Time Magazine's Person of the Year

It's that time of the year again. The period of the year in which Time Magazine chooses its person of the year. It isn't always the person who has done the most good, but the one that has had the biggest impact, right or wrong. Sometimes it isn't even a person, with a computer winning one year and everyone winning last year.

This year's list is a little more conventional (in the order of the most popular):

J.K. Rowling

Al Gore

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Condolezza Rice

Steve Jobs

General David Petraeus

Vladimir Putin

Hu Jintao

In typical, smug, Time fashion, the list is made up of people whom the media elite believes are worthy of the "Person of the Year" title. Rowling, the author of one of the biggest selling books of all time. Al Gore the crowned king of nature. Ahmadinejad, the man most likely to get attention and terrorize his neighbors. Vladimir Putin, the dictator that won't go away.

There are a few that I think clearly make sense. Steve Jobs, certainly an entrepreneurial powerhouse. General David Petraeus, the man who has single handedly changed the debate on the war of Iraq. Hu Jintao, a man has transformed the Chinese economy and society. I have to eliminate Jobs because, although he continues to reinvent himself and his business in profound ways. I simply don't see his contribution as "Person of the Year" in scope. I think Jintao and Petraeus clearly qualify. They have both changed the world. But Time Magazine is an US Magazine and I'm an American, so guess who I voted for in Time's survey?

Petraeus has not only change the war in Iraq, but will possibly change the Presidential race of 2008 and US policy for years to come. Petraeus has become so successful that he is now forcing Democrats (who have staked their future on defeat) to come across as though they are running against the troops. Petraeus could change the political landscape for years to come.

Run Gore Run

I am formally announcing my endorsement for Al Gore to run for President. As a Democrat, of course. Which means I will never vote for him, but he could do an excellent job of further dividing the Democrats for the '08 elections.

Since becoming something of a rock star and actually winning an Academy Award for best documentary (for his apocalyptic assessment of the environment called An Inconvenient Truth), many on the Left are hoping he might jump into the race. All of the Hollywood money that Barack Obama was receiving will quickly shift to "one of their own", in my opinion. (By the way, Gore has his own inconvenient truth, since the media is reporting that his own home consumes ten times the energy of the average house in the US. Can you spell hypocrite?).

Now we are being "tempted" by the idea on AOL, as they ask visitors whether or not Gore should run. Interestingly, he won overwhelmingly in the poll against Obama, John Edwards, and even Hillary, both in the Democratic nomination and the general election (at least compared to the other mentioned Democrats in the survey). I hope Al Gore drinks from this Kool Aid and jumps in, but I doubt the poll is accurate. I know many people, like myself, voted in the survey and was favorable to Gore on every question. Why? Because the other candidates are already in and the more competition the Democrats have, the better it is for Republicans. At least that's the theory.

I want to encourage you to go vote for Gore too at the AOL poll. Let's give the Democrats some of the chaos Republicans have recently suffered from.

Winter Blast Puts a Chill on Global Warming

"The Coldest Temperatures in a Decade" was a lead story on the Fox News Channel this morning, describing the weather in the Midwest and Northeast. Later the announcer described the freezing temperatures in the New England area as "deadly."

The big discussion, when it comes to the environment, is that Global Warming is a "fact" and should not be disputed. Furthermore, the ones who caused it are the "industrialized nations who continue to use carbon fuels as we move rapidly to our demise." These are the stories we see and hear daily and the message our children get in the classroom as if it were gospel. However, a few decades ago, these same forces were concerned about Global Freezing. They claimed we were facing a future ice age, unless we turn around our energy and environmental policies.

The truth is, no one appears to know definitively what is happening and what needs to be done to "stop" it. Some scientists, like Richard Lindzen of MIT believes the changes of temperature are cyclical and have gone on for centuries. Many scientists who are pushing global warming make a living off of their alarmist announcements, because every study that scares people justifies funding of another study that will scare people more. Imagine if a group of scientists received a grant to study the "problem" and came back with, "it isn't a problem." How likely will they be to get more funding?

The United States has seen a huge improvement in its environmental situation and energy usage over the last few decades. The real sources of pollution are the emerging economies of India and China that are building factories, but their technologies lag far behind. The "solution" to "global warming" being advocated by experts are policies that will make countries, including the US, more poor by excessively taxing and regulating industry. Such policies will damage both the economy and the ecology. We need to be very careful about how we "solve" this problem and make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease.

Rahm Emanuel...Accidental Genius?

I've enjoyed GQ Magazine for years. I'm not sure why, I rarely buy the clothes (they are too trendy), I never party where they suggest, and I generally hate their political perspectives. This continues to be true and was reinforced recently in the most recent issue in which they crown Rahm Emanuel as the new king maker of the Democratic Party. Who is Emanuel you ask? A former Clinton strategist who is the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The article sings Emanuel's praises and points out several key races where he "made a difference." But giving him credit for Republicans losing the Congress is similar to giving Al Gore credit for creating the Internet. Okay, maybe not that outrageous, but I think you get the point.

Who is responsible for the change in Congress? Several factors. The first is history, incumbents in the White House that make it to two terms virtually always lose seats (many in fact) on the 6th year of their term. Secondly, there is the media, which told us the economy simply wasn't good enough with its less than 5 percent unemployment, ridiculously low inflation, and significant growth in the GDP. Finally, there was the negative affects of the war (thanks again to the media's negative depiction). This was probably the single biggest factor. However, any (and certainly all) of these factors were far more important than Emanuel or his strategies. He is an accidental genius, if a genius at all.

I don't envy Emanuel, because I believe that Americans will likely come to their senses and this "genius" will become just another victim of history. I just hope the Congressman doesn't figure out the formula I describe in the paragraph above, because he will likely be depressed, because those factors had nothing to do with him. It may be unfair to say Democrats won in spite of him, but it would certainly be more accurate.

GQ and other publications with a liberal bent need a "hero" for these elections. They need a person to make the "miracle" of another Democratic victory. Hey, I know its Christmas, but it is easier for me to believe in Santa Claus than Emanuel. Emanuel is just a fad, for which GQ is famous for finding.