What Caught My Eye Today - 2012 Presidential Election, Potpourri, 2016 Presidential Election

2012 Presidential Election: Most results from last Tuesday's U.S. election are now in. While Congress is basically unchanged in terms of balance of power, Democrats had a much better night than Republicans. Incumbent president Barack Obama had a very good night, winning 8 of 9 swing states (North Carolina went to Mitt Romney). Here's how things panned out:

Potpourri - As we close out this election (Hallelujah!), I give you a 2012 Presidential Election edition of Potpourri.

• While the presidential race may have been close in the United States, it was a landslide for Obama in the rest of the world. In a survey of 21,797 people in 21 countries, 50% preferred an Obama victory, while just 9% preferred Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. The only nation in which Romney was more popular was Pakistan, where he edged out Obama 14% to 11%. You sort of have to wonder who got the other 75% of the vote in Pakistan, don't you?
• In every presidential election since 1980, women have voted at a higher rate than men. In 2008, 60.4% of women voted, compare with 55.7% of men. Seeing as Obama won the female vote by 12 points over Romney, you can see how Obama got a second term.  The gap in other demographics is even more striking.  Bottom line...white males just don't have the same sway that they used to. Perhaps someone should send that memo to the GOP.
• More than 58,000 campaign ads were broadcast in the month leading up to the election in Ohio. To view them all, you would have had to watch ads 24 hours a day for 80 days. I suppose that is one advantage to living is a non-battleground state. Honestly, would it be that bad for the country if we had a national primary day and cut the election cycle down from 4 freaking years to just a few months? No offense to Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio or any of the other battleground states, but why shouldn't my vote be considered as valuable as one of the votes from these states?
• This was the most negative presidential campaign in modern history. 86% of President Obama's television ads and 79% of Mitt Romney's were negative. By comparison, Obama and John McCain spent an average of 69% of their TV budgets on negative ads in 2008, and George W Bush and John Kerry spent 58% in 2004. Attitude reflects leadership, my friends.  That's all I'm saying.

2016 Presidential Race - Oh come on! Are you serious? The 2016 campaign is closer than you think. Kill me. Kill me now, I'm begging you.  In some subtle ways, the jockeying to succeed Barack Obama or Mitt Romney already has begun. Already, rising star Republicans and Democrats have started making the circuit of political party dinners in Iowa, Florida, New Hampshire and South Carolina as they seek to introduce themselves to the early primary voters trusted to cull the field.

For the Democrats, all eyes are on Clinton, the secretary of state who professes no interest but would have a clear advantage if she runs for the nomination that eluded her in 2008. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, too, is being talked about heavily in Democratic circles. Maryland's Martin O'Malley appears to be laying groundwork and snagged a plumb gig in September, as the guest of Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin at his annual steak-fry fundraiser in the state that traditionally holds the kick-off caucuses. Other governors who may weigh bids: Colorado's John Hickenlooper, Massachusetts' Deval Patrick and Montana's Brian Schweitzer. Keep an eye, too, on mayors like Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, who co-chaired the Democratic convention and headlined the Iowa Democratic Party's annual fall fundraising dinner in Des Moines last month, following a long line of would-be presidential candidates. And another potential: mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio, who delivered the keynote address. Truth be told, other than Clinton and Cuomo, I haven't heard of most of these names. I can see Cuomo throwing his hat in along with Villaraigosa and Castro, given the rise of the Hispanic vote, but I'm still not sure about Hillary.  2008 was pretty brutal and she had a great run as Secretary of State these past 4 years.

