#061 - Pay to Stay?

Look, we've all heard the arguments on both sides. Should NCAA athletes get paid to play, should they not, should we scrap this discussion completely, should the government go completely communist and then it doesn't matter? All the options are out there on the board. I'm not interested in rehashing all of them and picking which is the best. That's not appealing in any way. Frankly, the analysts like Jay Bilas who are on the side of "Pay" have sounded very thick-skulled to me, just rah-rahing for the players without having a real contingency plan to set it into motion. (Like, only pay college football and basketball athletes, because they make money. Oh, brilliant.) Likewise, those on the side of "Don't Pay" are equally if not MORE obtuse, as they ignore all the realities of the current sporting world in the name of amateurism. Why is amateurism even important any more? The Olympics host professionals. The only reason to maintain amateurism is to maintain NCAA eligibility. Seriously.

So instead of go over the old arguments, I wanted to focus on something that really stood out to me when I sat down to think about what has been going on--notably Reggie Bush, Terrelle Pryor, and Cam Newton. Yes, all of these guys have suffered from their missteps as college athletes, and have left a firestorm of issues in their wake. Now everyone and their grandmother is jumping on the radio shouting about why they should be paid or why they shouldn't be paid or whether or not the professional leagues should come down hard on them. The NCAA has wound itself into this situation where it's unlike any other organization in the world. Really. What can you compare it to? It's not like a union, it's not like a corporation, it's not even like the corresponding professional leagues. And that's why nobody has any answers. They can spin things the way they want, because they're the only ones who have any control over it. They're constantly in investigations, and come out on the other side saying things like, "They paid a national recruiter for information about college recruits." (This is a bad thing in the NCAA, even though it sounds like good business sense.) And then they say more ridiculous things like, "Cecil Newton asked for money for his son to play at Mississippi State, but Auburn and Cam Newton knew nothing about it." (Talk about opening Pandora's Box.)

Understandably, college coaches and athletes and staff members are scratching their heads trying to decide how to continue succeeding in their profession that seems to be overrun with violations (similar to MLB's "Keeping up with the Bondses") while attempting to AVOID those violations. I can imagine that it's very difficult. Nobody likes being left behind, and this is true on both sides of the relationship--schools want to have the best players, and the players want to have what other players have. If Reggie Bush is driving around town in a new Mercedes, why isn't Offensive Lineman Tom driving around in a new car as well? Hell, he's the one who blocks for Bush, opening up massive holes so he can pad his 9.5 yards per carry number.

So I have a proposal. And as much as I am sick of Bilas yapping about paying players every time he opens his mouth, part of my idea comes from something he said. He made reference to the fact that other students at the school are able to profit off of their abilities. They can get internships that pay (and I'm sure even he knows it's pennies compared to a professional athlete) for the skills that they've received from the school. So why can't athletes get that same deal?

Well, it's not that simple. Athletes are playing for the school, which means you're talking about expecting the schools to pay the players. Then you're thinking, "Well, how do they do it? Do they pay every single player $10K a year, and that's that? Or do they pay the quarterbacks more? Or is it an open marketplace where teams will bid on a player the same as the job market?" It's just insane. It opens up so many questions that would likely end college athletics as we know it. There are two main reasons why I think the "pay the players" mission is getting so popular right now.

1) Schools are profiting off the players and the players are getting none of it.

2) Players are ditching school at the first sniff of money, which is bad for the education system, and (more importantly to them) bad for the competition level of college sports.

So here's what I think.

Why not let the players profit off of their abilities while they're in school playing for the team--in every way EXCEPT getting paid to play. Professional athletes make money in lots of different ways, not just from their contract to play with their organization. They appear in commercials, they sign autographs, they hold instructional camps, they make appearances on television shows, they promote items. Why not make this true for a college athlete as well? College is about giving students opportunities and teaching them how to utilize their skills in the real world. There's not a more perfect example than this. A big time program signs a new recruit and he helps them win games and sell tickets. The college benefits. As a result of his newfound celebrity, the local car dealership wants to have him pitch Fords in a commercial. They pay him $2,000 for his appearance, and he benefits. Why would this not make sense?

