At the close of every calendar year, 'Time' magazine pulls a stunt, obviously, with the hope of selling more magazines. They support the belief that to follow history, one must examine the lives of great individuals that really make or lead history as it has progressed. With this belief, they have the tradition of naming a person of the year, and as is expected, there's a lengthy article that analyzes the accomplishments of this person and his or her effect on societal categories. For example, Bill Gates was previously named person of the year for his great monetary contributions to the world's poor as well as his contribution to the spirit of charity.

This year, though, 'Time' decided to pull a stunt and chose an unexpected candidate as 2006's person of the year. Who is it? You. And to get the point across, the magazine's cover had a small mirror on it to let you know that you had won. Now I know what you might be thinking ' 'What? Me? I can't believe it! I've always wanted this honor!'

Well I do not want to burst your bubble. Being the person of the year for 2006 is a pretty flattering title, but you are not person of the year. You do not deserve it, or at least not for the reason 'Time' gave you and me the title.

'Time' cited that 2006 was ''a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before,' and this was describing the relationship between Americans and the Internet. Specifically, the magazine thought it amazing how Web sites such as Wikipedia, MySpace, YouTube and Facebook exploded in popularity.

Now, I do not have a problem with these Web sites, nor do I have a problem with you, for the most part. However, I do not believe that you deserve to be 2006's person of the year because 'you' flocked to these types of Web sites in unprecedented numbers. First of all, I do not understand how amazing it is for huge numbers of people to use the Internet in 2006. It's been around for a little while now and has been used in huge numbers. I do not really see why now I should be stunned that so many people are using it and therefore I do not think that you or me using the Internet in 2006 was so much more awe-inspiring than when we used it in 2005 or will use it in 2007. But the bigger reason I'm upset that you and I received the title is because of the contents of the Web sites 'Time' names. I honestly cannot believe that because millions went onto YouTube, Facebook, MySpace and whatever other sites, 'Time' gave anyone, or everyone, the prestigious title! YouTube is a haven for millions of dumb clips of videos! Facebook and MySpace just give everyone a way to stalk each other without crossing an invisible line of creepiness and provide a medium for friends to keep inside jokes going on and on. And 'Time' is telling me that going to these Web sites means something, that it's special and actually significant? You have got to be kidding me. The Web sites noted by 'Time' only show the embarrassing traits of our society as a whole: we waste our precious time on meaningless subjects that at their best can relieve boredom ' but even that only lasts for 20 minutes max.

I for one am embarrassed that our habit of Facebooking and Youtubeing is so widespread and now done by millions of hours a week by Americans. And now that Saddam's hanging, which was supposed to be a symbol of triumph for justice in the Middle East, is being watched for entertainment by thousands, I think that these useless Web sites are highlighting the immorality and crudeness into which our world is slipping. I still cannot believe that 'Time' named you and me to be 2006's person of the year because of a mass flocking to these useless sites. They clearly have little significance beyond highlighting America's movement away from meaningful topics and uses of the Internet in our information age.