We'll be joining Maud in no longer using Amazon links due to their extensive Republican contributions. The Recommended sidebar to the right will be going away in a day or two, and will remain gone until we figure out how to replace it with Powell's links.
UPDATE: The Recommended sidebar has been completely rebuilt using Powell's links. Extra special thanks to the mighty Tito who kindly sent us the steps to do this in words small enough for our pea brains to wrap around. We owe you a beer (or several)!
We also urge any subscribers to Time Magazine to cancel their subscriptions with all due haste. We're thinking of subscribing just so we can dump the bastards.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." -- H.L. Mencken
I haven't read the Time article to go along with the Thing of the Year award, but I do seem to remember folks like Hitler and Stalin also having been chosen in the past...
Posted by: Matt Cheney | December 21, 2004 at 12:00 PM
How'd you shift to Powell's? And I thought you were out until early January or I would've put you in my list of "while I'm away" destinations!
Posted by: Maud | December 21, 2004 at 12:41 PM
(Although naturally I'm not nearly as "away" as I thought I'd be....)
Posted by: Maud | December 21, 2004 at 12:55 PM
The award is given to "the person or thing that had the greatest impact on the news, for good or ill." I think that GW is an appropriate choice.
I also think that Time punked out by naming Giuliani, and not Osama bin Laden, the 2001 Person of the Year. I don't think there's any doubt that OBL had the greatest impact on the news, but they went with the less controversial choice. Weak.
Posted by: dansays | December 21, 2004 at 01:18 PM
Points taken. However given that the opening blurb of the piece reads as follows:
"For sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years, George W. Bush is TIME's 2004 Person of the Year"
... it smacks more of hagiography than critique.
Posted by: TEV | December 21, 2004 at 01:35 PM
It should be noted that Time Warner gave nearly 85% of its contributions to the Dems this year. Also note that I'm a fan of the Atlanta Braves and would hate to see a Time boycott cut into the already shrinking payroll of my favorite team.
I would also like to know how you made the switch over to Powell's.
Posted by: Jeff | December 21, 2004 at 05:30 PM
dammit. i luv, luv, luv powells (it's the first bookstore i ever drank coffee in), and i review books on my site, too, but i also review lip gloss, eyeshadow, and other beauty items. if only powells would start selling cosmetics... sigh.
Posted by: jessica | December 22, 2004 at 11:07 AM
I would also like to know how you made the shift to Powell's, please. Perhaps you could post instructions?
Posted by: Bill Day | December 22, 2004 at 09:25 PM
glad to help. can you email beer? maybe at least send a whiff (with possibly your last smell-o-vision update of the year): http://www.smh.com.au/news/Technology/Smell-comes-to-multimedia/2004/12/20/1103391690350.html?oneclick=true
Posted by: Tito | December 23, 2004 at 01:39 PM
Is Bush a nitwit? Yes, 9 out of 10 dentists agree. But should we boycott Time for naming the President its Person of the Year? No. As said in other posts, this is not an endorsement, it's their way of saying he was the most influential person in 2004. And he was. Regrettably so. All this boycotting, it's got to stop, I think. We have differences, all of us, but we should be able to buy and sell goods between one another. The Nazis painted "Juden" on store-front windows; what will we do, replace it with "Republican"? There's got to be a better way.
Posted by: stephan | December 24, 2004 at 11:37 AM
I have many reasons why I ought to hate Time magazine (AOL conspiracy theories, anti-RIAA), but I can't help it; I just enjoy the writing too much. Time is great at taking a mainstream news stories (OJ, Tanya Harding, etc) and turning it into a novel. (Also, there's Shickel and Corliss). This is mainstream journalism, and some cover stories bore me. But so far I haven't found a good replacement.
Although I wonder if the mag spends too much time in cross-promotion, in fact the writers/editors seem relatively independent and critical(and it does help to have these Time/Warner book excerpts too).
BTW, I've read the Mencken quote several times and laugh harder every time I come across it.
Posted by: Robert Nagle | December 28, 2004 at 11:53 AM
Mark,
If you want to boycott something, boycott Pfizer. They're the ones responsible for blog spam viagra, through their referral programs.
http://www.fredschoeneman.com/archives/000418.html
f
Posted by: Fred Schoeneman | December 29, 2004 at 04:28 PM