If I was attending NYU for Acting and Steven Spielberg called me up and said, "Hey kid, you're the guy I want for the sidekick in my next movie," I would not only take the role, I'd be paid for it, AND I'd return to school when it was done. I know this is not exactly the same thing, because that's like saying a player could go play in a professional league over the summer and then come back and play for his team in the winter. It's a little different, but I think the premise is the same. Let the students profit off of their skills. It would teach them something about the real world. A lot more than coddling them in some uber-protected environment would.

College athletics are only as popular as they are because it's a two-way street. It's simple economics--even though people tense up and scream when they think of money and college athletes. An athlete will choose to attend a university on an athletic scholarship because he believes the value of what he is receiving is greater than what he is giving up to go there. And in turn, the school will hand out a scholarship because it believes that it will receive greater value than it is giving up out of the deal. You have to keep up your grades, stay out of trouble, and go to practice if you want to play on the team. If you have a job outside of school, so be it. Good for you, making money off of the hard work you put in. Hopefully you'll get something more out of school than just playing basketball, but if you don't, hey, it's not like you're the first.

I'm not sure that this is the best solution, or if there even IS a best solution. Maybe schools should just completely separate athletics into a minor league system. You don't attend the school, you just play for the Ohio State Buckeyes minor league football team. I don't know. All the possibilities are out there. But it seems to me that if you can provide someone else with a service that they are willing to pay you for, your college shouldn't prevent you from profiting from the transaction (well, unless it's illegal, I suppose).

Maybe then you'd stick around school and actually learn a little something for a change.

#058 - Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)

Director: Banksy (ostensibly)

Writer: Nobody (apparently)

Runtime: 87 min

One of the most awe-inspiring traits an artist can have is self-awareness. Too often you see artists and celebrities engrossed in themselves and consumed by their universe-altering lives that they lose the perspective that they used to have, you know, before they were Masters of the Galaxy. But I'm starting to think that, maybe, with the deluge of critique available on the internet, and the instantly available public reaction thanks to the social networking phenomenon--perhaps artistic self-awareness is reaching the tipping point. Instead of having the rare moment when a big time star can have a laugh at himself, the marketplace is somewhat flooded with either genuine or microwave-ready versions of levity where we're all supposed to go, "See! He has a sense of humor about himself!" The most obvious example of this is Tom Cruise's Les Grossman cameo from Tropic Thunder (and subsequently the MTV Movie Awards), or alternatively, Joaquin Phoenix's mockumentary I'm Still Here when we're supposed to believe that he's just kidding about being a wacko.

The problem with all of this--if there is a problem--is that you can't separate what has been cooked up by a publicist and what is coming from an artist's own true self-awareness. I mean, I tend to think that Cruise's embrace of the Grossman thing is tightly tied to the public's positive reaction; but how aware is he that part of the reason that people think it's funny is because he's Tom Cruise, someone who is seemingly going off the deep end and is always wearing a made-for-tv facade. Jack Black in that role would not have raised eyebrows, because, well, that's Jack Black and that's what he does.

Exit Through the Gift Shop ends up hitting on this very same concept, albeit in a way that I'm not 100% sure of. Either Thierry Guetta, the main character of the film and eventual street art phenomenon Mr. Brainwash, is a real person who has all the traits others claim him to have throughout the film, or he's a real person who was molded and prodded to be the "artist" he becomes by the puppetmaster Banksy. Either way, the movie starts out with what I find to be a rather fascinating authentic documentary about street artists (ones that already exist and are successful) that ends up being hijacked in the end by this ballooning figure of Mr. Brainwash who clouds the art world skies and borders on over-saturating the market. Mr. Brainwash is ridiculous, and unabashedly so, seemingly without any respect of the fact that his success is not due to his own skill, but rather to the overwhelming hype machine created in part by Banksy. At one point in the movie, Banksy claims to have not foreseen the effect that his promotion of MBW would have, but I can only imagine that his very HOPE was to crash through the ceiling of notoriety.

