2010 Person of the Year

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

As 2010 comes to a close, I was interested in everyone's picks for Person of the Year. You may be aware that Time magazine picked Mark Zuckerburg of Facebook, a pick I disagree with. (A movie about your life doesn't make you person of the year in my book.)

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

My choice: Hu Jintao, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China and President of the People's Republic of China



Mr. Hu had a banner year. His nation avoided recession, resisted calls to devalue the renminbi, and was a dominant player in international diplomacy. Most importantly, he has secured his legacy by getting his protege Xi Jinping in place to be the next General Secretary of the CPC / President of the PRC.

Honorable Mentions:
John Boehner, next Speaker of the House
Kim Jong Un, next Paramount Leader of North Korea

[Walabamba]

Not necessarily my choice but I think Julian Assange has a chance.

[Consortina]

Assange and Zuckerberg, I don't see as valid candidates. They have some impact on teh intarwebz but the actual real world is largely unaffected by them. Yes, I know that the USA are hunting down Assange but that alone is no achievement. Wikileaks has yet to provoke serious real-world consequences.

I'd probably have to go with Hu Jintao, too. He certainy had the greatest impact on the World this year.

[Mike the Progressive]

I dunno, give Zuckerberg some credit. FB has achieved something unique and great, it has connected 500 million people across the world together to one social network. That is pretty significant.

[Consortina]

It's not like Zuckerberg invented the Social Network. He just happened to have created the most popular and dominant one. Online communities and Web 2.0 are not that new, really.

[Anime Daisuki]

Dec 29, 2010 16:59:07 GMT -5 Tsim Sha Tsui said:

Most importantly, he has secured his legacy by getting his protege Xi Jinping in place to be the next General Secretary of the CPC / President of the PRC.

Hu's preferred choice was Li Keqiang, not Xi Jinping. The fact that Xi was selected (after to an internal poll, according to reports) represents a defeat for Hu--not the other way around.

Li is thought to be an economic reformer. Like Hu, he is pro-inland, pro-peasants, and someone who stresses redistribution of wealth so the inland regions don't fall too far behind. He is Hu's real protege in the sense that their backgrounds are the same. Xi on the other hand, is a princeling and a capitalist. His powerbase is in the coastal cities and his ideology is closer to Jiang Zemin's and Deng's.

[Mike the Progressive]

Dec 29, 2010 19:02:56 GMT -5 Consortina said:

It's not like Zuckerberg invented the Social Network. He just happened to have created the most popular and dominant one. Online communities and Web 2.0 are not that new, really.

I know. But how fast it rose and how popular it became...is something worth recognizing.

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

Dec 29, 2010 19:27:26 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

Dec 29, 2010 16:59:07 GMT -5 Tsim Sha Tsui said:

Most importantly, he has secured his legacy by getting his protege Xi Jinping in place to be the next General Secretary of the CPC / President of the PRC.

Hu's preferred choice was Li Keqiang, not Xi Jinping. The fact that Xi was selected (after to an internal poll, according to reports) represents a defeat for Hu--not the other way around.

Li is thought to be an economic reformer. Like Hu, he is pro-inland, pro-peasants, and someone who stresses redistribution of wealth so the inland regions don't fall too far behind. He is Hu's real protege in the sense that their backgrounds are the same. Xi on the other hand, is a princeling and a capitalist. His powerbase is in the coastal cities and his ideology is closer to Jiang Zemin's and Deng's.

While Li Keqiang is connected to Hu Jintao via the Communist Youth League, personality wise Xi Jinping is a closer match. Li is a bit of a firebrand, and Xi seems more thoughtful and stable. They'll probably make a good pair as President and Premier.

Look: both are going to be incredibly powerful men, and reading the internal workings of the CPC is akin to reading tea leaves. I believe Hu Jintao got the man he wanted as his successor, but obviously can not verify that without somehow being granted an off-the-record private audience where I could ask him. And really, there are a lot more checks and balances within the CPC than back in the day keeping him from just unilaterally choosing whoever he wants for every position.

[Guy]

China is overestimated.

John Boehner, next Speaker of the House

Hmm... No. Boehner had hardly any effect on the election cycle. Democrats lost the House, the Republicans didn't win it. Well, it's almost always like that -- the majority loses elections, the minority doesn't win them.

He isn't even the main Republican figure yet. As someone who closely follows the HoR, Boehner has been one of the weakest Minority Leaders I can remember.

Kim Jong Un

Absolutely not. There are at least 20 nations out there more significant than North Korea.

Zuckerberg

That's tough. On one hand, he did have a huge effect, on the other, his success is nearly almost built on others'.

Julian Assange

As Antony Green says about 500 times every election cycle, too early to call.

[Mike the Progressive]

I don't know Guy. Boehner being a weak minority leader? The GOP for nearly every single Democrat bill had uniform opposition -regardless of what you personally think of the guy, you've got to give him credit for keeping his caucus in line to near perfection. I think one Republican broke ranks on the health care bill? Then he later voted against it anyway.

