As U.S. intelligence agencies take heat for their response to Russian warnings about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, we're learning that the National Counterterrorism Center added the now-deceased Boston bombing suspect to its massive terrorism watch list with incorrect dates of birth and a variant spelling of his name, which prevented Tsarnaev's 2012 trip to Dagestan and Chechnya from triggering a travel alert, according to the New York Times. 

The blunder isn't all that surprising. After all, many foreign names have different spellings in English. There are at least 112 different ways of spelling the late Libyan leader's name in English, for example (We at FP go by Muammar al-Qaddafi). 

China, however, has the opposite problem: millions of people across the country share the exact same name. Renren, a Chinese social media site, has a function called "Same First Name Same Last Name Big Gathering" where you can see how many other people on the site share your name. Wang Wei, the name of an eighth-century Chinese poet, has 30,639 hits. But the poet uses a more obscure spelling. If you use a different character for Wei, which means "great," Renren returns 164,430 hits. Even imprisoned Nobel Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo shares his relatively uncommon name with 1,617 other people on the site.

The most common name in China, according to the 2007 census, is Zhang Wei, which 290,607 people claimed (there doesn't appear to be a list of the most common names for the 2012 census). At least 49 other names are shared by more than 150,000 people, and reading through the list feels a bit like scrolling through my old Chinese cell phone. Wang Yong, which at number 22 is a name shared by 198,720 people, was my cleaning lady, whom we called Auntie. Liu Wei, number nine, was a landlord of mine, while Wang Gang, number 47, was an author and real estate developer I interviewed for a story. 

When it comes to last names, a more recent census by the Public Security Bureau found that 21.4 percent of China's population, or 270 million people, have the name Li, Wang, or Zhang, "making them the world's three most common last names," according to an April article in the Beijing Morning Post. And the phenomenon is regional: In the northeast, where Auntie was from, roughly 10 percent of the population has the surname Wang, while in the south, Chen, the fifth-most common name nationwide, is shared by about 10.6 percent of the population. In the United States, by contrast, roughly 90 percent of the population uses 151,671 surnames, according to the 2000 census (the last year in which data is available), there are over six million surnames total in the United States. 

In China, 87 percent of the population shares 100 names, according to the Beijing Morning Post. This is why common people in China are still known by the term "hundred common name," a phrase I heard most often when someone was either declining to answer a question about politics -- "I'm just a hundred common name, I don't understand" -- or complaining about politics -- "they don't pay any attention to us hundred common names."

A 2007 article from Xinhua, China's state news agency, argues that having the same name as another person, like "when a man gets put into a woman's dorm, a company sends money (to the wrong person), or when one class has 'three myselfs,' makes life more interesting." However, "when nearly 300,000 people have the same name, and an innocent person gets mistaken for an escaped criminal, having the same name is no longer an amusing episode." In an illustration of this problem, a December 2012 notice on the website for the Chinese embassy in the Philippines reminded travelers who have common names "to prepare their ID, a copy of their ID," as well as a document showing that they have "no criminal record" to ensure that they could enter the country in the event that they were mistaken for someone with a criminal record. 

So, why do so many Chinese people share the same name? This, unfortunately, might be one of those blog posts where the question posed doesn't get answered. Chinese online question-and-answer sites like Baidu Knowledge offer intriguing but not entirely convincing answers on the limited number of Chinese characters. One commenter put it succintly: "1. There are many people. 2. There are not many names." 

What do you think? Let me know in the comments.  

Today, the United States sent a warning to North Korea by deploying two nuclear-capable B-2 bombers to drop munitions near North Korea in a joint military drill with South Korea. The Associated Press called the muscle-flexing "unprecedented." Time's ace defense writer Mark Thompson deemed the military's announcement "unusual."

One of the reasons the U.S. warning shot is atypical is because the United States rarely announces the location of its top-secret B-2 bombers. But another reason this is uncharted territory is because of the exorbitant expense of taking B-2 bombers out of their home base in Missouri to frighten a bellicose regime on the other side of the world. As the Center for Public Integrity reported last year:

The B-2s are actually not used much now, partly because few targets justify risking aircraft that cost $3 billion apiece in today's dollars, and partly because their flights by some estimates cost $135,000 per hour - almost double that of any other military airplane.

$135,000 per hour of flight? That's a steep price tag, especially considering the flight was round-trip and involved two stealth bombers. Per the military's statement:

This mission by two B-2 Spirit bombers assigned to 509th Bomb Wing ... involved flying more than 6,500 miles to the Korean Peninsula, dropping inert munitions on the Jik Do Range, and returning to the continental U.S. in a single, continuous mission.

