Time's Person of the Year 2012: You Read It Here First

A day before 2012 begins, I can already predict with 90% certainty who Time Magazine will choose as Person of the Year 2012. I can't give you a name, but I can give you a title: President-elect of the United States. Here's why:

• Every president since Franklin Roosevelt, except for the unelected Gerald Ford, has been Time's Person of the Year at least once, either during their presidency or in the election year.
• Between 1932 and 2008, there have been 20 election years. During half of them, the presidential winner was POY. That includes seven of the last ten election years (since 1972), including the last three in a row.
• If Obama is defeated, the chances of the president-elect to be POY are even greater. Since 1972, presidential election years in which the winning candidate was not selected by Time were only years when the White House did not switch parties: Ronald Reagan's re-election in 1984, the election of then-VP George H. W. Bush in 1988 and Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996.

Told You So

Time Magazine announced their Person of the Year 2011. Just as I said they should, they picked "The Protester". Of course, it didn't take a genius to predict this choice. Unlike fiction, reality rarely has an all-encompassing theme. This year it did. No "Year in Review" would be complete without the angry demonstrations around the world.

Good choice, Time! But then again, they didn't really have any other worthy choice, did they?

Protesters Should Be Time's 2011 People of the Year

It's the last month of the year, which means that Time Magazine will anounce its Person of the Year soon. I can't say that any particular candidate, like Barack Obama or Angela Merkel, seems worthy of the title. An amorphous group, though, just might be: the protesters. The magazine's website suggests the 99% as one of the candidates, but it would be a mistake (and extremely America-centric) to choose only that particular movement, especially since they are one of the less influential protest movements that were active during 2011.

This was the year of protesters around the word, on every continent, except for Antarctica. People unhappy with the economic and/or dictatorial status quo took to the streets of Spain, Greece, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Chile, Israel, Yemen, the United States, Canada and other countries. They had varying degrees of success and different grievances, and operated in different types of regimes. What was common was that they all demanded change and they all formed together the greatest global wave of protests since the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.

Can you think of anybody more worthy? I certainly can't.

Mark Zuckerberg is Time's Person of the Year

Okay, so I was wrong about the person Time Magazine would pick. Mark Zuckerberg wasn't on my radar. This choice seems kind of Hollywood-y to me. Yes, Zuckerberg has had an impact on the world, but was this really a more significant year for Facebook than, say, 2009, 2008 or 2007? I don't think so. The main Facebook-related event this year doesn't have much to do with anything that happened on Facebook or in the company during 2010. Would Mark Zuckerberg still be person of the year if "The Social Network" hadn't been made? My guess is probably not.

I did much better with the runner-ups. The Chilean Miners were indeed chosen, as I predicted. Julian Assange, who I thought would be POY, instead took a consolation prize. I also chose Sarah Palin, who wasn't picked by name, but she is a leader of the Tea Party, Time's first runner-up. My other two guesses were left out: John Boehner (a Republican conservative, but not quite a Tea Partier) and David Cameron.

Time's Person of the Year 2010: My Prediction

Time Magazine will announce its person of the year this Wednesday, December 15. That means it's time to guess who is going to be chosen. My top bet is Julian Assange. He has repeatedly embarrassed the United States through WikiLeaks, first with a video of a massacre in Iraq, then with the release of classified military documents, and most recently, the diplomatic cables. His activity has not just made headlines in the closing weeks of 2010 but throughout the year. The only thing working against him is the fact that Time had a cover story about him very recently. Would they want to write about him extensively in two issues just a couple of weeks apart?

If it won't be Assange, I guess it will be one of the following four (I'm sure at least one or two of these will be named as runners-up):

1. John Boehner: The next Speaker of the House of Representatives has dealt President Obama and the Democrats quite a blow when he successfully lead the Republicans to significant victories in the mid-term elections. The question is how much he is responsible for this and how much was just the result of dissatisfaction with Obama.

2. Sarah Palin: She seems to be everywhere, despite not holding any office. Along with Fox News's Glenn Beck, she brought thousands to the National Mall in Washington, DC. Her daughter was a Dancing With the Stars finalist, her books are bestsellers, and she has quite a Twitter following. One thing working against her is the same thing that's working against Assange: Palin has a cover story in Time this week, so the chances that she's Person of the Year are slim.

3. David Cameron: The new British prime minister has formed the first coalition government in the UK in decades and has already started implementing reforms. Some have them resulted in riots. But has he impacted the world so much? Probably not more than other world leaders.

4. The Chilean Miners: Did they change the world? No, but Time Magazine likes heartwarming stories, and the miners definitely provided the world with nail-biting real-life drama with a happy ending.

Israelis, Peace and the Time Magazine Piece

Now that I've read the whole Time Magazine article that claims Israelis don't care about peace and had some more time to think about it, I've changed my mind a bit. While I still think the article exaggerates the matter, it is true that Israelis care a lot less about peace and the conflict than they used to. It's a kind of defense mechanism against false hope. The word that describes Israelis best is "disillusioned" - not just by peace, but by politics and politicians in general. We've come to the realization that our leaders talk a lot but do very little to improve our situation.

