Did You Know? #10

What is the World's most popular beer?

10. Asahi Super Dry (Japan) - 12.3 million barrels
9. Brahma (Brazil) - 17.4 million barrels
8. Miller Lite (USA) - 18 million barrels
7. Coors Light (USA) - 18.2 million barrels
6. Heineken (Netherlands) - 26 million barrels
5. Skol (Denmark) - 29.5 million barrels
4. Corona (Mexico) - 30.4 million barrels
3. Budweiser (USA) - 38.7 million barrels
2. Bud Light (USA) - 45.4 million barrels
1. Snow (China) - 50.8 million barrels

What Caught My Eye Today - Barack Obama's Foreign Policy Plan

Fred's Note: It occurs to me that in recent posts regarding the upcoming U.S. Presidential election that I am guilty of doing the same thing as various media outlets by rendering opinions on statements that I may have taken out of context. To be fair, I'm not a professional journalist and doubt very much that my blog will ever reach the critical mass that the New York Times does. However, the information is readily available to anyone who truly wants to make an informed decision come Election Day in November. With that in mind, over the next several days and weeks, I'll be posting excerpts from the websites of both the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney and the incumbent Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. It goes without saying that I will be adding some color commentary, but the content will be from the candidates themselves. 

Okay, boys and girls, this is the last one--Barack Obama's foreign policy plan.  Compared to Romney's plan (click here), the Obama plan seems almost non-existent.  My take is that if Obama wins a second term, we're likely to see more of the same.  Seriously though, not a single mention of Canada or Europe from either candidate? Where is the love, people?


President Obama has restored America’s standing across the globe and kept his promise to be a strong and responsible leader on foreign policy.

• Bringing our troops home from Afghanistan: President Obama is drawing down our troops in Afghanistan as we transition security responsibility to the Afghan people, and is on track to responsibly end the war there in 2014. Of course there is the little matter of that 10 year security agreement Obama signed with Afghanistan, but I guess there is a separate accounting of the troops that will be required to support that effort.
• A severely weakened al Qaeda: President Obama made the bold decision to order a raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, eliminating the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the only leader al Qaeda had ever known. I don't think anyone disputes that this was a gutsy call and a huge feather in Obama's cap, but it is not clear to me how this translates into a foreign policy plan for the next four years.
• Making progress toward a world without nuclear weapons: In 2010, President Obama announced an international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials in four years, and has worked to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea. Yeah, yeah and he got a Nobel Peace Prize to go along with it (clearly one of his better speeches), but where is the plan?
• Restoring America’s standing around the world: President Obama has strengthened our alliances around the world with friends like Israel, our NATO allies, and our partners in Asia and Latin America. And he has brought together international coalitions to confront shared challenges, such as Iran’s nuclear program. Seriously, dude, you had a great run, but what are you planning to do for an encore? Give me something to work with!

And that is pretty much it from the incumbent. No Russia, no Africa, no Latin America, no Asia, no Middle East. No nuthin' about nuthin' really. I guess it is all about the economy this year. 

As I said, this concludes our public service announcement series on the presidential candidates positions on key issues (not all, but most).  Now go out there and make your voices heard. Vote!

What Caught My Eye Today - Presidential Election

Presidential Election - 13 days to go. The debates are over, early voting is underway in a bunch of states, and the race to the White House is closer than ever. In recent days, polls have suggested the very real possibility of a popular vote win for Romney, but an Electoral College win for Obama, which if you didn't sleep through Civics class is the what really matters.  Romney continues to enjoy an upswing in positive momentum, despite   almost non-stop claims from the Obama campaign that he is flip-flopping his position on numerous issues in an attempt to win over the few remaining undecided voters. The number of toss up states continues to drop, with the biggest prizes still up for grabs appearing to be Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. In Congress, it appears that Democrats may be able to claim a moral victory by winning seats in both the Senate and the House, but not enough to change the balance of power.

What Caught My Eye Today - Mitt Romney's Foreign Policy Plan

Fred's Note: It occurs to me that in recent posts regarding the upcoming U.S. Presidential election that I am guilty of doing the same thing as various media outlets by rendering opinions on statements that I may have taken out of context.  To be fair, I'm not a professional journalist and doubt very much that my blog will ever reach the critical mass that the New York Times does. However, the information is readily available to anyone who truly wants to make an informed decision come Election Day in November. With that in mind, over the next several days and weeks, I'll be posting excerpts from the websites of both the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney and the incumbent Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. It goes without saying that I will be adding some color commentary, but the content will be from the candidates themselves.

The last of the presidential debates was conducted yesterday with emphasis on foreign policy (most pundits declared the debate a draw). How convenient that we wrap up our series on presidential plans with foreign policy?  Let's see how Mitt Romney views stack up.

As president, Mitt Romney will safeguard America and secure our country’s interests and most cherished ideals. A Romney foreign policy will proceed with clarity and resolve. The unifying thread of his national security strategy is American strength.  When America is strong, the world is safer. The best ally world peace has ever known is a strong America. The “last best hope of earth” was what Abraham Lincoln called our country. Mitt Romney believes in fulfilling the promise of Lincoln’s words and will defend America abroad in word and in deed.