The list of Republicans who could step up is lengthy. Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, this year's vice presidential nominee, would be toward the front of the pack if he ran. So, presumably, would a slate of governors -- Chris Christie of New Jersey, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin. From the Senate, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul could play for the tea party mantle, with the latter viewed as the heir to father Ron Paul's loyal base of libertarian-minded followers. So could Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a GOP sensation only two years into a Senate term. Former Pennsylvania Rick Santorum, the runner-up to Romney, could give it another go. And former Florida Governor Jeb Bush hasn't ruled anything out. Interestingly, I am much more familiar with this lot.  While much will depend on how the GOP re-tools its image (if it tries) and the mid-term elections, I have to believe Bush 3.0 (Jeb that is) and Rubio will certainly make a run at it. Chris Christie would make things entertaining, but may have alienated the conservative base too much by the time 2016 rolls around.

What Caught My Eye Today - Presidential Election Results

Presidential Election Results - Here's how the election results unfolded from my couch last night (my sources of truth for the evening were PBS, NBC and the Associated Press):

7:00pm ET: 435 House seats up for election. 33 Senate seats up for election.
7:00pm ET: Polls close in Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vermont and Virginia.
7:06pm ET: Kentucky (8) to Romney; Vermont (3) to Obama.
7:30pm ET: Polls close in North Carolina, Ohio and West Virginia.
7:30pm ET: Indiana (11) to Romney.
8:00pm ET: Polls close in Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington DC.
8:00pm ET: South Carolina (9) to Romney.
8:08pm ET: Oklahoma (7), West Virginia (5) to Romney.
8:08pm ET: Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Washington DC (3) to Obama.
8:27pm ET: Tennessee (11) to Romney.
8:30pm ET: Polls close in Arkansas.
8:41pm ET: Georgia (16) to Romney.
8:58pm ET: Alabama (9), Mississippi (6) to Romney.
9:00pm ET: Polls close in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
9:01pm ET: House Results: 67 Republican; 38 Democrat.
9:01pm ET: Senate Results: 1 Republican; 6 Democrat; 2 Independent.
9:08pm ET: Kansas (6), Louisiana (8), Nebraska (5), South Dakota (3), Texas (38), Wyoming (3) to Romney.
9:08pm ET: Michigan (16), New York (29) to Obama.
9:13pm ET: North Dakota (3) to Romney.
9:20pm ET: Arkansas (6) to Romney.
9:22pm ET: House Results: 67 Republican; 38 Democrat.
9:22pm ET: Senate Results: 4 Republican; 9 Democrat; 2 Independent.
9:31pm ET: New Jersey (14) to Obama.
9:40pm ET: House Results: 95 Republican; 52 Democrat.
9:40pm ET: Senate Results: 4 Republican; 9 Democrat; 2 Independent.
10:00pm ET: Polls close in Iowa, Montana, Nevada, Utah.
10:02pm ET: Montana (3), Utah (6) to Romney.
10:02pm ET: New Hampshire (4), New Mexico, Pennsylvania (20), Wisconsin (10) to Obama.
10:17pm ET: House Results: 136 Republican; 82 Democrat.
10:17pm ET: Senate Results: 5 Republican; 14 Democrat; 2 Independent.
10:35pm ET: Minnesota (10) to Obama.
10:38pm ET: Arizona (11) to Romney.
10:52pm ET: Missouri (10) to Romney.
10:55pm ET: House Results: 160 Republican; 95 Democrat.
11:00pm ET: Polls close in California, Hawaii, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington.
11:04pm ET: Idaho (4) to Romney.
11:04pm ET: California (55), Hawaii (4), Oregon (7), Washington (12) to Obama.
11:11pm ET: Iowa (6) to Obama.
11:15pm ET: CNN first to call election for Obama.
11:17pm ET: North Carolina (15) to Romney.
11:17pm ET: Ohio (18) to Obama. Obama tops 270 electoral votes to win the election.
1:00am ET: Polls close in Alaska.
1:02am ET: Alaska (3) to Romney.

