And last year’s?
Chairman of the federal reserve, Ben Bernanke.
Both Ashkenazi descent 
Time Magazine’s reader choice, however, was for Julian Assange.
I guess Assange wasn’t reptilian enough.
Nope.
Ol’ Assange likes to boast about his Nordic ancestry ^_-
But I’m pretty sure whatever he’s comprised of is pure badassery.
Actually, I admire Assange for what he’s done. It takes
great human courage to put out good information to people
in the face of police state governments which do not want
their doings to be transparent.
Assange reminds me of a younger John De Lancie who played Q on Star Trek.
google.com/images?hl=en&sour … =&gs_rfai=
Were John De Lancie blonde and combed his hair straight back, it’d be absolutely right.
I don’t think Mark Zuckerberg is a terrible choice. I think it is pretty much an acknowledgement of the direction socialization is heading. Good or bad, he’s definitely one of the main contributors to making socializing…convenient?
I agree with Pav, though I believe that if the film,‘’ The Social Network’', hadn’t have been released, then it would have been Assange.
The film thrust him into the social consciousness last year in a way that didn’t really befit reality. Facebook has been around for a while, and last year it’s influence had been no more spectacular than those previous.
I don’t see FB doing anything to promote information and global consciousness the way Assange and Wikileaks have. I like FB, but I greatly admire what Assange has been doing with Wikileaks.
What I think has happened is that FB has social and celebrity status with a lot of corporate and ad money behind it. I hate to say it, but it seems clear now that that’s why the movie, The Social Network, won the globes over the clearly superior Black Swan or The King’s Speech. I was rooting for Black Swan actually, and I’ve been supporting Assange and Wikileaks also.
[quoteI don’t see FB doing anything to promote information and global consciousness the way Assange and Wikileaks have.]
[/quote]
It has, but in a different way. Trying to compare FB and Wikileaks is folly in any case, as they are almost entirely different entities. You may appreciate what Wikileaks has done and that is your wont, but don’t let that belie the impact of FB.
It has, but in a different way. Trying to compare FB and Wikileaks is folly in any case, as they are almost entirely different entities. You may appreciate what Wikileaks has done and that is your wont, but don’t let that belie the impact of FB.
[/quote]
I’m not denying the impact of FB. I’m differentiating with the kind of impact FB has had with that of Wikileaks. They are two completely different impacts.
FB is a social site. There is no way people on FB can do what Assange and Wikileaks have done. Sure people on FB can spread the word and offer support for Wikileaks, but the actual work that Assange has done has been nothing short of heroic in the effort for transparency, a free press, and the spread of good information.
I know, and as I said, that is your prerogative. My point, and I thought I was clear, was that their impact is, objectively, incomparable.
And I didn’t think The Social Network was a half-bad film. There’s a lot going on in that movie, even if it isn’t strictly based on the real Mark Zuckerburg.
Perhaps some one should have made a film on Assange, Star Trek revitalised. 
Or should still… he has undoubtedly an interesting story to tell.
Both are entirely seperate. Facebook can only be compared to that of another social site, such as myspace and others.
The impact of facebook, is only increasing and is quite dominant. I have heard people have conversations in shops and cafes about what friends status or facebook group they clicked “liked” on. It some times feels a tad surreal.
In any case i think your edging on to something else, (though i am probably wrong) Your comment or merely just your mention of the impact of facebook, (although slightly seperate from that being discussed) reminded me of a post in the social science section by anon, online chatting: senior citizens.The op is worth a read.
I certainly agree with that, and it also seemed that he preferred not to be in the national spotlight as much. He probably still doesn’t, from what I can tell he pretty much flatly stated that the film and reality don’t have a whole Hell of a lot to do with one another.
My point was that the impact of Julian Assange and Wikileaks was far more significant and valuable than that of Zuckerberg and FB. However, you have to realize what naming Assange as Person of the Year would have meant to Time Magazine. The pressure would have been immense not to name Assange, along with the monetary disadvantage. I think the same corrupt dynamic was operating with the Golden Globes as well, which favored the clearly inferior Social Network over the vastly superior Black Swan and The King’s Speech. It’s all about money and power.
After an intense global campaign to vilify and criminalize Assange and shut down Wikileaks, it finally looks as though that attempt is weakening. For one thing, the feds have not been able to link Bradley Manning directly with Assange; and for another, trying to make up a de facto law and apply it worldwide in order to get Assange extradited to the USA has not played so well with other countries, particularly the UK and Australia. This has made the USA look very bad and hypocritical when it comes to the issue of the free press and freedom of speech, which are supposed to be enshrined in our Bill of Rights and should be considered basic human rights everywhere.
I can understand why you’d think so, but I’m almost inclined to disagree. Facebook has shaped the way millions of people live and interact and exchange information on a daily basis for years now. What is the objective standard for “significant and valuable” anyways?
I saw Black Swan and I was really excited about it. I knew it was going to be dark, perhaps twisted, and psychologically interesting, but I was a little let down. In my opinion Black Swan was an over the top, over dramatic, surreal experience that succeeds as dramatic art without straying from the surface of things. Yes, I think the way the film carries itself - it’s goal - is superficial. Aronofsky takes us for a thrilling ride that is too easy, too well-done, and too mastered. The film elicits a predictable sympathy, disgust, and elation, etc. The psycho-sexual tension. Nina is frigid, fragile, pure. It’s is predictably tragic - and the music is just so. The film is not interrogative - it doesn’t give us any cause to question or think further about what’s going on. We’re supposed to think it’s beautifully tragic. It’s voyeuristic in the sense that the point of the movie is simply that we get a rise out of watching this bizarre and tragic series of events play out. It has the same style as his earlier work, Requiem for a Dream. And that’s what Black Swan is really all about - the presentation and the style and the viewer’s immediate response to it. It’s a polished aesthetic experience.
I’m not gonna tell anyone that The Social Network is one of the great films of our time, or any bullshit like that, but it was a surprisingly more ponderous film than Black Swan - and Zuckerberg the character isn’t even portrayed to be the “bad guy” or in the wrong or a genuine asshole (David Fincher makes that clear if you listen to his director’s commentary) which is partly why I love it. The Social Network shines because it finishes open-eneded and impoverished. You realize you didn’t watch a movie about Facebook - you watched a movie about people. The film does not end on the confident and certain note of “This is the story of Mark Zuckerberg!” The end is unsure of itself and causes us to reevaluate what we thought the movie would be about and who we thought the characters were going to be and what morality or message we thought the film would bear. The Social Network is vastly more meaningful to me as a movie than Black Swan.
I can’t say anything about The King’s Speech because I haven’t seen it. But I don’t understand how you feel justified in talking about “the clearly inferior Social Network over the vastly superior Black Swan and The King’s Speech.” And what do you mean by “It’s all about money and power.” ? The Social Network opened domestically (U.S.) October 1 and has a $95 million total gross whereas Black Swan opened December 12 and has an $83 million total gross. (http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2010&p=.htm)
Man, I agree. Assange seems to me like a beacon in a very desperate sort of darkness that seems to be settling over this world (corporatism, globalism, loss of freedoms, silencing of dissent, massive ignorance and apathy…god, it hurts to even contemplate this list).
I guess we’ll have to wait until the Wikileaks movie gets made to see him crowned Person of the Year. Aren’t all the media owned by the same conglomerate now anyway? It’s gotta happen according to their agenda and schedule, y’know.