In fact, I partially believe that Banksy shaped Guetta into MBW so he could gauge the impact an artist with relatively no skill could have as long as he followed an established plan of promotion--first covertly, then overtly. According to the film, that impact was monumental. He wasn't overnight going to become the hallowed critical success that Banksy himself was, but MBW ended up being a bit of a smash hit. His art show opening was visited by thousands of people and he ended up selling over a million dollars worth of art. Not quite Banksy numbers, but very impressive. Only, in the end, I have to believe that this sort of hurt Banksy.

Elitism goes hand in hand with art. I think it's one of the main reasons why people enjoy dissecting artists and their work--to vault themselves into some level of elitism. It's why students on college networks share their music libraries. "Oh yeah, John's library is good--but have you seen Derek's?!" It's why people like to discuss their favorite movies and what they thought of the latest big-budget trash. If your favorite movie is Forrest Gump or Pirates of the Caribbean, well then good for you. Now, if your favorite movie is The 400 Blows or Yojimbo, well then, now we're talking! Picking out chic from shit is an essential tool for any would-be snob. But gallery art is probably the MOST difficult medium to work with when doing your elitist sorting. There are no off-key singers, there are no one-liners that fall flat on their face. Stuff that looks kind of weird to you can suddenly be amazing as long as you overhear the right person giving it praise. It's a tough field to follow, especially modern art, where you can't just get by with a collection of names. I personally feel that you have to be honest with yourself and just stick with whatever you like. I know I've been to galleries in the past and have heard people gushing over certain pieces that I wasn't too fond of, and there's an urge to over-analyze it, to convince yourself that you're wrong and someone else is right--but I really do think that the things you like are going to come right out and sock you in the face, so don't worry about looking too hard.

However, I have to admit that by the end of Exit, I started to resent MBW and his success. I practiced the elitism just the way it always happens. And I think that's kind of the reaction they're hoping you have. It feels a little bit like the self-aware (Banksy) having fun with the un-aware (Guetta): "Hey, this movie is so successful, and look at you, you're a big hit!" whilst snickering behind the scenes at his lack of skill and certain-to-be fleeting fame. He even did a spectacular job of selecting headphone-wearing teenagers to give MBW props in the interview portions, in contrast to the articulate adults who posited that MBW's work was heavy-handed and cliche, ripping off those who came before him. But, someone paid money for his pieces. Lots of someones. And lots of money. So I'm curious about how that made Banksy feel, along with Shepard Fairley, and Space Invader. Were they proud of themselves for "building" this budding star? For manipulating the social consciousness enough to make him appear legit? Or did they feel a little bit kicked in the stomach? Their work, which they had hoped would capture the attention of the global community, was being lumped beside the work of a guy with less artistic talent, but more grandiose intentions. After all, I think at the core, what artists want is for their work to be appreciated. Otherwise they would just keep all their paintings inside a locked closet and never show them to anyone. Street artists are performers. When you walk the streets, you're blasted with material left and right, some of which might LOOK like art, some of which might not. Only the best stands out. And I think that's what they want, is to stand out. Is making MBW relevant their way of laughing at the public? Or is it their way of truly accepting the reality that art doesn't have a set of requirements, that you can be good one minute and not the next (or vice versa), and that many of the people in the world simply like art that they're told they should like? I know I'm going to offend a lot of people, but I had a similar reaction to MBW as I did to the novel The Kite Runner. It felt like it was all hype. When I read The Kite Runner, I couldn't help but think, "Here's a guy, who's not really a writer, who badly wants to tell this melodramatic story. And it's got a perfect summer blockbuster story, and it happens to be about a place and culture that is very mainstream." So it's built up as this EVENT, this book that everyone is reading, and you need to read it because your neighbor has read it, because it talks about all this stuff that you don't know about, and can you believe the Middle East is like this? And now, here's MBW, taking this underground world of street art, where you know almost nothing about the players, and pumping it mainstream, plastering it on television and periodicals. And people readily absorb it, because the hype machine is telling them to.