Overnight developments:

Colorado (9), Nevada (6), Virginia (13) to Obama.
Florida (29) still too close to call.
Obama leads Romney in Electoral College votes 303 to 206.
Obama leads Romney in popular vote 59.9 million to 57.2 million.
Democrats pick up 2 Senate seats; two seats still too close to call though Democrats lead in both contests (Montana, North Dakota).
Balance of power in the Senate: 51 Democrat; 2 Independent (to caucus with Democrats); 45 Republican.
Democrats predicted to pick up 5 House seats.; 13 seats still too close to call.

The pollsters pretty much nailed it. Other than Florida, which looks likely to go to Obama, the Electoral College went as expected.  In Congress, Democrats are expected to make some slight gains in the Senate (+2) and the House (+5), but even there, the pollsters were on the money. 

As I understand it, more than $6 billion was spent on the 2012 election (presidential and congressional races). That seems like a lot of investment to maintain the status quo, but an analyst on NPR made the following observation--more money ($8 billion) was spent on Halloween costumes and candy than on the 2012 election.

Lest you fear withdrawals now that the 2012 election is over, fear not. We have Armageddon (in the form of the fiscal cliff) coming up in January and mid-term elections are a mere 2 years away.

What Caught My Eye Today - Presidential Election

Presidential Election - It's hard to believe, but the 2012 election is just a day away. 1,463 days of campaigning have brought us to this moment. My how time flies. Let's see where things stands one day before the main event. First Congress. After all is said and done, the composition of both the Senate and House looks likely to remain exactly the same. Democrats will continue to maintain a slim majority in the Senate while Republicans maintain a healthy majority in the House. For as many of us that think the 112th Congress is doing a lousy job--and at last check 83% us fall into that category--it seems rather odd that we appear to be headed toward another two years of the status quo.

Speaking of status quo, if you are a supporter of the incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama, the math seems to be going your way. For the first time in a couple of weeks, polls show Obama is leading Republican challenger, Mitt Romney (Did you know that Romney's first name is Willard?) in both the popular vote and in the Electoral College. So if the votes that actually do matter bear out what the polls are telling, Obama will get four more years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Are you kidding me? Four years of campaigning, billions of dollars on political ads, and we're going to end up exactly where we started? Can someone please explain to me why we cannot conduct an election in 6 weeks the way every other free nation does?  Clearly dragging these things out over 4 years doesn't really seem to make much of a difference.

One final word before the election, or rather one final number. While there can be only one winner (gee, I wonder who the Supreme Court will choose as the winner), the loser can take solace in this. Regardless of what happens on November 6, on November 7, it is a mere 1,464 days until November 8, 2016.

Here are the poll numbers through Nov 4 (courtesy of the fine folks at Election Projection and the NY Times):

Did You Know? #11

What is the most popular candy bar in the United States (based on sales)?

1. Snickers ($424.1 million)
2. Reese's ($420.5 million)
3. M&M's ($417.3 million)
4. Hershey ($261.4 million)
5. Kit Kat ($209.9 million)
6. Twix ($194.0 million)
7. 3 Musketeers ($101.5 million)
8. Hershey Cookies & Cream ($82.8 million)
9. Milky Way ($72.0 million)
10. Almond Joy ($65.6 million)

What Caught My Eye Today - Hurricane Sandy, Presidential Election, Star Wars, Coffee

Hurricane Sandy - Hurricane Sandy is officially the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, with winds spanning 1,100 miles and is estimated in early calculations to have caused damage of at least $55 billion. That is one big mamba-jamba. Over twenty states were in one way or another affected by Sandy in the United States. The hurricane caused billions of dollars in damage in the United States, destroyed thousands of homes, left millions without electric service, and killed 82 (as of Nov 1). From October 27th through early November 1st, airlines cancelled a total of 19,729 flights. As of early morning on November 1, just over 4.8 million customers remained without power this morning in 15 states and the District of Columbia. Over the course of the reporting on this storm I was intrigued by one headline in particular and the amount of time spent talking about it. Is it a hurricane, a post-tropical cyclone, a superstorm--what do you call it? My personal preference is big mamba-jamba; but the point I want to make is this--who cares what call it. I pretty sure the millions of people who were affected by the it. How about we just call it Sandy. A fitting name if every there was one. Gender neutral, so why not meteorologically neutral too. At any rate, you have to figure it would take an event of epic proportions to sideline the presidential campaigns a week before Election Day. Sandy certain lived up to her/his/its billing.