• National Defense: As Commander-in-Chief, Mitt Romney will keep faith with the men and women who defend us just as he will ensure that our military capabilities are matched to the interests we need to protect. He will put our Navy on the path to increase its shipbuilding rate from nine per year to approximately fifteen per year, which will include three submarines per year. He will also modernize and replace the aging inventories of the Air Force, Army, and Marines, and selectively strengthen our force structure. And he will fully commit to a robust, multi-layered national ballistic-missile defense system to deter and defend against nuclear attacks on our homeland and our allies. This will not be a cost-free process. We cannot rebuild our military strength without paying for it. Mitt Romney will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts and return to the budget baseline established by Secretary Robert Gates in 2010, with the goal of setting core defense spending—meaning funds devoted to the fundamental military components of personnel, operations and maintenance, procurement, and research and development—at a floor of 4% of GDP. Interesting that the first thing, Romney mentions when it comes to foreign policy is national defense.  I'm not saying there isn't a correlation, but maybe boyfriend should give a second look at the emphasis he places on national defense with regard to foreign policy. Maybe, just maybe, that might help tone down the impression that he is a war monger.
• Israel: To ensure Israel’s security, Mitt Romney will work closely with Israel to maintain its strategic military edge. The United States will work intensively with Turkey and Egypt to shore up the now fraying relationships with Israel that have underpinned peace in the Middle East for decades. With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mitt Romney will reject any measure that would frustrate direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. He will make clear to the Palestinians that the unilateral attempt to decide issues that are designated for final negotiations by the Oslo Accords is unacceptable. Last time I checked a map, Israel and Iran were part of the Middle East, but it seems they warrant even more attention than the rest of the region, which after defense spending appears to be highest on Romney's foreign policy agenda. Now then, if I am reading the tea leaves correctly here, the message seems to be, "you mess with Israel, you mess with us...and you don't want to mess with us." Gee, I wonder who that comment might be directed toward?
• Iran: Romney’s strategy will be to end Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability, eliminate the threat of Iranian-backed nuclear terrorism against the United States and our allies, and prevent nuclear proliferation across the Middle East. U.S. policy toward Iran must begin with an understanding on Iran’s part that a military option to deal with their nuclear weapons program is very real and very credible. Romney will work with both Congress and international partners to implement newer and broader economic sanctions to increase pressure on the Iranian regime. He will also fully implement and step up enforcement of existing U.S. laws that bar commerce with Iran, such as the exportation of refined petroleum products to Iran. Mitt Romney will also push for greater diplomatic isolation of Iran. I'm not exactly sure how this plan differs from what the current administration is doing, but I guess Romney will somehow do it better.
• Middle East: Mitt Romney will pursue a strategy of supporting groups and governments across the Middle East to advance the values of representative government, economic opportunity, and human rights, and opposing any extension of Iranian or jihadist influence. The Romney administration will strive to ensure that the Arab Spring does not become an Arab Winter. Nice catchphrase, don't you think? Romney will make available technical assistance to governments and transitional bodies to promote democracy, good governance, and sound financial management. He will engage Congress and relevant executive branch agencies and begin organizing all diplomatic and assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one regional director. Romney would place a greater focus on ensuring that Egypt remains an ally of the United States. With regard to Syria,  Romney will implement a three-part strategy to undermine the Assad regime and bolster responsible elements of the opposition in order to hasten the transition to a legitimate and pluralistic government: (1) He will undermine Assad’s grip on power by increasing sanctions targeted at his regime, refrain from supporting any diplomatic initiative that allows Assad to remain, and encourage regime members to defect or seek exile.  (2) He will work with regime defectors, marshal our intelligence resources, and work with regional partners to identify, secure, and prevent the export of Syria’s WMD stockpiles. (3) He will work with partners to identify, organize, and facilitate arms to responsible members of the opposition who share our interests and values. In Iraq, Romney will use the broad array of our foreign-policy tools to establish a lasting relationship with Iraq, push back on growing Iranian influence, promote institutions of liberty, and guarantee that Baghdad remains a solid partner in a volatile and strategically vital region. On the surface, having a regional director doesn't seem like a bad idea, but here's the question--to what end will having a regional director any better or worse? Dude readily agrees that the region is in "tumult" and I guess he thinks that another layer of bureaucracy will somehow make things better. For a guy who champions smaller government, this seems to be somewhat contrary to that.  As for Syria and Iraq, Romney's plan seems to be a continuation of the current plan. But again, presumably he'll do it better than the current guy.
• Afghanistan & Pakistan: Romney will review our transition to the Afghan military by holding discussions with our commanders in the field. He will order a full interagency assessment of our military and assistance presence in Afghanistan to determine the level required to secure our gains and to train Afghan forces to the point where they can protect the sovereignty of Afghanistan from the tyranny of the Taliban. Withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan under a Romney administration will be based on conditions on the ground as assessed by our military commanders with the goal of completing the transition of combat operations to the Afghan Army by the end of 2014. He will work with both the Afghan government and Pakistan to ensure that those nations are fully contributing to success in Afghanistan. Sort of hard to provide any commentary on this. What with it being exactly the same thing that we've been doing for the past two years.
• Russia: Russia is a destabilizing force on the world stage. It needs to be tempered. Seriously? Maybe Romney didn't get the memo. The Cold War is over. We won. Upon taking office, Mitt Romney will reset the reset. He will implement a strategy that will seek to discourage aggressive or expansionist behavior on the part of Russia and encourage democratic political and economic reform. Romney will review the implementation of the New START treaty and other decisions by the Obama Administration regarding America's nuclear posture and arms-control policies to determine whether they serve the best interests and national security of the United States. He will pursue policies that work to decrease the reliance of European nations on Russian sources of energy. Good plan. I'm sure messing with one of the few remains sources of income that Russia has will absolutely improve U.S. relations with them. Romney will build stronger relationships with the states of Central Asian by enhancing diplomatic ties, increasing military training and assistance, and negotiating trade pacts and educational exchanges. Sure why not? It's not like the "stans" are anything like those despots in the Middle East. Well actually, they're worse. Romney will support measures to increase the flow of information into Russia that highlights the virtues of free elections, free speech, economic opportunity, and a government free of corruption. 
• China & East Asia: While the potential for conflict with an authoritarian China could rise as its power grows, the United States must pursue policies designed to encourage Beijing to embark on a course that makes conflict less likely. Is it just me, or is everything a zero-sum game with this guy? China must be discouraged from attempting to intimidate or dominate neighboring states. Romney will implement a strategy that makes the path of regional hegemony for China far more costly than the alternative path of becoming a responsible partner in the international system. The United States should maintain and expand its naval presence in the Western Pacific. Admittedly, I am oversimplifying things a bit here, but wouldn't it be logical to conclude if we expand our military presence in the region, that China would necessarily have to ramp up its own defense as a matter of prudence? Romney will bolster cooperation across the board with our traditional allies like Japan, Australia, and South Korea as well as strengthen relationships with partners like India and influential countries like Indonesia. With regard to North Korea, Romney will make it unequivocally clear to Pyongyang that continued advancement of its nuclear program and any aggression will be punished instead of rewarded, and any food aid will be de-linked from the nuclear weapons issue. One wonders how Romney's definition of punishment would be acted upon.
• Africa: Recognizing that Africa’s road to stability and prosperity lies through a robust private sector economy, increased trade, and good governance, a Romney administration will encourage and assist African nations to adopt policies that create business-friendly environments and combat governmental corruption. Romney will also provide the leadership required to help resolve Africa’s long-running conflicts, pressure the remaining despots who abuse their own people, and weaken terrorist groups that threaten U.S. interests and those of our partners. Yeah, okay. At least Africa gets a mention, which is more than can be said of Europe or the United States' single largest trading partner, Canada.
• Latin America: Under a Romney administration, the United States will pursue an active role in Latin America by supporting democratic allies and market-based economic relationships, containing destabilizing internal forces such as criminal gangs and terrorists, and opposing destabilizing outside influences such as Iran. Nice that Romney was able to squeeze in one more dig at Iran. He will launch a vigorous public diplomacy and trade promotion effort in the region—the Campaign for Economic Opportunity in Latin America (CEOLA)—to extol the virtues of democracy and free trade and build on the benefits conferred by the free trade agreements reached with Panama and Colombia, as well as those already in force with Chile, Mexico, Peru, and the members of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Sounds great don't it? I have no doubt that all those leftist regimes will be tripping over themselves to sign up for this deal. Ain't that right, Mr. Chavez?