If I were Banksy, I would be disappointed. Maybe he finds enjoyment that his little pet project has become popular enough to open a second show in New York (meaning he's already succeeded in LA and NYC). But I think I would have hoped that he would pop up for a minute, have everyone go, "Hey, look what's happening here!", and then dissolve into nothing. Because artists do want their work to be appreciated--which Banksy's no doubt is--but appreciated fairly. If something is simply better than what they've done, they want to address it and accept it. And, in the same breath, they don't want to be categorized alongside inferior artists. That is why many actors and writers so easily reference older artists and commend their work, yet are hesitant to compare themselves to contemporaries. Being a working artist means you're still in the race, you can't look to your left and say, "Well I just can't beat that person." The legends have already finished the race, we already know the winners and losers--rather, we know the winners, the losers we generally forget. It feels a little bit like Banksy was saying, "I'm sick of being called a vandal with a spray can--so I'm going to show you the difference between what I do and what a guy with a spray can does." That distinction is what drives you to go from hobbyist to artist. That distinction changes your work from whitewash predecessor to million-dollar auction item.

And this is where you really have to question what Banksy is in it for? Is he really just making art for art's sake? Is he playing around with the public, playing around with the critics? Or somewhere inside, does he WANT to have the fans and recognition that he has, and would he be worse off without them? I've seen other people go down the route of "I really don't care what anyone has to say", and it's rather off-putting. When the Coen Brothers (whom I love as filmmakers) won the Academy Award for Best Picture for No Country For Old Men, they acted as if they couldn't be bothered. Like they hadn't just achieved something. Like winning the award now was belittling to them since they had already made so many fantastic films. I think they're brilliant, but I wasn't a fan of this reaction at all. Everyone knows the Academy makes ridiculous selections and perhaps the Coen Brothers should have won earlier awards, but Oscars or no Oscars, their movie was beloved by many, many people, myself included, and I kind of just wanted them to acknowledge the fact that they had REALLY made an impression on lots of people. Poking fun at critics or audiences is one thing--artists should always do that, lest the audiences THEMSELVES begin to grow big heads--but I think having the distinction of worldwide appreciation is one of the clearest signs that, "Dude, you've done it." Banksy wasn't nearly this supercilious, but he did toe the line between thick skinned and aloof. For what it's worth, Guetta/MBW cleared WANTED to be loved. He wanted to be a brand, instead of pretending like he didn't care and hoping it would happen anyway.

It was truly a fascinating movie, and brought to mind way, way more concepts than were presented plainly. I'm probably overthinking it, engaged in an inner battle between the part of me that accepts that I'm a fan, and the part of me that desires to be an artist. But I think the movie turned at the end; when MBW became an icon, Exit Through the Gift Shop went from being an interesting movie about the world of street artists, introducing you to wonderful characters you never would have known about, to being a commentary on artists and social manipulation. If you've read this far, know that I suggest that you see it, and that I hope you will find it enjoyable. This long, long writeup of mine is less about the movie itself and more the outlet I needed to discuss some concepts that I had been thinking about.

#047 - Joe Camel, eat your heart out.

Want to see something that is beyond wrong? Like, that will astonish you in every way possible, potentially to the point that your head will just explode and leave gooey debris all over your computer screen? Nice. I have just the thing:

(Video courtesy of Reuters. Not like they gave me permission or anything.)

This brings to mind so many questions. So, so many questions. But I'm not even sure where to start. Here goes--how does this even get filmed? How does someone hear about this, and have their first thought be, "Hey, let's take video of this for a new service!" and not, "Holy crap! This needs to stop!"? Seriously, this is absurd. I've never smoked, and am pretty much against it on all counts, so naturally I'm a biased observer, but I can at least admit that adults, when given the choice, sometimes choose to become addicted to this product, so there must be some benefit. But children? This kid looks about 15 pounds overweight to begin with, which is horrible, but add to it the endless list of life-enhancing health benefits of smoking, and I'm pretty sure he'll live only long enough to grow his first facial hair--a very thin, patchy mustache. And considering he'll stunt his growth at 3 feet 5 inches tall, he'll be one of the creepiest looking beings on the planet. But at least his voice will be nice and raspy, if he can even talk at all, so he has a future in radio.

I fear for his life. And the lives of everyone in his town. Because honestly, the more I watch this video, he looks totally badass. And reminds me a little bit of Oddjob. Okay, I'm a bad person.

#046 - Brutal? Yes. Deserved? Probably.