Presidential Election - Both presidential campaigns say they have momentum heading into the home stretch. Interesting. I would have thought one of these guys would have thrown in the towel by now. Who's got the stronger case? The polls provide some support for each camp: Obama is leading in enough swing states to win the electoral college while Romney surged in the national polls to take a slight lead after the Denver debate. I love polls. Something for everyone. No losers here. Of course, there are no winners either. As it turns out, no one ever won an election based on the polls. I recall reading somewhere (I think it was the Constitution) that the president had to be elected by actual votes. Here are six signs that each side is right — three points for Romney winning in the final six days of the race, and three for Obama:

• Romney is now contesting blue states. Ah yes, the liberals are finally seeing Obama's failed policies for what they really are...failures.
• He's coasting on momentum from the Denver debate. Proof positive that Obama is all talk and no substance.
• The math adds up for a Romney win. Trust us, we know how to add.
• Hurricane Sandy is wind in the president's sails. Nothing like a natural disaster to pull the nation together behind the guy in charge, especially when he looks like he's in charge.
• Obama's gaining or maintaining in the swing states. Proof positive that Romney is all talk and no substance. Wait a minute? Didn't I just say that.
• Obama is edging ahead nationally. Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

One of my favorite 2008 election websites was FiveThirtyEight.com run by Nate Silver. Boyfriend cashed in after that and now collects a paycheck from the NY Times. (What! You can make money by blogging?) Regardless, this dude is wicked good with his models. If that trend continues, Obama won't have to call the movers for another 4 years.

Fred's Note:  It's been a pretty tough week for a lot of people, so with that in mind, we'll lighten things up with these last two items...a lot.

Star Wars - The force is strong with Mickey Mouse. So check it out. You can translate English into Yoda speak...seriously (click here).  That first sentence goes something like this--"Strong with mickey mouse, the force is.  Hmm". Let's see how this works as we continue with this story. In one of the most momentous entertainment industry acquisitions of the last 30 years, Disney is paying $4.05 billion to buy Lucasfilm Ltd., the production company behind "Star Wars," from its chairman and founder, George Lucas. It's also making a seventh movie in the "Star Wars" series called "Episode 7," set for release in 2015, with plans to follow it with Episodes 8 and 9 and then one new movie every two or three years. The deal includes Lucasfilm's prized high-tech production companies, Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker Sound, as well as rights to the "Indiana Jones" franchise. The deal brings Lucasfilm under the Disney banner with other brands including Pixar, Marvel, ESPN and ABC, all companies that Disney has acquired over the years. People took to Twitter immediately following the news. To twitter immediately following the news people took.  Some expressed excitement at the prospect of a new trilogy, but many were displeased that Disney would be taking over the reigns. One fan's disapproval was quickly expressed in an image depicting three death stars in the shape of Mickey Mouse's head. Quickly expressed in an image depicting three death stars in the shape of mickey mouse's head, one fan's disapproval was. Another compared the deal to Superstorm Sandy: "...Focus on one major disaster at [a] time!" Incidentally, the plot details around "Episode 7" are scant, but Lucas has dropped these hints over the years: It takes place a few decades after "Return of the Jedi," continues the story of Luke Skywalker, and would deal with the rebuilding of the republic. Final thought; which is more disturbing--that there is not one, but several Yoda-speak translators on the 'Net or that I took the time to actually try one out?