We'll wrap up our series next time with Obama's foreign policy plan.

What Caught My Eye Today - Presidential Election, Scotland, Governance, Pop Culture

Presidential Election - With just 15 days until the U.S. presidential election and one debate between the candidates (foreign policy is the focus of this final debate), it occurred to me that some poor souls feel their vote just doesn't matter. Poopie gook! Let me lay some statistics on to you that show just how wrong you are:

• 138th out of 169 - America's ranking among democratic countries in voter turn out. One can argue that freedom not to vote is a right guaranteed by a democracy. One can make that argument, but it doesn't change the fact that way too many people take the democratic process for granted.
• 47.7% - America's average voter turnout between (1945 and 2001). Among the nations with higher voter turnout; Italy (92%), Iceland (89.3%), Indonesia (87.9%), Canada (82.6%), Mongolia (79.5%) and Mexico (48.1%). Seriously people, Mongolia??? That is wrong on some many levels.
• 61.6% - Voter turnout in 2008. More folks turned out for Barack Obama vs. John McCain than the previous 3 presidential elections. That's still 18% less than Mongolia. Dude!
• 65.7% - Voter turnout among women in 2008. Turnout among men was 61.5%. Maybe if men weren't so reluctant to ask for directions, they might have an easier time of finding their polling place.
• 66.1% - Voter turnout among whites in 2008. A larger percentage of whites voted than blacks (64.7%), Hispanics (49.9%) or Asians (47.6%). Of course, with the minority population continuing to grow at a faster pace than whites, I'm not sure how meaningful this will be in future elections.
• 79.8% - Voter turnout among voters with incomes over $100,000. Turnout drops significantly as income levels drop. Just 51.9% of voters earning less than $20,000 voted in 2008. Maybe that's because voters under the poverty line literally cannot afford to take the time off to vote.
• 80% - Percentage of the minority vote Obama needs (plus 40% of the white vote) to win the 2012 election. Interesting, but not as much as this last one...
• 61% - Percentage of the white vote Mitt Romney needs to win the 2012 election. If he manages this, he won't need any of the minority vote.  I'm a white male but does that make my vote any more important than the vote of a black, Hispanic, Asian or any other minority? The sad fact of the matter is that the answer is probably yes, because I'm more likely to vote (which I already have). Prove me wrong, people!

Scotland - British Prime Minister David Cameron and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond signed an agreement this week to hold a referendum on independence for Scotland by the end of 2014. It appears more likely that Scots will opt for a form of semi autonomy. Polls show that only 34% of Scots support independence, while 55% are opposed and the rest undecided. People of Scotland, being part of the UK isn't so bad, is it? Consider this. Most people can find the UK on a map. If you decide to go it alone, how many people do you think will have the slightest clue where Scotland is? Case in point, I grew up in San Jose, CA, just a stone's throw from San Francisco. I read a survey once where American university students were asked to locate San Francisco and San Jose on a blank outline of the United States. Almost everyone got San Francisco right, while most though San Jose was on the U.S. Mexico border. All I'm saying is that having a popular big brother is not such a bad thing.