The military didn't say how many hours the B-2s were in the air. But even if the B-2s were traveling at top speed the entire way (628 mph), which they most certainly were not, it would mean 10.3 hours each way -- a tally that doesn't even include the amount of time it took to drop the munitions on the South Korean island. Adding it all up, that's 20.6 hours of flight time for two B-2 bombers -- for an estimated cost of $5.5 million.

That may be a rounding error given the scope of the Pentagon's budget, but the costs don't stop there. According to a Los Angeles Times report on the B-2 bombers in 2010, the after-flight maintenance costs of such an operation will really burn a hole in your pocket. "For each hour it's in the air, a bomber spends 50 to 60 hours on the ground undergoing maintenance," reported the paper. "The Air Force spent more than $800 million last year upgrading, maintaining and overhauling the stealth bomber fleet."

Let's just hope the Dear Leader was sufficiently spooked. This could get expensive.  

The United States and Pakistan have not had the greatest year -- or decade -- from a diplomatic perspective. Just today, for instance, Pakistan and Iran launched a natural gas pipeline that Washington has vigorously opposed. Reflecting on the state of U.S.-Pakistani relations at the end of 2012, one senior State Department official told reporters:

Obviously, if you sort of step back a little bit, for us, 2011 was as hard a year in U.S.-Pakistan relations as you can imagine.... And so we tried in 2012 to sort of get back into some sensible business with them. Our philosophy has been that it ought to be possible between Pakistan and the United States to systematically identify our shared interests and act on them jointly.

Apparently, 12-year-olds have no trouble doing just that. Through the Marshall Direct Fund's Global Kid Connect program, Aspen Country Day School in Colorado has been taking part in a pen pal exchange with Lahore Grammar School in Pakistan. In their letters, which the organization has posted online, the elementary and middle schoolers go beyond identifying "shared interests" (Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift), broaching some touchier subjects as well.

Audra, a seventh-grader, writes: 

Not many of the Pakistani students' letters have been posted online. But judging from the responses by Aspen students, terrorism is a recurring theme in the exchanges, Here's Tristan, 13:

To answer your question. We don't think your country is all terroriscs [sic] but we think that your country has terrorists in it. Are there terrorists in your country?

Meanwhile, Sarah, a seventh-grader, unequivocally states her lack of an agenda when it comes to Pakistan:

Here's my personal favorite, from Andrew, 13, and Mat, 9:

You have to give these kids credit. It might be time for the State Department to recruit some junior ambassadors.

Bank robber "Slick Willie" Sutton famously - maybe apocryphally -- said that he robbed banks because "that's where the money is."

Sutton's principle is worth keeping in mind when considering the latest massive heist to hit the diamond trading center in Antwerp, Belgium. On Monday, some $50 million (Update: The Wall Street Journal is reporting it may have been up to $350 million) in diamonds en route from Antwerp to Switzerland were stolen from the cargo hold of a plane at Brussels'  international airport. The robbery may have been "one of the biggest" ever, as a source at the Antwerp World Diamond Center said, but it's actually at least the fourth heist on this scale to hit the Antwerp market in the last decade.

The most audacious heist was probably the 2003 theft from the safes at the Antwerp trading center itself. 123 out of the center's 160 safes, protected behind 10 layers of security, were hit by an Italian gang known as the "School of Turin." In a highly entertaining 2009 Wired article on the theft, one of the robbers speculates that the heist may have been part of a larger insurance fraud scheme.

The scale of the 2003 job was matched by the 2005 theft of approximately $99 million in Antwerp-bound diamonds and jewelry from an armored car at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport. There was also a $28 million diamond heist from an Antwerp bank in 2007 by a man who had spent more than a year posing as a wealthy diamond merchant under the amazing name Carlos Hector Flomenbaum and had gained the bank staff's trust to the point that he was able to walk into the vault with a key and help himself to the rocks.

The problem probably isn't so much that Antwerp's security is bad. But even with "2,000 surveillance cameras, police monitoring and countless identity controls," Antwerp and the shipments that come in and out of it will continue to be targets for thieves because that's where the diamonds are: about 84 percent of the 118.5 million carats of uncut stones mined in 2011 passed through the city.

The biggest threat to Antwerp probably isn't thieves but globalization.  In recent years, the city's diamond cutting monopoly has been facing competition from emerging competitors like Mumbai, Shanghai, Dubai, and Tel Aviv. Last year, Antwerp took a major blow when De Beers - the world's largest diamond producer - moved its sorting and trading facility from London to Botswana. (Antwerp's proximity to London had been one of its main competitive advantages as a trading center.)