Coffee - A British department store is hoping to clear up any confusion caused by complicated coffee names -- like "cappuccino," "latte," "mocha" and "black coffee" -- and replacing them with descriptive terms "frothy coffee," "really really milky coffee," "chocolate flavored coffee," and "simple coffee, with or without milk" as part of a campaign to translate menus into "plain English." Leave it to the English to embrace sanity for the good of all humankind. It's about bloody time. Where other companies use labels like "tall" (small), "grande" (large) or "venti" (extra large), the store will only offer coffee in a "cup" or "mug" size.  You know what we need? I'll tell you... a Starbucks-speak translator. Oh dear god, there's one of those too (click here).

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!

What Caught My Eye Today: Presidential Election, Fracking, God

Presidential Election - Fred's Note: We're less than 6 weeks to Election Day, though early voting is now underway. Sort of a good news/bad news deal for both candidates. For Romney the bad news is that there has been a lot of bad news. The good news is that in terms of Electoral College votes, Romney is pretty much in the same situation as he was a couple of weeks ago, though several poll suggest that he's losing ground in a few swing states, making the path to the White House much more challenging. For Obama, the good news is that his polling numbers are on an upswing. The bad news is that polls aren't the same thing as actual votes. Another bright spot for Democrats is that they might just manage to keep their majority in the Senate, if only by the skin of their teeth. Bring on the debates.

Fracking - So far in 2012, carbon dioxide emissions in the United States have dropped to their lowest level in 20 years, down 14% from their peak in 2007. No way. Wait, I know why. With unemployment being so high, fewer people have jobs to drive to. And with fewer people working, they are buying less, which obviously means factory output is down. In other words...this too is an indictment of the failed policies of the incumbent President. What that's you say...too much hubris? Yeah, well turns out there is an actual logical explanation for the decrease in emissions. Thanks to the natural gas boom created by drilling into shale formations - the process known as "fracking" - the U.S. has cut way back on its use of coal to generate electricity, and shifted to gas, which emits 45% less carbon dioxide. As a result, the nation's emissions dropped by 500 megatons per year, about twice the total impact of the Kyoto Protocol on emissions throughout the rest of the world. Two reactions here. First, damn, we create a lot of emissions. A mere 14% decrease on our part amounted to the combined reductions of most of the rest of the world over several years. Of course the rest of the world didn't include China or India either. Second thing is while this is all well and good, does anyone have a clue what the long term impact of all this fracking might be? Neither do I

Fred's Note: If the presidential election doesn't provide enough dinner time fodder for you, we'll end this post with a philosophical question on the existence of God. Nothing controversial there.

God - Science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Unless, of course, you are one of the few enlightened ones who has truly embraced creationism. Much of what once seemed mysterious can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science. My daddy says all that science talk is hokum. Some scientists say there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever. Physicists have observed that many of the physical constants that define our universe, from the mass of the electron to the density of dark energy, are eerily perfect for supporting life. Alter one of these constants by a hair, and the universe becomes unrecognizable. Theologians often seize upon the so-called "fine-tuning" of the physical constants as evidence that God must have had a hand in them; it seems he chose the constants just for us. Let me see if I've got this straight. God is a a cosmologist? Even if cosmologists manage to explain how the universe began, and why it seems so fine-tuned for life, the question might remain why there is something as opposed to nothing. Dude, I was so thinking about that very conundrum right before I sat down to write this. Is that spooky or what? To many people, the answer to the question is God. I came up with a slightly different answer myself -- 4.8. Psychology research suggests that belief in the supernatural acts as societal glue and motivates people to follow the rules; further, belief in the afterlife helps people grieve and staves off fears of death. Simply put, "We're not designed at the level of theoretical physics." Psychology huh? Now that's what I call hokum.

What Caught My Eye Today - Presidential Election, Potpourri

Presidential Election - Fred's Note: 50 days left to the election. Here's how the polls might play out if the election were held today.  Sort of a mixed bag depending on your political leanings. Democrats look pretty good to retain the White House for another 4 years. Republicans can take some solace in the fact that they may win a majority in the Senate and retain a majority in the House, albeit by a smaller margin.  Isn't that nice? Political gridlock for everyone.