Governance - The $5 million Mo Ibrahim prize is awarded to a democratically elected leader in Africa found to have raised living standards and to have voluntarily left office. For the third time in four years no candidate met the criteria to win the prize. I'm stunned, truly stunned.

Pop Culture - As a courtesy, let me preface this last story by saying that these guys are arguably the most talented soccer players on the planet, which is significant outside the United States given that soccer is the most popular sport by a wide margin over anything else (and yes my American friends, that includes our beloved NFL). While the debate rages on as to whether Cristiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi is the best player of this generation, there's a popularity contest being staged on Facebook between the Real Madrid and Barcelona superstars, and it's not even close. Ronaldo became the first athlete in any sport to reach 50 million "likes" on Facebook. Pure speculation on my part, but I'm thinking a fair few of those "likes" come from the ladies. No offense to Messi (who for my money is probably a tiny bit better than Ronaldo), but you'd have to be blind not to think that Cristiano isn't a bit easier on the eye balls than Lionel (be honest, can you even imagine a hot guy being named Lionel?) If all the people who "liked" Ronaldo formed their own country, it would be the 25th most populous nation on earth. Messi is in second place with about 38.5 million "likes", while David Beckham sits in third place with 21.5 million. In terms of American athletes, Michael Jordan tops the list with 20 million "likes." Kobe Bryant is six million "likes" behind Jordan, and LeBron James sits in third with 12.5 million "likes." Ronaldo is about 12 million "likes" behind the most liked celebrity, Rihanna (62 million). After Rihanna are Eminem (61.5 million), Shakira (55 million), Lady Gaga (53.3 million) and Michael Jackson (52 million).

What Caught My Eye Today - Barack Obama's Energy Plan

Fred's Note: It occurs to me that in recent posts regarding the upcoming U.S. Presidential election that I am guilty of doing the same thing as various media outlets by rendering opinions on statements that I may have taken out of context.  To be fair, I'm not a professional journalist and doubt very much that my blog will ever reach the critical mass that the New York Times does. However, the information is readily available to anyone who truly wants to make an informed decision come Election Day in November. With that in mind, over the next several days and weeks, I'll be posting excerpts from the websites of both the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney and the incumbent Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. It goes without saying that I will be adding some color commentary, but the content will be from the candidates themselves.

Hard to believe, but the day of reckoning is almost upon us (it's about freaking time).  We'll wrap up our comparison of the candidates with foreign policy, but first President Obama's energy policy.

President Obama has a real strategy to take control of our energy future and finally reduce our dependence on foreign oil—an all-of-the-above approach to developing all our energy resources. I'm so glad he makes the distinction that this is a real strategy as opposed to some made up pipe dream. Of course, if you are for the other guy, pipe dream is exactly what this strategy will be interpreted as, but I digress.

• Increasing Domestic Oil Production and Reducing Our Dependence On Foreign Oil: American oil production is at an eight-year high, and we are less reliant on foreign oil than at any time in the last 16 years. New fuel efficiency standards will nearly double the fuel economy of cars and light trucks to 54.5 mpg by 2025, reducing oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day. This sounds lovely, but for those of us that risk cardiac arrest every time we go to the gas pump, this doesn't really address the issue. Domestic refinery capacity is stretched to the breaking point with almost no excess capacity. When refineries go offline, even for just a few days, gas prices go through the roof. Increases oil production, whether at home or abroad isn't really going to offer any consumer relief if we don't increase our capacity to refine the stuff.
• Increasing Natural Gas Production: Domestic production of natural gas has increased every year since President Obama took office, and is now at an all-time high. The Obama Administration supports responsibly tapping our near 100-year supply of natural gas, which could support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. What he doesn't say (nor does Romney) is that we have so much natural gas, that we are looking to sell the stuff to Europe and that some prices have bottomed out so much that some natural gas producers are starting to operate at a loss.
• Investing in Clean Coal: President Obama has set a 10-year goal to develop and deploy cost-effective clean coal technology. The Recovery Act invested substantially in carbon capture and sequestration research, including 22 projects across four different areas of carbon capture-and-storage research and development. No difference at all with Romney's energy plan.
• Increasing the Use of Biofuels: The Obama Administration has promoted the use of cleaner fuels in our vehicles, increased the level of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline, and implemented a new Renewable Fuel Standard that will save nearly 14 billion gallons of petroleum-based gasoline in 2022. This one is rather misleading as well. Both Obama and Romney are pimping the heck out of biofuels, but what they don't tell you is that the most fuel efficient blends are the ones that contain the least amount of ethanol.
• Harnessing Wind Energy: Under President Obama, electricity generation from wind has more than doubled between 2008 and 2011. The Obama Administration approved the nation's first-ever offshore wind project, and is supporting development of the world's largest wind farm in Oregon. I suppose the wind mill companies are thrilled about this. Problem is, I think they are the only ones who care.
• Expanding Solar Energy Production: Under President Obama, electricity generation from solar has more than doubled between 2008 and 2011. The Obama Administration approved the construction of 16 utility-scale solar energy projects. These projects are expected to create nearly 12,500 new jobs, and will produce enough energy to power 1.3 million American homes. I think this is one of the more promising sources of renewable energy (sorry wind guys). Alas, the first thing that comes to mind when I hear Obama and solar energy in the same sentence is that Solyndra fiasco. Sure, that might be unfair (and probably is), but who ever said politics was fair?
• Expanding Nuclear Energy: President Obama and his Administration are supporting the construction of the first new nuclear power plant in decades, which will provide clean electricity for nearly 1.4 million Americans. Over the past three years, the Obama Administration has invested in grants at more than 70 universities for research and development of nuclear technologies to improve reactor design and safety. Sounds great. I'm all for nuclear energy. So what if half of Japan still glows in the dark, and so what if we still don't have any idea how to dispose of spent rods. I mean really, what could possibly go wrong?