These rising alternative diamond centers have yet seen robberies on the scale of the recent Antwerp jobs. This is a bit surprising given the lax security Jason Miklian described at the diamond polishing center in Surat, India in a recent FP article. The fact that the big-game robbers seem to still focus on Antwerp suggests either a vote of confidence for the city's place in the industry or lack of imagination by the criminals. (Or it could lend credence to the conspiracy theory that many of these thefts are inside jobs, as the jailed School of Turin robber suggested to Wired. Smuggling and embezzlement aren't exactly unheard of in Antwerp, so insurance fraud doesn't seem beyond the pale. )

As Slate's Matthew Yglesias suggests, the seeming ease of the thefts doesn't really help Antwerp make the case for its relevance in an increasingly crowded marketplace. When cutting, polishing, and trading can be done for a fraction of the price in India, why ship diamonds to Belgium when security's not guaranteed?  

India and Dubai do have some big diamond heists now and then, but we'll probably know these markets have really arrived when they have their first $10 million job.

The new user-generated Google Map of North Korea unveiled with some fanfare on the company''s blog Monday is a bit less than it initally seems. It isn't the most detailed publicly available map of North Korea. It's not even the most detailed map produced by Google -- that title belongs to the North Korea Uncovered project, produced by Google Earth, which has truly extensive mapping of the isolated country from its dams to its power stations and even its restaurants. (The head of that project, Curtis Melvin, comes off a touch bitter about all the attention the new Google Maps project has received in this Wall Street Journal story).

Where Google Maps does win out, however, is in easy accessibility (North Korea Uncovered requires a few downloads before it's usable). As an added bonus, the user review feature has produced a bit of a snarkfest. Users have left reviews on North Korean landmarks ranging from parks and monuments to gulags and nuclear testing facilities. While some are earnest, the vast majority are decidedly not. Here's a sampling of what's been posted:

Nuclear Test Facility, North Hamgyong, North Korea

Of all the barren, post-nuclear, wastelands I have visited this was by far the best. Of course Los Alamos is the classic, but no where else do you feel the warmth of the radioactive decay take you in its soft embrace quite as vividly as in the Hamgyong Nuclear Test Facility. However, be warned, reservations are required, as Hamgyong, is very exclusive. In fact, it is not uncommon to encounter the upper echelons of North Korean society. Once, I even met the North's biggest film star, Zao Xioping, who has stared in such famous films as, "Glory to the Industrial Proletariat in Their Moment of Triumph Over the Decadent Capitalists," and of course who could forget his appearance in the 2010 classic "Kim Il Sung and the Temple of Doom." If you're visiting the nearby Hamgyong Concentration Camp, the Nuclear Test Facility is a must!!

-E RR

Hwasong Gulag

Whilst it doesn't have the international reputation of Bukchang, Hwasong is certainly worth a visit for any gulag enthusiast.

-Chloe G.

Kumsusan Memorial Palace, Pyongyang

I found the fish tacos to be really underwhelming

-Richie Heimbrock

East Pyongyang Market, Pyongyang

Service is good, but selection is sub-par.

-Nicholas Toecker

Just a handful of what's out there, and there will surely be more to come

Americans, U.S. President Barack Obama said yesterday during his inaugural address, "are made for this moment."

Why? Because "we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive, diversity and openness, endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention."

It's a reassuring thought, but do we Americans really possess these qualities more than any other countries?

Without a doubt, the U.S. is not particularly youthful when compared to other countries around the world. The median age in the U.S. is 37.1; the world's median age is 28.4, placing us well on the older end of the spectrum. We're younger than most of the OECD countries, but are still beaten out by Brazil (29.6), Chile (32.8), Ireland (35.1), Israel (29.5) and Mexico (27.4).

Is the U.S. very diverse? Not really, according to Stanford political scientist James Fearon. Fearon tried to measure diversity in 160 countries around the world in a 2003 study, and (with all the appropriate caveats that ethnicity is a difficult thing to define) found that the the U.S. comes in as the 85^th most diverse country in the world. The most diverse western country is actually Canada, with an "ethnic fractionalization index" of .596 (the U.S.'s is .491), and we're outranked by almost every country in sub-saharan Africa, as well as Brazil (.549), Mexico (.542) and Israel (.526), among others.

How about our appetite for risk? A little trickier to measure, but a group of researchers at the Social Science Research Center in Berlin tried last November, through a study in which they conducted experiments to measure the risk tolerance of 80-100 students in 30 countries, to see how their results compared with development and growth levels. The U.S., despite our "have gun, will travel" reputation, is actually somewhat risk averse, according to this research: they give us a risk tolerance score of about .-07 - still above those stodgy Germans, but slightly below France. Meanwhile, the Brazilians (again!) seem to be a little more inclined to put some skin in the game:

Finally: do we have more capacity for reinvention than other countries? This might be the hardest characteristic to find a proxy for, but one might be how likely a country's workers are to find new jobs within a certain time period. This study, from 2004, looked at 25 countries, and found that while U.S. workers are fairly likely to keep on moving, they are still less likely to change jobs in a twelve month period than Canadians (again!) or Russians.

