The leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, George Bush, and therefore arguably the most powerful person on the entire planet, did not make it onto Time Magazine’s “Top 100” list – I’ll let them explain their “People Who Shape Our World”:
Here’s our list of the 100 men and women whose power, talent or moral example is transforming the world.
While we may be able to guess what Time Warner, Inc. may think of Bush’s “talent or moral example,” it’s difficult to fathom their decision, particularly in light of some of those included on the list (South Korean pop star “Rain” is at the top of the list voted on by internet users – netizens unite!).
Perhaps it’s only a simple but collective case of denial, but others see a snub. Some of those who actually made the list highlight the oddity of not having Bush on it.
The list of 100 most influential, on newsstands Friday, also includes Queen Elizabeth II, presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, YouTube founders Steve Chen and Chad Hurley, director Martin Scorsese and model Kate Moss. It does not include President Bush.
[…]
Other entertainers making the cut were Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Justin Timberlake, Tyra Banks, Cate Blanchett, America Ferrera, Tina Fey, John Mayer, Brian Williams, Michael J. Fox, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and “American Idol” creator Simon Fuller.
Hell, even Raul Castor, Fidel’s brother, and cave dwelling Osama bin Laden made the list! Even Al Gore is there; brace yourself for this bit of needless sophistry:
Al Gore understands the science of global warming better than anyone else in the world of politics.
Well of course he does, it’s all explained. He’s just above needing to do anything about it himself.
Could it be that “myth” – liberal bias in the media – raising it’s ugly head? Time Warner owns Time Magazine (as well as AOL and CNN), and Richard Stengel is the magazines managing editor. Stengel was at one time a, “senior advisor and chief speechwriter for Bill Bradley, who ran for the Democratic nomination for the 2000 presidential election.” If Bradley’s “I’ more liberal than Gore!” politics give any indication, Stengel is indeed far to the left of the political spectrum.
So is it a snub? Or did they really think the leader of China’s communist party was more fitting? And why didn’t they include Kim Jong-il? Who knows.
It shows how petty our media goes and how deeply political our “objective” reporting is and the people who run these orgs.
This is one of the more pathetic things I’ve seen out of the big time American media in a long time - and that is saying something.
I gotta laugh at the chutzpa of Time for including the likes of QEII, Raul Castro, and half of Hollywood’s A list and excluding US President George Bush from their ranking of the top 100 most influential people in the world. I hate Dubya as much as the next liberal, but if he weren’t influential, we wouldn’t have reasons to dislike him so much.
Bill Bradley is actually more of an old-school liberal. I recall that it was with his support that Reagan got his 1986 tax cuts passed in the Senate. He was also very vocal in his opposition to Asian-American quotas in education. Of course, he was wrong on many other issues of his day…
Just a polite reminder: TIME’s lists of “important” or “influential” persons tend to be hopelessly usaocentric. Most names mean nothing to European, South American, Russian, African, Asian, Australian intellectuals and in-the-loop-ers. When TIME thinks about “who and what shape our world”, they think “my world”, i.e. the USA. Do Americans really *watch* Oprah Winfrey television? Her chance of being among the hundred truely most influential persons in the world is to take her full programme and staff to Pyongyang and make all her programmes there for primetime DPRK television. Then I would watch too.
To crawl back in the direction of on-topic-ness, could Richardson et al. give us a list of the “top ten” or “top twenty” important and influential persons in the DPRK? Who *is* important, apart from the Dear Leader?
I would think a major European media org listing the top 100 most powerful people in the world leaving off Pres. Bush might be considered Eurocentric.
And if we’re talking about most powerful people in the world, and from a Eurocentric point of view, who would care what the #2 or #3 most powerful North Korean is?….
I’m sure DPRK Studies knows the names of some of the big players in North Korea, but when you get below Kim Jong Il, their power within their own nation drops a whole lot, no?…
How catty….. and predictable.
Like a high-school student-council clique full of vicious girls and gay dudes coveting social control, and destroying anyone’s reputation that doesn’t fit their mold.
I have long said, and tell my high school students, society basic sets by the time you reach middle school, the lower hormone levels just slows you down as time goes by…
At least Kim Jong-Il *is* on the TIME-100 list of influential living persons, ranked no. 66, just after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (no. 64), but still a respectable distance after Jesus (no. 28). This is admittably on TIME’s *alternative list*, where the panel (consisting of a rapper, a Playboy bunny, a UFC fighter, a party planner, and Joel Stein) has no problem defining Jesus as a living person. The jury makes clear that Kim Jonh-Il is not on the list for his nuclear prowess, but …
Discussing euro- vs. usaocentrism is an interesting and sometimes fruitful endeavour, also from my own Russo-Euro perspectives. But I’m primarily here for the DPRK topics, and hope that dprkstudies can rise to the challenge of giving us top names (with brief characterisations) of influential DPRK people. Is Mun Kyong Jin still on the list, for example?