Now, I don't advocate animal killing, nor do I advocate human killing, but I randomly came across this picture and was instantly mind-warped.

If you're interested to know, the bullfighter did survive the attack. I'm not sure if the bull did, however, as my friend Dan and I were just commenting that there's an almost 0% chance the bull would make it out alive after something like that, which makes bullfighting--already a ridiculous event--simply unfair on all grounds. I countered with the argument that at least bulls can dish out the punishment, unlike in a similar dog-fighting scenario (or cock-fighting or snake-fighting or whatever sick animal quarreling you spend your free time on).

As much as I am physically pained by the photo, I think the reality is that this dude had it coming. If you step into the ring with a beast that outweighs you by two thousand pounds, and you intentionally provoke this creature--well, you better be ready to deal with the consequences. Luckily for him, his wounds were treatable and he'll suffer major but not life-threatening injuries.

For more information, including a video (which I haven't watched, and I don't suggest you do), follow this link: http://sportsbybrooks.com/photo-bullfighter-gored-in-neck-through-mouth-28405

#042 - Where to Land on Arizona?

The speculation and public outcry regarding Arizona's questionable new bill has reached critical mass. Just about every news outlet is covering it about 6 hours a day, and celebrities, athletes, tweeters, politicians, foreigners, Democrats, Republicans, and nobodies have been chiming in with their two cents about the recent decision. Frankly, I'm not sure how to feel. I'm also quite worried that not being sure immediately paints me as insensitive and race-biased. It seems like the overwhelming answer (especially for someone of my loose political ideals) is that this new law is wrong, wrong, wrong, and fringes on alienating people's civil liberties. It seems like what I should be doing is slamming this bill for all its worth.

But the more I think about it, the more I really don't think there IS a right answer. At least not right now. I watched an interview the other day with a local Arizona sheriff and a California state politician, and besides the fact that neither of them really addressed what the other person was saying, it seemed like only the sheriff had the clear cut intention of trying to tackle the problem. The politician said things like, "This is wrong, it's unconstitutional, and what we need to do is sit down and talk about a better way to approach the problem." I'm not saying he's wrong, but that response is one that I've really grown tired of over the years. When one side doesn't like the the solution the other side has come up with, instead of coming up with a solution of their own, their response is usually, "Let's sit down and really talk about this." Do you think the Arizona state senate didn't TALK about it? Do you think they didn't spend hours and days and weeks contemplating different proposals, trying to figure out how to deal with the problem? Of course they would love it if they could have ten thousand armed guards standing along the border protecting the country. It's just not possible. And everyone has admitted this, they've said point blank, the only reason they had to find themselves in this unenviable position is because the federal government hasn't provided them with any of the solutions they sought. While a lot of people don't appreciate what they've decided to do, and would prefer to get this going in some real serious Congressional debate, think of it this way--schools in bad neighborhoods constantly have issues with students bringing weapons to school. They need a solution, they need a long-term solution to this problem. But how long could that take? Months? Years? Right now, the first thing they can do is set up metal detectors and search the students on the way in. Sure, not every student is carrying a weapon. In fact, a huge percentage of them are not. But would you rather them let the students continue to do what they're doing until that long-term solution is established? No. Hell no. What you do is put those metal detectors up and get cracking right away on that long-term solution. You certainly don't want the short-term solution to be the long-term one. It's ugly, it slows things down, it stops people from doing other things that they should be doing, and it hinders the freedom of the 95% of people who aren't the cause of the problems. But right now? Imagine the following scenario:

1) Guard stops Student A and checks his bag. Finds nothing. Student A annoyed. Guard stops Student B and checks his bag, finds knife. Student B is detained.

2) Student A and Student B go into school undeterred. In the bathroom, Student B pulls knife on Student A.

It's not too hard to make the connection from that to:

1) Officer stops Worker A and asks for identification. Worker A produces state ID. Guard stops Worker B and asks for identification. Worker B can't produce legal documentation. Worker B is detained.

2) Worker A and Worker B both attend work undeterred. Worker B works for uncompetitive wages and Worker A loses out as a result.

