Jamie Weinstein

I think I’m a little behind, but I just had an opportunity to look at Time’s list of the 100 Most Influential People in the World. Are they kidding?

Sure, the list rightly includes President Barack Obama, Sarah Palin and the most influential person in the world (perhaps in human history) – Oprah Winfrey.

Sure. In 1983.

But Conan O’Brien?

Look, I like Conan as much as the next 26 year old. He’s funny. But among the 100 most influential people in the world? He wasn’t even influential enough to keep his job. He isn’t even the most influential late night comedian, and frankly, late night comedians aren’t really that influential. But if we had to choose one to make the Time 100, how about Jay Leno? He, after all, was at least influential enough to take Conan’s job.

Then there is Ashton Kutcher. When I live in a world where Ashton Kutcher is one of the 100 most influential people in the world, I will know it is time to call my friend Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Fortunately, this is not the world we live in yet. Kutcher is listed for being a social media guru.  I am not yet convinced that having a million 12-year-old girls following you on Twitter qualifies you as one of the world’s most influential people.

And who decided to put Prince on the list? Prince has been an influential entertainer, just not in the last decade or two.

As far as politicos go, Annise Parker? Seriously?

For those of us who don’t live in Houston, Parker is the first openly gay mayor of a sizable city in American history.  This is swell, but I don’t think being mayor of a moderately important American city warrants being included on a list of the most influential people in the entire world.  But that is not why she’s included. It’s the first gay mayor part that got her on the list. Of course, being gay doesn’t make her any more influential. So mark me down for a “yes” for her inclusion on the 100 most influential people in Houston list. It’s a “no” on the most influential people in the world list.  Certainly there are a number of world leaders that probably should make the list over the mayor of Houston.

A spiritual thriller by Dan Calabrese. Click the image to learn more and order a copy.

Sonia Sotomayor is included on the list, but she isn’t even in the top half of the most influential people on the 9-member U.S. Supreme Court. Her legal opinions are not as influential as Antonin Scalia or John Paul Stevens. She is not influential as a so-called “swing” vote like Anthony Kennedy.  She is included on the list merely because she is the newest justice, plain and simple. But since when is new a synonym for influential.

The list is actually broken down into four categories:  Leaders, Thinkers, Artists, and, my favorite, Heroes. The Heroes category should be renamed the you’ve got to be kidding me category.

In the heroes category is Kim Yu-Na, a South Korean figure skater.  I’ll say that again. South Korean. Figure. Skater.

For starters, figure skating does not make you a hero. That’s ridiculous. Secondly, figure skating is arguably the least influential sport in the world. I don’t know a single person who watches figure skating and if I did I would probably no longer want to be their friend. I’m being a little sarcastic, but only a little. When you make a decision to be a figure skater you understand that you will never be included on any “influential” list other than possibly that of Figure Skater Weekly, if such a publication exists.

Likewise, Phil Mickelson is neither a hero nor among the Top 100 most influential people in the world. He is a good golfer. Everyone knows that the only current golfer that could possibly merit inclusion on such a list is Tiger Woods, no matter what you think of him. Most Americans don’t know who or what Phil Mickelson is. For a professional athlete, this is an absolute disqualifier for Time’s 100 Most Influential list.

I’ll stop here. I think you get the drift. Maybe the editors of Time should just make the 100 people we like, some of whom are very influential, list next year. It doesn’t sound so nice, but at least it would be more accurate.

13 Responses to “For goodness sakes, Time: You call these people influential?”