Did You Know? #9

What is the Theory of Everything?

Fred's Note: Yeah, yeah... we've gone a bit overboard on science with these last couple of questions. We lighten things up considerably next time around. Until then, just think how much smarter people will think you are when you bring this up at that next cocktail party.

A theory of everything or final theory is a theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and predicts the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle. A Theory of Everything would unify all the fundamental interactions of nature: gravitation, strong interaction, weak interaction, and electromagnetism. At present, no convincing candidate for a Theory of Everything is available. Most particle physicists state that the outcome of the ongoing experiments – the search for new particles at the large particle accelerators and for dark matter – are needed in order to provide theoretical physicists with further input for a Theory of Everything.

What Caught My Eye Today - Facebook, Art Work, Longevity

Facebook - Last week, Facebook announced it reached a remarkable milestone: 1 billion active users. Since  its audience was just half that as recently as July 2010, and the entire world has only about 2.5 billion Internet users, that's an impressive achievement. I'm not sure which is more impressive--that Facebook has 1 billion users, or that 1 billion people (yours truly included) have conscientiously given up any expectation of privacy. However Facebook is only getting about $1.28 in revenue per user and has not been able to translate those 1 billion users into giant profits. CEO Mark Zuckerberg is pushing a radical transformation that will put mobile services at the heart of Facebook's future. The company is also just beginning to launch new business lines based on its massive bank of user data, and still has the potential to reinvent social advertising. Maybe you've heard about this last little money maker... Facebook is now testing a feature that lets users get more visibility for their status updates, for a whopping $7 per post. I for one think this is long overdue. Statistics suggest that I might only be seeing useless updates from only 16% of my "friends".  Someone might be having the "number two" of a lifetime, and I could so totally miss it.

Art Work - I'm all for a free marketplace and for merchants having the freedom to sell the stuff that people want to buy, but it seems to me, a boundary has been crossed here.  Costco is back in the fine art business. Since relaunching its "Fine Art" section last month, Costco has sold at least eight works, including a lithograph by Henri Matisse for $1000, a lithograph by Georges Braque for $1400 and a screen print by Andy Warhol for $1450. Finally! I was beginning to think all those comment cards I submitted weren't getting read. I cannot tell you how frustrating it has been not being able to pick up some toilet paper and some fine art without having to make multiple stops. Costco suspended sales of high-priced prints and drawings 6 years ago after questions were raised about the authenticity of two Pablo Picasso drawings it sold. Interesting. I thought nothing of using last year's rebate check to purchase the Hope Diamond.

Longevity - A word of warning to the lads. You might just want to skip this item altogether.  Korean researchers have uncovered a surefire way to add up to 20 years to men's lives: castrate them. Analysis of genealogical records of males who were castrated as boys to serve in the palace of the Chosun Dynasty between the late 14th and early 20th centuries showed that the eunuchs lived between 14 and 19 years longer than their non-castrated peers. The findings support the idea that male sex hormones decrease the life span of men. In contrast to estrogen, which appears to enhance longevity, testosterone and increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Lower levels of the male hormone may be a main reason why women tend to live longer than men and are 10 times as likely to reach the age of 110. Here's the thing. How many of us men would really want to live a hundred years without the ol' twig and berries? Somehow, I cannot help but think that something was missing in my life.

What Caught My Eye Today - Mitt Romney's Energy Plan

Fred's Note: It occurs to me that in recent posts regarding the upcoming U.S. Presidential election that I am guilty of doing the same thing as various media outlets by rendering opinions on statements that I may have taken out of context.  To be fair, I'm not a professional journalist and doubt very much that my blog will ever reach the critical mass that the New York Times does. However, the information is readily available to anyone who truly wants to make an informed decision come Election Day in November. With that in mind, over the next several days and weeks, I'll be posting excerpts from the websites of both the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney and the incumbent Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. It goes without saying that I will be adding some color commentary, but the content will be from the candidates themselves.

Fifth in our series, Mitt Romney's energy plan. First, an overview of Romney's overall philosophy including a rebuke of the policies of the current administration , followed by a more detailed account of the Romney energy plan.

An affordable, reliable energy supply is fundamental to a prosperous and growing economy. With the right policies in place, America can become an energy superpower – and we can end our expensive and dangerous dependence on OPEC. A successful national energy strategy will have a fundamental influence on the well-being of the nation. Dramatically increasing domestic energy production can bolster the competitiveness of virtually every industry in the country, creating millions of new jobs from coast to coast. With fewer energy imports and more exports of manufactured goods, America’s trade deficit will decline and the dollar will strengthen. And all Americans can rest assured that the nation’s security is no longer beholden to unstable but oil-rich regions half way around the world. Sounds great, don't it? So great in fact, that Obama is essentially saying the exact same thing. But I'm getting ahead of myself. We'll get to Obama's energy platform next time.

President Obama has described his own energy policy as a "hodgepodge," sent billions of taxpayer dollars to green energy projects run by political cronies, rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline as not in "the national interest," and sought repeatedly to stall development of America’s domestic resources. He has gone so far as to impose regulations designed to "bankrupt" the coal industry, and his Administration was held in contempt of federal court for illegally imposing a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Is it just me or does the Romney camp have a "thing" for using quotation marks?Under the Obama Administration, leasing and permitting on federal lands and offshore are down by half. Last year, oil and gas production on federal lands plummeted. Today, the Gulf of Mexico is producing hundreds of thousands fewer barrels per day than expected. And the EPA predicts that another coal power plant will never be built in this country. Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Mitt Romney will make America an energy superpower, rapidly and responsibly increasing our own production and partnering with our allies Canada and Mexico to achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020. This will require genuine support for increased energy production, a more rational approach to regulation, and a government that facilitates private-sector-led development of new energy technologies by focusing on funding research and removing barriers, rather than chasing fads and picking winners and losers.