Not to mention the guy literally has a rags to riches story. He was born into a middle class Irish Catholic family, worked at his family's bar, worked for a small company, was persuaded by the owner to get a college education, got one and went to start his own business. If anything he's living the American dream. He didn't go to some Ivy League college, he wasn't born into some political dynasty, he was a nobody who became a somebody.

[granyys]

Mike - I agree with you that Republicans in the House maintained remarkable solidarity in voting, but in an election year when every Republican was afraid of being branded a RINO I actually think the job of maintaining that solidarity sort of did itself. How would Boehner have fared as minority leader in the far more independent-minded Senate? That i'm not so sure. I don't think Boehner is deserving of Person of the Year - no one that voted in this election did so BECAUSE of John Boehner. He was mentioned as a rallying cry simply because, by default, he was going to be the guy replacing Pelosi. Also, personally I don't think his background makes him worthy of being PoY. Lots of people have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. Kudos to him for the hard work, but he's not PoY.

I actually think Assange is a decent pick. I don't think we saw all of the real-world consequences associated with Wikileaks. I guarantee you it seriously complicated US diplomatic and intelligence efforts throughout the world. Ask anyone in the State Department whether he was significant and I think the answer would be 'darn tootin'. Since PoY is for people with the most influence, not necessarily being positive, I would probably give him the nod.

[Mike the Progressive]

I never really said or thought that Boehner was the reason for the GOP victory, the credit for that goes to Obama and the Democrats. And though the partisan climate certainly played a role, he was still able to organized a solid opposition. In all honesty, I don't think he deserves PoY. Surely he is an admirable figure (IMO), but PoY, not so much.

In regards to Assange. I think first, if anybody deserves credit in that whole fiasco, it would be Pvt. Manning who actually obtained the information and leaked it and is being punished for it. Not Assange. That being said, I like neither. Manning is getting his just deserts. And for Assange, the only thing wikileaks really did was weaken the US' foreign policy and endangered the lives of soldiers. Neither of which I'm a fan of.

What I really liked about Time's pick is that it is fairly neutral. I would have been PO if Time picked Assange, most people don't even know who Boehner is, so Zuckerberg is the safe and fair pick.

[granyys]

I can see your argument with Manning. I would have to think about whether or not to go with Assange or Manning if I had to actually decide the issue. I think that if Wikileaks hadn't been created and available that Manning wouldn't have pulled off his heist. Knowing that he had a place to take the info I suspect (although can't say for sure) emboldened him.

And of course, I don't like either Assange or Manning either, and agree with you that the leaks are dangerous and possibly deadly. That wouldn't affect my decision on who to pick though - notorious, evil, ridiculous people sometimes are the most influential or significant, and that's how I would pick my PoY.

[Mike the Progressive]

That's fair, I forgot that even the worst of people deserve attention. Not praise, but attention.

However if I recall correctly Manning sent the info. to several large media outlets, the NY Times included. So I don't know how necessary wikileaks was. Instead I thought it represented an "Age of Transparency and Accountability." Necessary? I dunno. But new and symbolic, certainly.

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

Dec 30, 2010 6:05:20 GMT -5 Guy said:

China is overestimated.

John Boehner, next Speaker of the House

Hmm... No. Boehner had hardly any effect on the election cycle. Democrats lost the House, the Republicans didn't win it. Well, it's almost always like that -- the majority loses elections, the minority doesn't win them.

He isn't even the main Republican figure yet. As someone who closely follows the HoR, Boehner has been one of the weakest Minority Leaders I can remember.



Absolutely not. There are at least 20 nations out there more significant than North Korea.



That's tough. On one hand, he did have a huge effect, on the other, his success is nearly almost built on others'.

Julian Assange

As Antony Green says about 500 times every election cycle, too early to call.

China: Is overrated in many ways, and underestimated in others. It is the worlds second largest economy, (arguably) second greatest military power, and (once again arguably) the dominant force in Asian politics. It also has risen this far, this fast without (major) military conflict... something unprecedented in world history.

Boehner: I was under the impression that Boehner was, if not the most effective, an effective Minority Leader... particularly when it comes to enforcing party discipline. But I'll take your word for it, I don't follow internal House workings particularly closely.

Kim Jong Un: North Korea is far from the most important nation on Earth, but it does have disproportionate importance due to it being so dangerously unpredictable. If America ever goes to war with China, it will probably be because of the DPRK. (God help us.)

Zuckerburg: Facebook had a good, no great, year... passing becoming the #2 website in the world and is (estimated to be) the third most valuable internet company in the world. But Apple had an even better year, selling product like crazy and passing Microsoft in market valuation... but no one is saying Steve Jobs should be PotY?

Julian Assange: No way. Assange is just a publicity hound. If you want to give PotY to someone involved with Wikileaks (which hasn't really done anything important) give it to Bradley Manning who sacrificed his freedom to give them pretty much all their notable information.

New honorable mention: a joint award to David Cameron and Nick Clegg for pulling off one of the most unlikely coalitions in British history.

[Mike the Progressive]

Just one correction, Tsim Sha Tsui. Facebook had a great year. Its value tripled and it has become the most viewed site, surpassing Google.

[Guy]

second greatest military power

Niet!