Potpourri - It's been a while since our last compilation of newsworthy odds and ends. Let's remedy that shall we?

• Banks - The world's oldest bank, Monte dei Pashi founded in 1472 in Siena, Italy, has survived the Borgias, pestilence, and too may wars to count, but now finds itself on the brink of insolvency due to ill-advised expansion in 2007 and Italian government debt. Its $30 billion in Italian government bonds has resulted in $2 billion in losses over the first 6 months of 2012. Evidently, the Italians have not embraced the notion of "too old to fail".
• Skyscrapers - A Chinese company plans to build the world's tallest skyscraper in just thre months in China's central Hunan province. The build says the tower will be 2,749 feet tall (33 feet taller than Dubai's Burj Khalifa) and be made of prefabricated block that connect like Lego bricks. A classical case of "mine is bigger than yours" syndrome. Seriously though, who in their right mind thinks building a half mile tall structure in 3 months is a good idea?
• Homeownership - The U.S. rate of homeownership is 62.1%, the lowest level since 1965. In 2005, the rate topped 68%. This doesn't take into account homeowners in foreclosure or loan delinquency, which suggests a further decline awaits. Remember, when homeownership was viewed as a "sure thing" investment vehicle? Me neither.
• Speed Limits - The Texas Transportation Commision approved an 85 mile per hour speed limit for a stretch of road near Austin, topping the previous national record of 80 mph for highways in souther Utah and western Texas. At some point, you have to wonder, why even bother with a speed limit. Of course, in my case, it doesn't really matter. The only way my bucket of bolts is going to hit 85 is if I drive off the side of a cliff.
• Metaphysical Services - eBay has bans the sale of "metaphysical services," such as magical potions and lottery number predictions, saying that eBay wants to be "a trusted marketplace where buyers have a consistently great experience." Potions, prophecies and spells were "not meeting that standard." Damn muggles. They have to poo-poo everything, don't they?
• Lap Dancing - A strip club in New York is trying to reduce its tax bill by claiming that lap dancing is an art form equivalent to ballet. The state solicitor general countered that "if the women kept their clothes on, no one would be coming to the bar for the dance performances. Duh. I can go see traditional ballet anywhere. But ballet at a nudie bar??? You just don't see that everyday do you...unless of course you subscribe to HBO.

Did You Know? #7

What are the eight-thousanders?

The eight-thousanders are the 14 independent mountains on Earth that are more than 8,000 metres (26,247 ft) high above sea level. They are all located in the Himalayan and Karakoram mountain ranges in Asia. In descending order of height, the eight-thousanders consist of: Mount Everest (8848m), K2 (8611m), Kangchenjunga (8586m), Lhotse (8516m), Makalu (8485m), Cho Oyu (8188m), Dhaulagiri I (8167m), Manaslu (8163m), Nanga Parbat (8126m), Annapuma I ((8091m), Gasherbrum I (8080m), Broad Peak (8051m), Gasherbrum II (8034m) and Shishapangma (8027m). As of 2011, a total of 26 people have summitted all 14 peaks undisputedly.