Obviously, in both these scenarios, option 1 is not the ideal long-term solution. There needs to be a change in culture. Businesses (especially farms and blue-collar industries that are hiring illegal immigrants) need to be punished for practices that appeal to illegal workers. But those laws are already on the books. It just takes a lot of time and a lot of effort to figure out a way to prevent employers from undercutting their legal workers with illegal ones.

The part that's hard to address is the issue of profiling. As much as you can say that the officers won't employ profiling techniques (which is a new amendment they've added to the bill), the reality is it's going to happen. White guy in suit and tie sitting on a bench waiting for a bus. Probably not going to ID him. Hispanic guy in jeans and workboots sitting on a bench waiting for a bus. Hmmm... I know that that's unfair, and for legal Hispanic residents who have worked their asses off to come to this country and stay here, it's going to be a pain in the ass. They're going to be subjected to the same constant scrutiny that Middle Eastern descendants are subjected to at airports. What I'm sincerely hoping is that it's not nearly as intrusive, or assumptive. I think what the state has announced to its residents is that it wants everyone to be able to provide documentation of their legal status, to be ready to do that. They should absolutely not let this new law be interpreted as freedom to search and seize whatever they please. That's the WRONG approach. The more reasonable one? "Hey, there are a bunch of guys waiting on a corner to go out to the fields and work, maybe I'll just stop and ask them for ID."

Sadly, I know I'm being naive and idealistic when I think that maybe things will go in this nice, clean-cut way. I realize you're going to get all kinds of police intimidation across the board, and many times they will probably use their position to leverage things out of civilians (even legal citizens) in an underhanded manner. You kind of have to accept that in any circumstance where police officers are given an extra bump in power. And most likely it's going to end up hurting the Hispanic residents of the state, even the ones who have been there just as long if not longer than most white people. And there are ways, I think, to make it a little more even across the board, and to limit the direct influence of profiling on the state citizens. If they're serious about making this identification law stick, they could apply it to certain events that people might commonly do--for instance, at certain transactions, you must provide proof of legal residency. Driver's license, state ID, passport, whatever. At every point of sale for liquor or tobacco, maybe. Why not? You're already supposed to to prove your age, why not start doing it for everyone? States are making huge tax profits on the sale of liquor and tobacco, if they want to prove they're serious about trying to cut down on illegal residents (by pinpointing behavior, not race) they can do it at these times.

I'm not sure, I think I'm just rambling, and I haven't really thought these things through so thoroughly. I think the important thing is to limit the sort of imposing Big Brother figure that is going to loom over Hispanic residents, at least for the time being. American citizens are supposed to have certain rights, regardless of their ancestry or looks. It's important to maintain that staple of our country's political freedom, but the fact is, illegal immigrants don't really have those same rights. If you're here illegally, you shouldn't be here. I know our country was founded on an open door policy, but with the way things are now, there are too many people who would be risking their lives and livelihoods to let things continue the way they're going. Not to say that I would be one of those people--the truth is I wouldn't. I'm physically and mentally distanced from what's going on in Arizona, and so are a lot of the people who are spouting off about injustice this or unconstitutional that. It's hard for people outside of that situation to really understand what it's like. But I do know that here in Philadelphia, we have our own seemingly endless problems--including a big problem with violence. And I think that if I had to show my ID to police officers a little more often in order to ensure that the streets and sidewalks of the city would be a little safer, it's something I think I could live with--as long as I didn't become subject to hostile or abusive treatment. Maybe that's oversimplification. But violence is a problem here, and I'd give a couple minutes a day if the administration were trying to step up its efforts to crack down.

There's always a delicate balance that needs to be struck with these things. These days, keeping people safe and happy are usually two separate, opposing directives. Arizona seems to be crying out for help, just as a friend who is having some trouble might. Maybe they're doing things not everyone agrees with right now, but they don't seem to be left with much of a choice. And now that they're doing what they have to do, it's up to everyone else to pitch in and help out--that is, unless you want to see them go down a potentially destructive path.

#041 - Gaga > NPH > Obama > Lindsey Vonn > Bill Gates > Snooki > Netanyahu

What does it all mean?

It means TIME Magazine's Top 100 Most Influential People in the World List is out.