• States will be empowered to control all forms of energy production on all lands within their borders, excluding only those that are specifically designated off-limits. Federal agencies will certify, but the states will lead.
  Pretty consistent with his overall smaller government platform, though it is not exactly clear to me how much this will change how we do things now. There is no guarantee that energy production will dramatically rise under Romney's plan, especially given that federal agencies still have the final say, even under his plan.
• Romney will establish the most robust five-year offshore lease plan in history, that opens new areas for resource development – including off the coasts of Virginia and the Carolinas – and sets minimum production targets to increase accountability.
  Last I checked, more offshore drilling has been brought online in the past 4 years than in the 8 years of previous administration (Some dude from Texas, if I recall).
• Romney will approve the Keystone XL pipeline, establish a new regional agreement to facilitate cross-border energy investment, promote and expand regulatory cooperation with Canada and Mexico and institute fast-track regulatory approval processes for cross-border pipelines and other infrastructure.
  The pipeline agreement is going to pass under either administration. Of course, for those who don't follow this stuff, it makes for a great sound bite.
• Instead of relying on decades-old surveys developed with decades-old technologies, Romney’s plan facilitates new energy assessments to determine the true extent of our resource endowment.
  Much better than the put on a blindfold and hope for the best approach that the Obama administration appears to have been relying on. Of course, some might have a hard time reconciling that with the record high production of natural gas and oil, but what do I know.
• Romney will pursue measured reforms of our environmental laws and regulations to strengthen environmental protection without destroying jobs or paralyzing industries. Romney's plan will also streamline the gauntlet of reviews, processes, administrative procedures, and lawsuits that mire so many new projects in red tape.
  It certainly sounds better, but lacks the whimsy and bumper sticker appeal of "drill baby, drill.".
• Romney will promote innovation by focusing the federal government on the job it does best – research and development – and will eliminate any barriers that might prevent new energy technologies from succeeding on their own merits. Strengthening and streamlining regulations and permitting processes will benefit the development of both traditional and alternative energy sources, and encourage the use of a diverse range of fuels including natural gas in transportation.
  Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is a dig at that Solyndra mess. Not Obama's finest hour, but you have to figure you are going to roll a few snake eyes every now and again. 

Nothing terribly controversial nor overly creative that I can see. However, I doubt anyone thinks energy policy is going to decide who will reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next January.

You can read up on Romney's position on energy here. Next time, Barack Obama's energy plan.

Did You Know? #8

What is a Planck length?

A Planck length is 1.6 x 10^-35 meters (the number 16 preceded by 34 zeroes and a decimal point). Because the Planck length is so many orders of magnitude smaller than any current instrument could possibly measure, there is currently no way of probing this length scale directly. Research on the Planck length is therefore mostly theoretical. According to the generalized uncertainty principle, the Planck length is in principle, within a factor of order unity, the shortest measurable length - and no improvements in measurement instruments could change that.

What Caught My Eye Today - Presidential Election, Personal Finance

Presidential Election - Fred's Note: My, my, what a difference a debate makes. Prior to the first presidential debate, the media had all been pronounced the death of Mitt Romney's presidential bid.  Boyfriend promptly went and delivered a masterful performance and drawn even with incumbent President Barack Obama and slightly ahead in some polls.  Now if you are to believe these same expert pundits who claimed Romney's campaign was effectively over, Obama had a bad night and showed a bit of rust in his debating skills. That likely won't happen a second time.  Interestingly, the overall Electoral College map hasn't changed much since before the presidential debate last week, suggesting yet again, that most people have pretty much made up their minds who they plan to vote for on election day. In Congress, it is looking less and less likely that the Republican party will be able to take control of the Senate, but unless something pretty dramatic happens, they will continue to rule supreme in the House of Representatives. Next up, the veeps get their moment in the sun. Unless I am very much mistaken, I doubt either Joe Biden or Paul Ryan will claim that they can see Russia from their backyards.

Personal Finance - The fine folks at Business Insider have compiled a fascinating list of ways that the public wastes money. Blame the government or blame the economy, but Americans should also blame themselves for their declining net worth. We waste a whole lot of money. Seriously, over half a trillion dollars. This list is based on estimates due to limited available data, and the true total is surely higher. They included things like cigarettes and gambling, even though some would claim they are are worth their cost.