Still, I'd say the phrasing that "Israelis don't care about peace" is untrue. Maybe Israelis won't keep up with the news about new negotiations as much as they did during the Oslo years, but most of them will hope for their success. Also, I predict that if the talks show significant progress (and, unfortunately, I doubt that they will), Israelis will show an interest once more. The average Israeli just doesn't believe the Palestinians.

On that note, it is interesting to note a new advertising campaign here in Israel. The Geneva Accord, a non-profit organisation promoting a peace deal, has new ads in newspapers, billboards and the Internet, where Palestinian leaders ask you to be their partner, in a Facebook Friend Request-like graphic. Now, this is just one of the dumbest campaigns I've seen. Apparently, the people who came up with it think everybody is like them and would be happy to be friends with these people. Well, no, that's not the case. I'm a left-leaning pro-peace person with a few Palestinian friends (in Facebook and in reality), but Jibril Rajoub and Saeb Erekat don't exactly make me warm and fuzzy inside. If you're trying to make Israelis like the Palestinian leadership better, don't do something that requires that people like them in the first place so they'll respond well to the ads!

Israelis Do Care About Peace

Time Magazine's September 13 issue has a cover story titled "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace". It doesn't ask whether Israelis care or not, it just takes for granted that they don't and sets out to explain why. Right now, only a truncated on-line version is available and it doesn't convince me one bit that Israelis don't give a damn. Will the full article in the print edition have more proof that would change my mind? We'll have to wait until Monday to see.

I can tell you this much: Israelis care very much about the conflict. We're constantly worried about missiles from Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and Iran, and most of us realize that in order to reduce the threat, we need peace. However, many Israelis are also disillusioned, which is why they put other matters first on their list of priorities. Let's deal with things we can fix first, not things that just won't move forward - that seems to be the logic.

Also, the fact that our economy is strong makes us even more aware of what we have to lose in case of war. The Second Intifadah brought with it not just blood but an economic slump, and a third Intifadah certainly would, too. Considering the state of the world economy, an Israeli recession would probably be even worse than it was in the early 2000's.

Anyway, I'll probably have another post up about the subject after I read the full article.

Predicting Time's Person of the Year 2009

Time Magazine likes putting President Barack Obama on its cover, but I think it is safe to say that he won't be Time's Person of the Year for a second year in row. Despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize, he hasn't done enough to merit the title. He deserves to be first runner-up, at the most.

Will it be Angela Merkel, who won re-election as Germany's chancellor this year and has become one of the most influential European leaders?  It's very possible.

Will it be Benjamin Netanyahu, who returned to the Israeli Prime Minister's office after 10 years and has already managed to anger the Palestinians, settlers, the Israeli left and the Obama administration? No, it won't be him.

Will it be Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who is credited by many as the person responsible for curbing the financial crisis? I think he's the top candidate. The economy has been the number one issue worldwide this year, so someone who has something to do with it is likely to be named POY. It could also be that the companies that got bailout money will be chosen, if Time Magazine decides to go with something other than a person.

Time's People of the Year

Is there any doubt whatsoever that President-elect Barack Obama is the man of the year? Whether you like him or not, the first African-American President beat off more experienced candidates and made history. Do Time Magazine editors even have to think this through? They seemed to support him during the election, so if they won't select him, it would just be a lame attempt to prove they aren't big fans of his.

The bigger question is who the runners up will be. Clinton? Palin? Tina Fey? I'd choose Hillary Clinton as 1st runner up, since she was very close to becoming the first female presidential nominee of a major party and ended the year getting nominated for Secretary of State. Second runner up will probably be the president of China, and a European leader (Brown of the UK, Merkel of Germany or Sarkozy of France) will be 3rd.

Vladimir Vladimirovitch, 2007 Person of the Year

For some reason I thought Time Magazine would announce its choice for Person of the Year only on Friday, so I planned to write a post today about who I'd pick for the title. Vladimir Putin was my choice, but since Time already named him as POY today, you'll have to believe me that I really did think of him before the announcement.

Putin is as close as you can get to a natural choice. He has made more of an impact than just about anyone this year, flexing his international muscle on various issues: Iran, missile defense, Kosovo, etc., as well as fortifying his position in the Kremlin even as he prepares to leave the presidency. His heir presumptive, Dmitry Medvedev, will appoint him as Russia's next prime minister.

Time named four runners up: Al Gore, J.K. Rowling, Hu Jintao and Gen. David Petraeus. Of all of these, Hu Jintao is the only one I'd also pick as a runner up. The Chinese leader is changing his very important country. The others, on the other hand, have not had a great impact this year.

Al Gore was the rightful winner of the Nobel Prize, but most of what he did was in 2006. Thanks to him, most of the presidential candidates have addressed environmental issues, but again - this is the result of what he did last year.

J. K. Rowling wrote a series of books that got young people to read again. Her main impact came when she published the first books, not when she wrote the final novel or outed Dumbledore.

Gen. Petraeus has a tough job, but the war in Iraq is still a quagmire and he hasn't created such a sea change.

There are three others I would have chosen as runners-up, if I were a Time editor: German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been a positive and influential leader at the national, European and International levels; Nikolas Sarkozy, the new French president who seems very different from anything we've seen in that country and who was able to stand up to striking workers protesting his plan to roll back some of their wasteful privileges; and Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, who has been able to drive the world crazy. Hugo Chavez would have made it into my list too, had his constitutional amendments been approved by Venezuelan voters.