(And by Top 100, they mean, they offered up 200 candidates, and people voted, and this is how they turned out.)

(BTW, the link on my post's title is one of my favorite of all time.)

The 2010 TIME 100 Poll

Rank	Name	Avg. Rating	Total Votes
1	Mir-Hossein Mousavi	99	1492879
2	Han Han	99	873220
3	Yu-Na Kim	96	810243
4	Rain	98	635793
5	Lady Gaga	92	567166
6	Adam Lambert	98	372180
7	Susan Boyle	99	152798
8	Liu Xiaobo	99	148556
9	Sachin Tendulkar	96	137496
10	Zahra Rahnavard	99	132787
11	Conan O'Brien	93	130610
12	Roger Federer	98	100441
13	Shah Rukh Khan	96	100717
14	Robert Pattinson	92	96437
15	Penny Arcade guys	93	56076
16	Dana White	88	50275
17	Shirin Ebadi	98	36275
18	Neil Patrick Harris	89	38732
19	Apolo Ohno	95	33111
20	Ron Paul	94	32761
21	Barack Obama	76	30767
22	Neil Gaiman	89	21241
23	Rachael Ray	90	20834
24	Chelsea Handler	88	20278
25	Elton John	80	22016
26	Meryl Streep	95	17552
27	Joannie Rochette	92	18093
28	Taylor Swift	79	20245
29	The Lost creators	87	17910
30	Saad Hariri	95	15747
31	Hillary Clinton	66	22390
32	Temple Grandin	94	15495
33	Andrew Breitbart	89	16124
34	Kanye West	81	17046
35	Beyoncé	76	17619
36	Manny Pacquiao	91	13714
37	Michelle Obama	67	16027
38	Stephen Colbert	86	12432
39	Jon Stewart	86	11843
40	Glenn Beck	65	15349
41	Sandra Bullock	66	14927
42	Sarah Palin	31	32145
43	Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan	88	10656
44	Cristiano Ronaldo	84	9497
45	Scott Brown	71	11066
46	Emma Watson	86	9057
47	Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva	92	8415
48	Lindsey Vonn	65	11743
49	James Cameron	54	13593
50	Bo Xilai	79	9345
51	Olympia Snowe	91	7951
52	Ellen DeGeneres	79	8976
53	Nancy Pelosi	53	12057
54	Betty White	89	7026
55	Ashton Kutcher	73	8028
56	Kaká	87	6713
57	Jeff Bridges	44	13149
58	Oprah Winfrey	67	8569
59	Preity Zinta	89	5590
60	Manmohan Singh	84	5651
61	Steve Jobs	83	5514
62	Bill Clinton	70	6397
63	Nicolas Sarkozy	46	9441
64	Seth MacFarlane	67	6253
65	Cheryl Cole	76	5327
66	Rahul Singh	85	4276
67	Lea Michele	81	4321
68	Recep Tayyip Erdogan	87	3731
69	Prince	80	4044
70	Bill and Melinda Gates	84	3505
71	Tiger Woods	40	7255
72	Kathryn Bigelow	67	4393
73	Banksy	77	3743
74	Quentin Tarantino	80	3513
75	Clint Eastwood	83	3257
76	Peter Molyneux	62	4318
77	Pete Cashmore	70	3845
78	Roger Ailes	50	5245
79	Rachel Maddow	71	3593
80	Snooki	19	13559
81	Jane Lynch	77	3248
82	J.J. Abrams	80	3100
83	Simon Cowell	63	3742
84	Patti Smith	88	2645
85	Marissa Mayer	71	3124
86	Thierry Henry	76	2877
87	Muammar Gaddafi	33	6580
88	Rahm Emanuel	56	3835
89	George Clooney	65	3302
90	Alec Baldwin	53	3901
91	Dennis Crowley	61	3354
92	Mo'Nique	46	4345
93	Annise Parker	77	2579
94	Paul Volcker	51	3822
95	Ricky Gervais	76	2490
96	Robin Li	75	2523
97	Zach Galifianakis	76	2484
98	Andy Samberg	75	2417