• $6 billion in unused gift cards each year. $41 billion in gift cards went unused from 2005 to 2011, worth $6 billion a year. Most of these are considered lost or discarded.
  No wonder I see so many of these so-called Gift Card Mall at the grocery store. They're like free money for the retailers. Well, I for one have had enough. Next year, instead of sending out a bunch of gift cards for birthday and holiday gifts that won't get spent, I spend the money on myself.
• $7 billion in ATM fees each year. Americans pay through the nose at the ATM machine, and these penalties are higher than ever right now.
  Kind of like salt in the wound, if you ask me. Not only are these rat bastards getting taxpayer bailouts for making dumb ass investments, but they are screwing those same taxpayers at the ATM.
• $12 billion in traffic tickets each year. Americans spend 7.5 to 15 billion dollars on traffic tickets, assuming 25 to 50 million traffic tickets, costing an average of $150 with an insurance surcharges for half of them costing around $300.
  You know, there is a simple solution to this. Just move to Texas (click here). How many street legal cars could actually hit 85 m.p.h. anyway?
• $29 billion on candy each year. Most candy has negative nutritional value. US confectionery sales totaled $29 billion in 2010, with 60% spent on chocolate.
  Negative nutritional value? Says who? I find a piece for chocolate makes my boss and my spouse much easier to deal with, which in turn help me avoid heartburn.
• $31 billion on lottery tickets each year. The average lottery ticket pays 47 cents on the dollar, meaning that Americans wasted around $31 billion.
  47 cents on the dollar, huh? That's roughly the same as I am likely to receive from Social Security when I retire. Okay that's a bit of an exaggeration; currently, I'm on pace to receive 74 cents for every dollar that I contribute. So does mean I should stop contributing to Social Security?
• $44 billion on tobacco each year. It's become such a problem that low-income earners are spending a quarter of their annual salary on cigarettes.
  I'm not a smoker, but I bet if you asked one, he or she would strongly argue that the money they spend on cigarettes is wasted.
• $49 billion on credit card interest each year. The average cardholder had an unpaid balance of $2,210 at the end of the month. Throw in an average APR of 12.75% for 174 million cardholders, and you get total annual interest payments of $49 billion.
  These would be those same rat bastards who are collecting all those ATM fees.
• $50 billion on alcohol each year. One might argue that booze isn't a waste of money but, Americans spent $50 billion getting drunk.
  Has it occurred to anyone that if the banks weren't ripping us a new one, we might not drink so much?
• $69 billion at the casinos each year. Casinos earned gross revenue of $125 billion in 2010. An estimated 45% was returned to gambler's in winnings. That leaves $69 billion money that people willingly gave away.
  Let me see if I got this straight. No smokin', no drinkin' and no gamblin'? Why don't you just take me out back and just shoot me.
• $76 billion on soda each year. These drinks provide no nutritional value, and you're better off drinking water.
  Or you could just stick with the booze and save a cool $26 billion.
• $146 billion in wasted energy each year. This calculation in based on $443 billion in annual home energy costs, and the claim that consumers could cut energy costs by a third if they followed recommendations from the government-backed Energy Star program.
  I know this screams socialism, but wouldn't it be a bit easier if all energy consuming products were just mandated to adhere to Energy Star standards?
• $165 billion in wasted food each year. When you trash food, you throw out money. The habit costs $165 billion nationally, according to the National Resources Defense Council, which means it costs $529 per person.
  Ironically, one in three people in the U.S. is overweight, so one could argue that we aren't throwing out enough food. What's that you say...smaller portions? Well, now you are just talking pure nonsense.

A Fond Farewell

Fred's Note: My aunt lost her battle to breast cancer earlier this year. Kathy was diagnosed with a very rare and aggressive of the disease 5 years ago and was given a pretty bleak prognosis, maybe 6 months to live. But then a funny thing happened--Kathy met Gary. Prior to meeting each other, they had both endured some pretty tough times, but none of those things seemed to matter when they were together. With Gary at her side, Kathy fought her cancer with every fiber of her being. She ultimately lost her battle, but certainly not for lack of trying. And through it all, I have never seen her happier than these past 5 years with Gary. I received word that Gary passed away today, and the first thing that came to mind is that he and Aunt Kathy are together again...this time forever. It's always sad when someone close to you dies, but I cannot help but feel a sense of joy as well, that I got to witness two wonderful and deserving people find their "soul mates" (and I truly believe that's what Kathy and Gary were to each other). So no mourning from this guy. No, all you'll get from me is a heart-felt expression of gratitude that I knew such a loving couple. Enjoy each other, Kathy and Gary. You'll both be missed.

What Caught My Eye Today: Happy, Happy

Fred's Note: Today's posting is dedicated to the pursuit of happiness. Why, you might ask? Why the heck not, you cranky dolts!

Happiness (Part I) - Denmark has taken the top spot on the United Nation's first ever World Happiness Report. For those of you who keep tabs on this sort of thing, like I do, this comes as no big surprise. There must be something in the water that Scandinavians have tapped into that the rest of us just haven't figured out yet. The report was commissioned for the United Nations Conference on Happiness in order to "review the state of happiness in the world today and show how the new science of happiness explains personal and national variations in happiness." Okay then. There is a U.N. sponsored conference whose sole purpose for existing is figuring out how happy I am. Isn't that nice. The rankings are based on a number called the "life evaluation score," a measurement which takes into account a variety of factors including people's health, family and job security as well as social factors like political freedom and government corruption. For my money, retirement age would have been included as well. The earlier the better, I say. Based on its "life evaluation score," which is rated on a scale of 0-to-10, the report found that Denmark, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands outstripped all other nations with an average score of 7.6 between them. On the other end of the spectrum, Benin, Central African Republic, Togo and the Sierra Leone had an average life evaluation score of 3.4. The United States ranked 11th overall. So basically, get yourself some winter wear and move north. And if that isn't your cup of tea, just avoid Africa.

