Time magazine honors Bono and Bill Gates for the wrong reasons. I like Bono and Bill Gates for how they made their money. Time likes Bono and Bill Gates for how they part with their money, or more accurately in Bono's case, how he makes governments part with their citizens' money. Time named the U2 singer, the Microsoft cofounder, and his wife (what???) as their "persons of the year" for "being shrewd about doing good, for rewiring politics and re-engineering justice, for making mercy smarter and hope strategic and then daring the rest of us to follow."

Bono has written some of the best rock songs--"One," "Bad," "Stay," "With or Without You," "New Year's Day,"--of the last quarter century, and his band, U2, have been the most important rock band since Rolling Stone declared them the "band of the eighties" in 1985. As a writer and editor, my life has been made easier by Microsoft, and other computer companies. Microsoft saves me paper, saves me from spelling mistakes, saves me time. I'm sure accountants, lawyers, and stock brokers could detail how Microsoft has improved their lives. I'm also quite sure that nearly all impoverished Africans, the people Time believes Bono and Gates have helped, could not point to a single concrete way in which Bono and Gates have improved their lives. They're not listening to U2. They're not using computers. And with more than a half-billion sub-Saharan Africans, it's doubtful that the relief efforts of Gates and Bono are making much of a difference.

Let's call this Muhammad Ali syndrome. Muhammad Ali is arguably the greatest heavyweight boxer in history. But so many of his admirers could care less how he beat George Foreman by unconventionally leading with his right, brilliantly using the loose ropes to his advantage, and courageously letting his opponent punch himself out. What matters to them is that he opposed the Vietnam war. Millions of people did that. Only Muhammad Ali did what Muhammad Ali did in the ring. The same goes for Bono and Gates. Their philanthropic endeavors are pedestrian, and in some ways, not even philanthropic. Their accomplishments in computers and music, on the other hand, have enriched the lives of millions. Time magazine missed that. But that's okay. I missed what "person of the year" Melinda Gates has accomplished other than convincing the world's richest man to marry her.

For the little guy whoi doesn't have time (no pun intended) to worship these or any other idols, I recommend the short book "Thrift and Generosity".

Bono has forced a change in U.S. policy regarding AIDS medicine and debt relief for Africa during a REPUBLICAN administration. Plus his music inspires others to be active in social/global issues as well, during a time when other musicians write lyrics with drug-related or misogynistic content.

Who would you choose for PErson of the Year?

He should be lobbying African countries to stop the violence and corruption so that when the aid comes, it does some good.

What he's doing in theory is great. But, ultimately, he's just another Third World enabler looking for handouts from countries he despises.

I Think these are legitimate choices for a magazine that is in the business of selling...magazines. Bono sells.This is not as if it is a legitimate award. The Gates, like Rockafeller and Carnegie, will be known for his philanthopy as much as technology when it is all said and done. Giving money away is often as difficult as making it.

ASDF, so who would YOU choose for Person of the Year?

Personally, I would have chosen PJPII.

Excellent points as usual Mr. Oatmeal. Time is in the business of selling magazines. Currently Gates and Bono are at the top of their respective professions and there popularity touches all consumer demographics. They are the most fashionable pick. From teenagers to baby-boomers. I personally would have chosen Cat Stevens. His music is magical and he has very attractive feet.

The Time and Newsweek person of the year is a gimmick with no real significance--kind of like the Grammys or a Golden Globe. They are meant to be provocative. What is really provocative is the voting tallys. For five consecutive years the same man has placed second, much to the chagrin of his legions of fans. That mans name, of course, is FRANK STALLONE.

Time doesn't always find the pulse, or it finds the wrong pulse. Past Men of the Year have included Hitler and Stalin. One year in the 60s it was the "Under 25 Generation".

"The Time and Newsweek person of the year is a gimmick with no real significance--kind of like the Grammys or a Golden Globe."

Or the Nobel Peace Prize, for that matter. Who really cares what this leftist rag thinks, anyway?

A possible clarification on the post. I had always heard that the story was that Melinda refused Bill's advances and proposals for a long time and that he had to convince her to marry him based on (I think I remember correctly) establishing a foundation for her to give all his money away. So I suppose that if that is the case then she would be the biggest humanitarian of the lot since she married a dork just to give his money away to "charities." (Scare quotes are necessary since promoting death in Africa through empowering tyrants as well as encouraging high risk sexual behavior through condom distribution doesn't strike me as too charitable).

I can't believe I actually used to read that fish-wrap. I took one look at the cover and thought,"Oh, Great; a billionaire geek, a self righteous rock star and... who the heck is she?
Oh, a gold digger with total control over her gag reflex."
How About "The American Taxpayer"?...
Oh, Yeah, Bono's got that one covered.