99	Billy Graham	53	3406
100	Chetan Bhagat	74	2258
101	Matthew Weiner	62	2667
102	Dave Eggers	49	3270
103	Drew Brees	73	2155
104	Tim Gunn	71	2213
105	Suzanne Collins	81	1879
106	David Chang	39	3911
107	Drew Pinsky	69	2198
108	Arne Duncan	51	2894
109	Jay Leno	13	10597
110	Benjamin Netanyahu	59	2396
111	Sonia Sotomayor	68	2074
112	Amy Poehler	65	2116
113	Arnold Schwarzenegger	60	2293
114	Warren Buffett	77	1729
115	Grant Achatz	64	2070
116	Kristen Wiig	63	2091
117	Gabourey Sidibe	60	2167
118	Marc Jacobs	67	1923
119	Meghan McCain	49	2666
120	Jenny McCarthy	42	3087
121	Jimmy Fallon	57	2252
122	Mehmet Oz	71	1691
123	Neill Blomkamp	77	1522
124	Vivienne Westwood	62	1866
125	Tomoaki Kato	82	1406
126	Kathleen Merrigan	79	1453
127	Mitt Romney	41	2805
128	Greg Mortenson	77	1475
129	David Boies & Theodore Olson	65	1557
130	Michael Pollan	73	1348
131	Dan Coudreaut	33	2959
132	Judd Apatow	70	1409
133	Eric Cantor	52	1823
134	T Bone Burnett	37	2556
135	Hugo Chávez	48	1967
136	Zoe Saldana	64	1489
137	Rupert Murdoch	56	1678
138	Wang Qishan	61	1499
139	Bradley Cooper	61	1506
140	Anna Wintour	65	1400
141	Angela Merkel	73	1244
142	Jerry Seinfeld	54	1668
143	Timothy Geithner	51	1757
144	Ben Stiller	63	1404
145	Jason Reitman	63	1384
146	Jimmy Kimmel	66	1278
147	Stanley McChrystal	63	1277
148	Atul Gawande	64	1266
149	Catherine Ashton	37	2111
150	Danica Patrick	60	1209
151	Bode Miller	51	1303
152	Tim Westergren	63	1042
153	Zaha Hadid	70	935
154	Jean-Max Bellerive	75	870
155	Tim White	52	1250
156	Didier Drogba	53	1222
157	Ben Bernanke	55	1174
158	Mary Karr	69	930
159	Kim Clijsters	57	1118
160	Elon Musk	70	900
161	Renzo Piano	69	886
162	Paul Farmer	58	1048
163	Elizabeth Warren	62	958
164	Richard Goldstone	70	843
165	Samuel Alito, Jr.	60	979
166	Johanna Sigurdardottir	57	1022
167	Peter Orszag	46	1218
168	Serena Williams	51	1033
169	Bristol Palin	16	3183
170	Jasper Schuringa	64	810
171	John Madden	47	1083
172	Mike Mullen	53	966
173	Christine Lagarde	68	737
174	J.T. Wang	64	759
175	Lee Kuan Yew	65	749
176	Joe Lieberman	25	1940
177	Diane Nelson	60	793
178	Michael Lewis	45	1047
179	Carlos Slim Helú	57	838
180	Akio Toyoda	49	942
181	Ferran Adrià	46	989
182	Anwar al-Awlaki	28	1564
183	Evan Bayh	31	1344
184	Dominique Strauss-Kahn	61	668
185	Salam Fayyad	59	683
186	Cory Booker	59	674
187	Harvey Weinstein	49	802
188	Lawrence Summers	54	693
189	Joseph (Sepp) Blatter	47	794
190	Mark Carney	59	622
191	Alex Rodriguez	36	1019
192	Lisa Jackson	57	643
193	Yukio Hatoyama	47	781
194	Lloyd Blankfein	41	868
195	Michael Sherraden	59	601
196	Tidjane Thiam	58	615
197	Jaron Lanier	56	633
198	Jeff Zucker	13	2645
199	Elizabeth Gilbert	45	791
200	Edna Foa	55	638

Read more:http://www.time.com/

Special shoutout to Jeff Zucker with his killer 13 rating at #198. NBC is in good hands, folks.