Time’s The Top 100

Who’s Top 100?. Not mine, I am afraid.

I spent the weekend reading over Time magazine’s Top 100 List of the “Most Influential” people in the world.

First of, I don’t think you can prepare such a list and not qualify it and at the same time leave out George Soros or Warren Buffet.

Or, in a broader context, what about the president of Venezuela?

Doesn’t he exert tremendous influence on the world and our neighbors—especially if you have included Muqtada Al-Sadr in the list.

Surely, he should qualify by most definitions….

If you’re as confused as I am, you might ask yourself why have they included George W. Bush. I mean let’s get serious. Who listens to ‘boobis erectus’ any more.. With the normal support of the 28% of the nation that is retarded and always vote the same, how can anybody consider Bush a man who influences anybody with more than a 64 IQ?

Did you notice that these people never go away.

They will be the 20% who don’t know on any survey poll.

They don’t know whether the sun is out or it’s snowing.

They don’t know the difference between good works and bad.

They are simply the 20% that is always out of the loop.

Give me a break.

Moreover, how can any lists that lays claim to including the top 100 influences and include Mariah Carey and omit Al Gore. Green envy perhaps. Or is Al just too liberal.

I mean if you are talking influence, Al has to be right up there among the top ten I would think.

And I didn’t even see a mention of Michael Moore one of the people I deem most influential of his time. And what about Barbara Boxer? My God, she has been more influential than ten people I know. And General Wes Clark. I mean I always have a piece of mail from the good general in my in box. So….what exactly is the criteria used by Time magazine in its quest for the Top 100?. Is it ego, party orientation, people most friendly to Time magazine? For it surely can’t be objective using its own criteria.

Let us not forget where Time magazine stands in the pantheon of conservative perspectives.

So, let’s delve.

Upon closer examination, we discover that there is a Time team. (No one person will hang for what seems to be a lesson in educating the blind undertaken by the one-eyed man)

So, here goes

Right off the bat, they tell us. “This Time 100 is not a list of the smartest, the most powerful or the most talented (That’s for sure! Duh!)—it is a thoughtful and sprightly [Add your own definition here] survey of the most influential individuals in the world. Influence, like those other categories [what other categories] is subjective, but you try to measure it in the effect people have on the world,” thus we have it, according to editor Richard Stengel, Managing Editor, the editor has taken carte blanche in explaining “Influence” any way he chooses…. The sacrificial goat, therefore, becomes credibility.

My, what a surprise.

So, let’s see what the dictionary has to say:


According to my trusty resource, Encarta Dictionary: it means “the effect of something on a person, thing or event….”

Or, alternatively,
”the power that somebody has to affect other people’s thinking or actions by means of an argument, example, or force of personality.”

There are other definitions but I don’t think they apply here.

Using those criteria leaves the field open; you could pick an amoeba for affecting another neighboring amoeba. And maybe that’s not all bad.

But overall, I am pleased to say that I was impressed with at least half of the choices, many of whom I have read or heard about in other places.


Nonetheless, begrudgingly, I have to say that at least part of the time, Time got it right.

It has picked out people who have done something and inspired—unfortunately, that is not true of much of the list.

As a suggestion to Time magazine for next time, may I urge you to consider the Top 100 People Who Have Influenced Positive Change rather than the ambiguous term of “influence” as you, yourselves, have defined it and then proceeding to leave out some of the really most influential people in the world.

I was of course impressed with your choice of J. Craig Venter, the genius scientist who keeps going on and on but what about Edward Wilson who’s ideas on etymology has changed our perceptions of Darwin’s assumptions and is now seeking to classify every species in his lifetime—a lifetime already crowned with achievement? Is he not also a man who has influenced change on a global scale?

Or what about the man afflicted by cancer who has figured out that radio waves can kill cancerous cells without damaging good ones and is building a new approach to cancer cures that seems to work? And financing it out of his own pocket.

Or what about that lady that has Muscular Dystrophy yet has climbed a mountain on every continent and educated children at the same time about how to deal with adversity in a positive way? She is certainly ranks high among my choices….In truth, I would prefer to see their names instead of Lorne Michaels, Miley Cyrus, or even Robert Downey Jr. who I do think is something of an uncommon acting talent.

The fact is that Time has come up with some inspired choices—like the Dalai Lama, one of the greatest leaders of all time, Lance Armstrong with his lesson for everyone, Bob & Suzanne Wright for their work on autism, Peter Gabriel (who would have thought it), Madeeha Hasan Odhaib for her work with Iraqi women, and many, many others…

Overall, I would give the issue a seven out of ten for a passing grade.

But in the end, find that unless you change your criteria to just include those who are the greatest positive influences, you have to include Putin, Sadr and a host of terrorists…

So, while on the one hand, it records some high water marks; on the other, it seems to be giving credit to those who murder and maim. In total, a list that in the end, and on balance, that seems, by definition, confused and destined to nullify itself. How could you legitimately have the Dali Lama and Muqtada Al-Sadr on the same list and have it amount to anything other than a rationale for a special issue that doesn’t mean much of anything.

With apologies to the deserving.

Les Aaron