Regarding House party discipline: Yes, the Republicans' party discipline was amazing, but it was more due to primary challenges rather than Boehner's leadership work.

But when you look at what the House Minority has actually accomplished, it is very little at all... All legislation easily sailed through the House.

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

Dec 30, 2010 14:24:08 GMT -5 Mike the Progressive said:

Just one correction, Tsim Sha Tsui. Facebook had a great year. Its value tripled and it has become the most viewed site, surpassing Google.

I said they had a great year.

However, it's value is purely theoretical, the latest estimate I've read (by the Los Angeles Times) was $42 billion dollars, which would make it the 149th largest company by market value on the Forbes Global 2000. It could go either way if it was actually traded on the market. (And if Zuckerburg & Co. thought that way would be up, I think they would have already been making moves towards an IPO.)

Also, I believe that while they may have surpassed Google in total hits (at least occassionally), including unique visitors and other metrics Google is still number one. (Not to denigrate Facebook's accomplishments.)

---

To Guy: was that "Niet" to China as second greatest military power? If so, I would agree that while the PLA has major flaws (no power projection, in particular), it is absolutely massive and relatively well-equipped. Russia's military is like the PLA's but with better leadership but worse morale. Various EU nations (Britain, France, Germany), Japan, and Australia have well-led, well-equipped forces that are just very small. Israel has, pound for pound, the best military the world has probably ever seen but again, it's small and geared for (offensive) defense. In other words, who would you pick for number two?

[Guy]

I'm really not an expert on militaries, but as far as I know consensus has it that Russia's military is superior. The niet wasn't me completely dismissing China having the second strongest military, rather portraying what the Russians would have to say about that...

[Mike the Progressive]

Dec 30, 2010 15:29:27 GMT -5 Tsim Sha Tsui said:

Dec 30, 2010 14:24:08 GMT -5 Mike the Progressive said:

Just one correction, Tsim Sha Tsui. Facebook had a great year. Its value tripled and it has become the most viewed site, surpassing Google.

I said they had a great year.

However, it's value is purely theoretical, the latest estimate I've read (by the Los Angeles Times) was $42 billion dollars, which would make it the 149th largest company by market value on the Forbes Global 2000. It could go either way if it was actually traded on the market. (And if Zuckerburg & Co. thought that way would be up, I think they would have already been making moves towards an IPO.)

The fact that Facebook is number 149 is kind of irrelevant. It's growing significantly and if China opens up its market, Zuckerberg is going to be even richer and Facebook even bigger. The move to create a facebook email, for one, shows its starting to take Google on directly. If they [Google] are not careful, they might lose their influence on the web.

[Blbbo]

This is not flamebait. I think Barack Obama should get a nod for POTY: In the face of several factors that I'll list below, he succeeded in ways that few (pragmatists) could have predicted.

His administration has carefully sidetsepped the black hole of constant media scrutiny and enacted through the dysfunctionality of the Congress some truly astonishing legislation. His inheritance (wars, economy, partisan viciousness, etc.) makes his cool demeanour and actual accomplishments even more stunning: two of two Supreme Court justices approved; healthcare overhaul (whatever you think of it, the fact the some check on private insurers' greed now exists is a social good); some checks on the voracious banking industry that might forestall a repeat of the economic crisis of 2008; withdrawal from Iraq; due diligence in not fulfilling campaign promises such as closing GITMO just to gain political points; repeal of the silly DADT policy; commitments tro those serving in our armed services beyond the lip service too often offered; and others more enlightened viewers can add.

I write again that this post is not flamebait: he's had a remarkable year regardless of what the Twitterati say. His avoidance of embracing the immediate in favor of the right impressed us.

Best to all for a happy new year whatever you think of this post,

Blbbo

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

Obama didn't have as bad a year as many would like to think, but he did lose the House and a lot of his luster. Not to mention last year he was Time's Person of the Year and won the world's first preemptive Nobel Peace Prize.

[Mike the Progressive]

That was strange. Though I think that was a rejection of Bush's foreign policy more than anything else.

[jennifergns]

Dec 30, 2010 14:24:08 GMT -5 Mike the Progressive said:

Just one correction, Tsim Sha Tsui. Facebook had a great year. Its value tripled and it has become the most viewed site, surpassing Google.

I have no idea why facebook is so popular/famous. It is a quite boring site after many months if you haven't friends from other cities or countries (to maintain contact), if you only have your friends who absolutely knows you and you absolutely knows them. Also in my country we have a more popular social portal, which is totally like a Facebook (photos, comments, games etc.) but Facebook is so popular in the world so everyone of my friends must have an Facebook's account because it is trendy..I have profile on Facebook but after many, many months of using, it bored me. Friends always doing the same things, most of phrases with "funny" texts, aren't intelligent, addictive - contrary: they are often stupid, too simply, vulgar. Most of games aren't very sophisticated also.
But I completely understand that every person of you all, have right to like Facebook and have right to disagree with me. I expect what you will say: delete a profile. Maybe someday, but now I haven't need to keep an eye on my profile.

Btw sorry for every possible typos or grammar errors.

[Mike the Progressive]

I have no idea why it is popular, but it is. I guess having a social network can be a good and bad thing.