Top 10		Bottom 10
1	Denmark	10	Bulgaria
2	Finland	9	Congo (Brazzaville)
3	Norway	8	Tanzania
4	Netherlands	7	Haiti
5	Canada	6	Comoros
6	Switzerland	5	Burundi
7	Sweden	4	Sierra Leone
8	New Zealand	3	Central African Republic
9	Australia	2	Benin
10	Ireland	1	Togo

Happiness (Part II) - The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is an index of human well-being and environmental impact that was introduced by the New Economics Foundation in 2006. The index is designed to challenge well-established indices of countries’ development, such as Gross Domestic Product and the Human Development Index, which are seen as not taking sustainability into account. In particular, GDP is seen as inappropriate, as the usual ultimate aim of most people is not to be rich, but to be happy and healthy. Call me crazy, but I tend to believe there is some corralation between being rich and being happy. The HPI is based on general utilitarian principles — that most people want to live long and fulfilling lives, and the country which is doing the best is the one that allows its citizens to do so, while avoiding infringing on the opportunity of future people and people in other countries to do the same. However, naive and idealistic this might be, you have to applaud the altruistic aims of the rankings. Never going to happen, but admirable nonetheless. The HPI is not a measure of which are the happiest countries in the world. Countries with relatively high levels of life satisfaction, as measured in surveys, are found from the very top (Colombia in 6th place) to the very bottom (the USA in 114th place) of the rank order. The HPI is best conceived as a measure of the environmental efficiency of supporting well-being in a given country. Such efficiency could emerge in a country with a medium environmental impact and very high well-being, but it could also emerge in a country with only mediocre well-being, but very low environmental impact. Nine out of the ten top countries are located in the Caribbean Basin, despite high levels of poverty. Must be all that sunny weather and yummy tropical drinks. I hear you barely notice the poverty if you are bombed out of your mind. The ranking is led by Costa Rica due to its very high life expectancy which is second highest in the Americas, and higher than the U.S., experienced well-being higher than many richer nations and a per capita footprint one third the size of the U.S. Among the top 40 countries by overall HPI score, only four countries have a GDP per capita of over US$15,000. The highest ranking OECD country is Israel in 15th place, and the top Western European nation is Norway in 29th place, just behind New Zealand in 28th. Among the top five world's biggest economies in terms of GDP, Japan has the highest ranking in 45th place, followed by Germany in 46th, France is placed 50th, China 60, and the U.S. is ranked 105, mainly due to its environmental footprint of 7.5, the highest of all countries rated for the 2012 index.

Top 10		Bottom 10
1	Costa Rica	10	South Africa
2	Vietnam	9	Kuwait
3	Colombia	8	Niger
4	Belize	7	Mongolia
5	El Salvador	6	Bahrain
6	Jamaica	5	Mali
7	Panama	4	Central African Republic
8	Nicaragua	3	Qatar
9	Venezuela	2	Chad
10	Guatemala	1	Botswana

What Caught My Eye Today: Iran, Defense Spending, Jupiter, Passwords

Iran - Iranian women are no longer allowed to pursue certain majors--including engineering, computer science and accounting--at the country's top universities. Iran has long been a leader in women's education in the Middle East, and women now make up more than 60% of undergraduates. No kidding? Good for them. I would not have guessed that. Of course this begs the question, why stop them from getting an education now? The government gave no reason for the new restrictions, although it has expressed alarm at the declining birth and marriage rates leading some to speculate that the regime is trying to restrict women's access to education and to return them to the home to weaken the feminist movement. You have to appreciate the irony. Here you have a society that has evolved to the point where a significant majority of undergraduate college students are female, resorting to a Stone Age mentality to curb a decreasing birthrate. Here's radical idea, make it easier for women to bear and raise children without having to give up their day jobs.

Defense Spending - Last year, the U.S. Army made an unusual request to Congress: Stop sending us tanks. That doesn't sound right. The plea was issued after legislators ignored the Army's objections and approved a defense appropriations bill that included $255 million for 42 new M1 Abrams tanks. This, on the other hand, is exactly what I would expect from Congress. With 2,300 M1s already deployed around the world, and 3,000 more sitting idle at a base in California's Sierra Nevada Mountains, the military said it simply didn't need any more tanks. But Ohio politicians pushed for the extra M1s, so as to keep open an 800-worker tank plant in the state. And we wonder why the national debt keeps spiraling out of control. There has be be a cheaper way to save 800 jobs. For those of you interested in the math, that works out to $318,750 per job.

Jupiter - Let's give a well deserved shout out to that lovable beast of a planet, Jupiter. Who would have thought that our lives, most likely, have depended on that gaseous behemoth for so long. The massive planet Jupiter serves as a cosmic sentinel, sucking in comets and asteroids that might otherwise make catastrophic direct strikes on Earth. Four asteroid strikes have been observed in just the past three years. The strikes suggest that Jupiter acts as "a big gravitational vacuum cleaner" for asteroids and comets that would otherwise continue on a collision course with the Earth. Experts say Jupiter may sustain an asteroid impact as often as once a week. Earth, by comparison, can expect a mass-extinction-causing asteroid to strike just once every 100 million years. The last such strike, which caused the demise of the dinosaurs as the planet's dominant species, came 65 million years ago. Guess I better get cracking on my bucket list, what with only 35 million years or so left before the possible extinction of human kind.

Passwords - The three most popular four-digit PINs are 1234, 1111, and 0000, which account for nearly 20% of all four-digit pass codes, according to an analysis of millions of passwords. The least popular PIN is 8068. Where to begin. Perhaps the obvious first...1234. Really? I'm not saying that I condone password hacking in any way, shape or form, but seriously, if 20% of the population is going to make it that easy... Next, how about some love for 8068? Or for that matter 8093, 9629,6835 and 7637, which round out the bottom five. Curiously, no reason was given for why these are the pariah of PIN numbers. I thought I was all set for the day that when you could have an unlimited PIN number. I've been working on memorizing 31415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679 for months. Turns out that was a waste of time. It seems derivatives of pi have littered the top ten list of 5 and 10 digit PIN numbers for quite some time. Doh!