Muggle of the Year? Will Time Pick Its First Writer?
Of all these end of the year lists and honors, the big one remains Time magazine's pick of the Person (né Man) of the Year. Not quite as big as it was in the days of the monoculture (the end of which Time itself acknowledged in its pick of "You" as last year's winner, which was kind of like asking "Is God Dead?" about themselves), but it's still the reigning champion until the Wiki/YouTube swarm can somehow organize itself to anoint a successor. And at this time of year my good friend Josh and I, as a yearly highlight of our endless pop-culture palaver, make a game of predicting who (or what) Time will put between its red borders in the last issue of the year. We have a pretty good track record between us: in recent years, he's gotten You (well, he predicted YouTube--close enough) and Jeff Bezos (before my conflict of interest with that candidate), and I foresaw Bill & Melinda Gates (but who saw Bono joining in?!?), the American Soldier, and Giuliani. (The one time we tried to predict the winner at the beginning of the year, though, it was a disaster: does "Ehud Barak: Israel's Man of Peace" ring a bell? I didn't think so.)
Well, it's that time of year again, and I think there are three legitimate contenders. The favorite has to be General David Petraeus, who conveniently represents one of the biggest stories of the year (the change in strategy in Iraq). And since it's been almost 20 years since Time chose the "Endangered Earth" as, yes, their "Planet of the Year," they are overdue to recognize the ongoing story of climate change. The obvious figure there is Al Gore, but the Nobel committee stole their thunder and besides 2006 was actually a bigger year for him. Finally, there's the reason you find this post in a books blog (beside my own year-end-prize dorkiness), my underdog pick: J.K. Rowling. Time's never picked a writer (or really any sort of figure from the arts besides Bono), unless you want to count Susan Brownmiller, one of the 12 representative women they highlighted in 1975, and comparing Rowling to the political or business leaders Time likes to choose is a severe case of apples and oranges. But in her favor: well, Harry Potter. We've seen nothing like it, and this would be the year to celebrate the worldwide phenomenon. Also, she's got a healthy lead in the voting among 10 nominees that Time is hosting, and you'd think that "You," as the incumbent Person of the Year, would be allowed some influence over "Your" successor.
I can't see any of the other contenders making it: either Clinton or Obama is a year too early, Jobs is too similar to last year's pick (as much as Time likes to pick CEOs), Rice doesn't have as much to show for '07 as Petraeus, Hu Jintao isn't recognizable enough as the face of China, and Ahmadinejad is a mere shadow of their "bad guy" picks of the past like Khomeini and Hitler. Putin would actually be an interesting choice, but there's not much of an American angle to him at this point. So what do "You" think? My money's on the General, but I'd also buy a dark horse ticket on the Writer. We'll find the answer on December 21. --Tom
on December 08, 2007 at 04:01 PM
Well, it cannot POSSIBLY be General Petraeus because he did something Time Magazine can NEVER forgive: he has just about won a war Time and the rest of the anti-American Left wanted lost and have repeatedly declared lost. His failed predecessor turned official Democratic Party defeatist, retired General Ricardo Sanchez, is a more likely choice.
Al Gore, high priest of the religion of global warming, is a very plausible choice; chhoosing him would justify another orgy of pseudoscientific "news reporting" in order to justify their choice.
J. K. Rowling greatly improved her chances with her recent PC stunt of "outing" Albus Dumbledore; Time Magazine, like most of the obsolete media, is always a sucker for anyone pushing the gay agenda, especially to children.
Finally, don't rule out either Clinton or Obama. This is PRECISELY the proper time for Time Magazine to do whatever it can to elect a Democrat president in 2008. Unfortunately, their obvious choice, Hillary Clinton, has been doing less well in polling lately; on the other hand, choosing Obama would be a rather obvious diss of Clinton, and as Time well knows, the Clintons hold grudges and take revenge.
Poor Time Magazine. Sometimes it can be just so hard picking the Person of the Year best calculated to advance their Leftist agenda.
My heart bleeds. (snicker)
Mike on December 08, 2007 at 08:37 PM
Time? Leftist agenda??? Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're an idiot.
Matthew Flaschen on December 08, 2007 at 08:45 PM
Not to state the obvious, but Iraq isn't "won" as long as hundreds of American troops are dying there each month. But I guess that's just a minor detail, right?
Matthew Flaschen on December 08, 2007 at 08:48 PM
Note: "month" should read "year" above. Point's the same, though: The war is still very much in progress, and has neither been won nor lost.
on December 09, 2007 at 06:54 AM
Mike, anyone who thinks Time DOESN'T have a Leftist agenda is the idiot. Not being as extremely leftist as you are doesn't make them non-leftist. Desiring defeat in Iraq is a useful indicator; not many rightists are that treasonous.
Matthew, not to state the obvious, but hundreds of American troops are NOT dying in Iraq each month, and the year over year death toll is naturally going to start reflecting that more and more as each lower death toll month passes. The both GREATLY REDUCED AND RAPIDLY DECLINING American troop death toll is in fact one of the indicators, but by no means the only one, that we are finally winning. I'll grant you that the war isn't quite yet won, but at this point only the election of a Democrat Party government DETERMINED to lose could manage to lose it, and it is an open question whether such an elected Democrat Party government would really want to commit the political suicide that such a move would entail. It is one thing to try and trick Republicans into losing the war; it is quite another to deliberately lose a war on YOUR watch with no one else to blame for the disastrous consequences of handing al Qaeda the THIRD LARGEST OIL RESERVES ON THE PLANET!
Al Qaeda in Iraq's only hope now is for their domestic political allies to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and even their election chances greatly hinge on Time's and the rest of the obsolete media's ability to cover up our impending victory.
Can American Leftists save Al Qaeda? Stay tuned.
Mike Smith on December 10, 2007 at 09:32 AM
Either Gore or Petraeus--I hope it's not Rowling.
FredTownWard on December 11, 2007 at 10:14 AM
By all logic it SHOULD be General Petraeus, for winning a war so many thought was lost.
Therefore, it CANNOT POSSIBLY be Petraeus.
Given a choice between Gore and Rowling, I'd rather see Rowling get it because recent PC favor-currying idiocy aside, she actually accomplished something of value -- she got a whole generation of children excited about reading books, which OUGHT to count for SOMETHING.
All Al Gore has done is to fill his already overflowing pockets by selling Snake Oil Offsets and religion disguised as science to the gullible, thus insuring that any potential REAL problems obscured by his misuse of the data will NOT be dealt with in a timely OR sensible fashion anytime soon,...
which has to make him the favorite.