What Caught My Eye Today - Job Creation, Code Names, Vegetarianism

Job Creation - With the Democratic National Convention in full swing, a number of party leaders are attempting to boost President Obama's re-election effort by asserting that 4.5 million new jobs have been created during his term. Wow that sure sounds like a lot, don't it? President Obama himself has recently claimed more job growth in the past 29 months than President George W. Bush created "during the entire seven years before this crisis." Everybody say it with me now...4 more year, 4 more years. 4 more years.. However, CNN fact-checked that claim and found it to be "not the whole picture." Say what? There has been a net increase of just 300,000 non-farm payroll jobs since Obama took office. And if you count government jobs, there are actually 400,000 fewer people working today than in January 2009. Now that can't be right. How could anyone possibly confuse 4.5 million with a negative 400,000? When Democrats use the 4.5 million jobs number, they're referring to jobs created after the economy bottomed out in January 2010, one year after Obama took office. That time frame excludes the worst job losses, which took place in 2009, and which many Democrats argue were the result of Bush policies. Don't you just love when politicians practice their math skills? It's the only profession that I know of where "two plus two equals five" is the norm. Historical analysis of job growth percentages shows that Obama still fares better than some recent presidents. As of July, Obama is averaging +0.84% annual job growth in his term. That places him ahead of Bush, who saw +.051% growth in his first term and -0.84% in his second term. Obama is also tracking better than George H.W. Bush, who presided over +0.64% growth during his one term in the White House. Obama's job growth percentages trail far behind some other recent presidents, including Bill Clinton (+2.60% and +1.60%), Ronald Reagan (+1.75% and +2.53%) and even Jimmy Carter (+2.30%). So when it comes to job creation (or loss), is it really a question of competency or being in the right place at the right time (or as I like to say, "dumb luck")? I tend to think if you employ the right math, it probably doesn't matter.


Code Names - This one is kind of fun, mostly because I like cloak and dagger stuff. Though apparently, there isn't as much cloak and dagger as there used to be. Paul Ryan, who received Secret Service protection last month after being picked as Mitt Romney's running mate, has his new Secret Service code name to brandish: "Bowhunter." Ryan, a skilled archer and deer hunter whose kills are well-documented, chose the code name himself. Is it just me or does it seem a bit cheezy for a gut to pick his own code name? Ryan's wife, Janna, is "Buttercup." Mitt Romney, who has had Secret Service protection since January, is known as "Javelin"—a handle that could refer to a vintage muscle car manufactured by American Motors Corp., where Romney's father, George, was once chairman. Yeah, that's totally the first thing that came to my mind too. What's that? You were thinking maybe I was going to go with some phallic reference? Please. This is a classy blog. President Barack Obama's Secret Service code name, chosen during his 2008 presidential campaign, is "Renegade." Michelle Obama's code name is "Renaissance," while first daughters Malia and Sasha go by "Radiance" and "Rosebud," respectively. One cannot help but wonder just how much the letter R has contributed to the Obama re-election campaign or why he didn't go with the letter D instead. Obama's opponent in the 2008 election, Sen. John McCain, was "Phoenix," a nod to his home state. McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, was "Denali." The code name tradition dates back to when communications between the Secret Service and White House Military Office were not encrypted. A spokesperson for the U.S. Secret Service said, "Given modern capabilities to secure communications through encryption, there is no longer any security relevance to protectee call signs." Naturally, this got me to thinking about code names for myself. I'm thinking of either "Magnificent One" or "He Who All Others Aspire To Be Because He Personifies All That is Right and Just in the World". I kind of like the way the second one rolls off the tongue.

Vegetarianism - For the first time ever, McDonald's is opening a pair of restaurants that will not serve any meat at all. Oh great. Yet another sign that the apocalypse is upon us. Both of the restaurants will open next year in India — one in the city of Amritsar (the holiest site in the Sikh religion), and one in the town of Katra (a "jump-off point" for Hindus visiting the mountain shrine of Vaishno Devi). The stores will serve the vegetarian items currently sold in Indian McDonald's restaurants, and the chain will likely develop some new items as well. It's all because of local preferences. Cows are sacred in India, and much of the country is vegetarian. So the existing McDonald's locations in India don't serve beef, but they do serve lots of chicken in its place. Sure, why not call it chicken, just for the sake of argument. Seriously, have you ever really looked at the stuff they put in those McChicken sandwiches? For instance, there's no Big Mac in India. Instead, stores serve the Maharaja Mac, which has chicken patties. It also sells the Filet-o-Fish, Chicken Nuggets and more non-beef menu items. The two vegetarian locations won't serve any chicken or fish items at all. Click here to see some of the other unique offerings available at your friendly neighborhood Indian golden arches.