It’s sort of a moot question, since all power (yes, all) is derived from authority delegated by Kim Jong-il. Since before Kim Il-sung took power, those that attempted to accumulate power and influence were systematically removed (demoted, executed, etc.), a practice that has continued since. Therefore there are no freelance innovators to be considered powerful or influential outside the authority given to them by Kim Jong-il.
Having said that, there are a few heavy hitters within Kim’s group of yes-men;
Kang Seok-ju: formerly the First Deputy Forign Minister, who has been described as Kim Jong-Il’s “right-hand man,” was a primary North Korean negotiator during the process leading to the 1994 Agreed Framework. His name is also commonly Romanized as “Kang Suk-Ju” or “Kang, Sok-Ju.” He may be the current acting foreign minister after Paek Nam Sun’s death.
Kim Gye Gwan: current DPRK negotiator at the Six-Party Talks.
Kim Yong-nam: another public face of the DPRK, Kim is the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly.
Cabinet members in general (except Paek Nam-sun, who died in January 2007) usually have some influence with Kim Jong-il, but have also been removed at Kim’s whim after minor real or perceived transgressions. There are a few others, but again, it’s sort of moot.
Someone like Mun Kyong Jin, however, is a tool to be used by the government, and would not have any influence outside what was prescribed.
Thanks, this is useful information. What about So Man-sul, or other top persons in the Chongryon (Chosen Soren)? At least I understand that dprk citizens often enough learn about the travails of Chongryon.
I mentioned Mun Kyong Jin since I am keenly interested in classical music and am curious about how the dprk views and educates musicians in that direction. Clearly some of them reach top international level. Mun Kyong Jin is on “my” list, in the hope that his efforts and success also should inspire others. And if an orchestra or a string quartet is superb they will sooner or later detect Shostakovich and the rest of the world. (Finally, I invite everyone to enjoy the brilliantly inspired writing about Mun Kyong Jin at songun-blog.blogspot.com.)
Don’t worry about time-warner… Rupert’s on a spending apree and will bring some editorial direction to any publication, broadcast, internet site that he buys!!!
“… since all power (yes, all) is derived from authority delegated by Kim Jong-il. Since before Kim Il-sung took power, those that attempted to accumulate power and influence were systematically removed (demoted, executed, etc.), a practice that has continued since.” Well, yes, but this description does leave a trace of confusion and uncertainty. You almost appear to give two different and somewhat clashing statements: (1) KJI is in absolute power and there is never opposition or any individuals with competing power. (2) When there is opposition or individuals with competing power, he gets rid of them. (I did say “somewhat” clashing, not violently clashing. If (1) were fully true, then (2) would be empty.)
Are there many well-documented cases of opposition at all, that later presumably led to demotion or execution? And are there even recent known cases? (My net searches mostly led to “speculations”, and to the Hwang Jan-yop case from 1997.)
I think it’s pretty clear; there is no opposition as anyone who looks like they might be a threat, or looked at Kim the wrong way, is “removed” (be it demoted, the gulag, killed, whatever). Everyone else gets the hint. Thus there are no threats. No one disagrees with Kim Jong-il, there is no opposition party, etc. Don’t over complicate it and confuse yourself.
The best book on how Kim Il-sung consolidated power is, “Kim Il-sung: The North Korean Leader,” by Dae-sook Suh. I suggest that to get an idea of how things were done. No indication they’ve changed.
You are infringing on my natural rights to be confused, when attempting to understand the dprk? I do know the Dae-sook Suh book, but that deals mostly with the Kim One era, and I am curious about any noticeable changes (but I do hear you when you indicate that “there are none”). I suppose scholars interpret the significance of the 1997 Hwang Jan-yop event differently.
Hwang fell out of power and fled, though his family likely went to the gulags.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Jang-yop
As an (or perhaps “the”) author of the Juch’e doctrine, perhaps Kim Jong-il felt a remote threat (real or perceived) in Hwang, or perhaps he made a comment critical of Kim (real or perceived); either way it was dealt with by the usual demotion. The rest is history.