invented."
I don't disagree with Obama and do not dismiss the significance of Jobs. However, please consider the scales involved here: His products may improve the lifestyle of tens of millions by a small amount. But, the leaders of Arab Spring, the work of Bill Gates, etc., have actually saved and liberated lives. How much worse will the lives of iPad and iPHone owners be without their beloved devices? Do they make the difference between life and death?
Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's worth seriously pondering one's perspective on what real impact is about: Lifestyle improvement vs. social changes in an entire regions or saving millions of lives by eradicating polio and malaria.