What Caught My Eye Today - Stock Market, 2012 Presidential Race, Taiwan, China

Stock Market - Feel free to file this one in the "Isn't that ironic?" folder. For a lot of Americans asking whether they're better off than when President Barack Obama took office in 2009, it's a tossup. Some things are better, such as job security, lending conditions and the stability of the overall economy. But there are fewer jobs, incomes have fallen and average net worth has plummeted. As a member of the investor class, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has benefited directly from one of the few developments under Obama that has been unambiguously positive. One thing Obama can genuinely crow about is a vigorous stock market rally during his first three-and-a-half years. Wait, wait. Save your breath. I already know the response to this is. Something to the affect of, "The market didn't go up because of him, it went up in spite of him" Did I get that right? From the day Obama took office, the S&P 500 stock index has risen by 64%. Overall, the rising stock market has helped Americans recover nearly $10 trillion worth of financial assets since 2008, according to Federal Reserve data. The bottom line for Romney is that he most likely suffered losses under Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. Let me if I've got this straight--the market goes up, but we don't like the guy, so it's his fault that the market didn't go higher; however, the market went down under the other guy who we liked, so clearly the market conditions were beyond his control, so it's not his fault. Okay, I think I got it. For a second there, I thought there might be some sort of double standard.

2012 Presidential Race - So we wrapped up the Republican National Convention last week and have the Democratic National Convention this week. Guess what, both political parties think their guy is the one best equipped to lead the nation for the next four years. Crazy, I know. These things are so scripted, I'm not sure anyone who has already decided who they are going to vote for is likely to change their mind, and those who haven't -- if they tune in to both conventions -- are going to be swayed one way or the other. That said, what we can be sure of is some great soundbites. First, the Obama campaign. The headline says it all -- Obama aide: ‘The country is better off’. The way I heard it, they canned the Obama aide who said the country was in the crapper; dude was not towing the party line.  Meanwhile, Mitt Romney sprinkled his latest stump speech with sports analogies, arguing "If you have a coach that's zero and 23 million, you say it's time to get a new coach." Isn't he just the wittiest guy? And not to be outdone in the quotable quote department, Hank Williams Jr., whose "Monday Night Football" theme song was pulled by ESPN last year after he compared President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler, lashed out at the president during a Labor Day weekend concert saying, "We've got a Muslim for a president who hates cowboys, hates cowgirls, hates fishing, hates farming, loves gays, and we hate him!" Atta boy, Hank. Who needs facts when a health dose of slander will do?

What with all the lofty news coming out of the U.S. political arena, I thought it might be nice to switch things up a bit with these last two items courtesy of our Asian brethren. As is often the case with stories such as these, I'm not sure how exactly they qualify as newsworthy, but they sure are noteworthy.
Taiwan - Taiwan's government wants men to sit down to urinate in the interest of cleanliness. The country's Environmental Protection Administration has directed local governments to put up signs in public restrooms requesting that men sit so they are less likely to leave a mess. There's a "number one" vs. "number two" joke in there someplace. And another thing...what do you think the Public Service Announcement for this initiative will look like? A Swedish political party recently published research showing that men empty their bladders more thoroughly while sitting.  Okay, this is a little creepy if you ask me. A political party is keeping tabs on our potty breaks?  A line has definitely been crossed here.
China - The latest beach accessory in China is the "face-kini," a full head mask that ensures that wearers go home without any trace of a tan. Of course they did. What sane person would actually want to risk contact with sunlight when they venture outside? In China, darker skin has traditionally been associated with outdoor labor, while pale skin indicates aristocratic status, so the new mask in proving to be popular. It always fascinates me how perception can vary so much depending on who you are and where you live. Personally I equate a bit of sun with having some balance in one's life that includes some time outdoors as opposed to the pasty white skin that usually comes with spending too much friggin' time behind my desk.