Whether these particular characteristics are really the ones that will count in the years to come is the subject of a separate blog post. But if Americans are "made for this moment," as Obama says, it seems that Canadians and Brazilians might be too -- or maybe even more so.

On Friday, China's largest English-language newspaper, China Daily, launched Africa Weekly, a supplement that "will look at the precise nature of Chinese involvement in Africa and also the prominent role many Africans play in China." The announcement on the government-owned China Daily featured quotes from Chinese and African diplomats falling over each other to praise how this initiative will improve mutual understanding, especially Africans' understanding of China: "Minister of Culture Cai Wu said the new weekly will give African people a comprehensive and reliable guide to China" and "Abdul'ahat Abdurixit, president of the Chinese-African People's Friendship Association, said the launch of an Africa edition by China Daily 'will surely help improve communication between China and Africa.'"

Improving African understanding of Chinese is a great goal, though it probably wouldn't hurt if Chinese expanded their views of Africans. During a China-Africa summit in 2006, billboards lining the road to the airport featured some purporting to "glorify" Africans, though at least one, featuring a tribesman with a bone through his nose, depicted a Papua New Guinean. A month before a 2012 China-Africa summit in July, Africans rioted in Guangzhou after a Nigerian was found dead in police custody; "the Chinese social media response to the latest protest in Guangzhou was dismayingly xenophobic," wrote Time's Hannah Beech, who also noted that the districts where Africans congregate in Guangzhou are known as "chocolate city."

While there's plenty of anecdotal evidence out there, it's hard to generalize about what Chinese think about Africans without being hypocritical, so I'll just quote what a Chinese English-teaching recruiter once told me in Beijing: "We try not to hire black people. They tend to scare the children."

One prominent example of the gulf in racial understanding between Chinese and Africans is "Black People Toothpaste," one of the most popular toothpaste brands in China, which I wrote a story about for Newsweek in 2010, and which a Colgate spokesman I spoke with on Friday confirmed is still 50 percent owned by his company. The logo features a minstrel singer wearing a top hat, backed by a white halo, and flashing a smile of blindingly white teeth. The brand is so widespread it's even engendered a popular knockoff brand, "Black Younger Sister Toothpaste."

Black People Toothpaste used to be called Darkie in English, but an outcry against Colgate when the news was reported in the United States in the late 1980s caused the brand to change the English name to the less offensive Darlie, and to change the logo from offensive and sinister to just offensive. "The only difference between black people and white people is that black people have whiter teeth," Wu Junjie, who works for a Taiwanese fast-food restaurant in Beijing, told me in 2010. Before China Daily and other state organs can successfully highlight the "prominent role" Africans play in China, it probably wouldn't hurt if fewer Chinese people associated black people with toothpaste.

Paris Hilton, darling of tabloid papers and the star of a notorious sex tape, has opened a new store in the most bizarre of locales: the Islamic holy city of Mecca. What could go wrong? 

"Loving my beautiful new store that just opened at Mecca Mall in Saudi Arabia!" Hilton tweeted on Nov. 14, causing disgruntled tweeps to engage in a heated discussion about the implications of the starlet's decision to open her store in a city that is considered the holiest site in Islam.

"R u kidding?" was one person's response, while others commented on the absurdity of such a controversial female celebrity marketing her goods in a country where women aren't permitted to drive cars. Here are some more reactions posted by folks on Twitter:

Paris Hilton and Mecca - someone put the car in reverse nydn.us/U9c65I #parishiltonmecca

— Nancy (@NancykKhurana) November 19, 2012

NO JOKE: Paris Hilton store just opened at Mecca Mall! O, 'tis most sweet,When in one line two crafts directly meet- parishilton.com/loving-my-beau…

— Hussein Ibish (@Ibishblog) November 17, 2012

Shiite Muslims considered infidel Officially in Saudi Arabia and not welcome in kingdom But Paris Hilton’s new storein Mecca gets welcome.

— Syed Haider (@haiderworld) November 18, 2012

Im not religious and still find this perverse RT @alarabiya_eng: Paris Hilton’s new Mecca store causes controversy english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/…

— arabist (@arabist) November 17, 2012

So Paris Hilton opened a handbag store in MECCA? The world is a corrupt place at the moment. Someone please send me to Mars.

— Brown Power Ranger (@OfficialEtty) November 19, 2012

Hilton has tried her hand at many careers, with varying success, including acting and singing. However, her notoriety has helped her fashion brand triumph in the global marketplace. The Mecca store is Hilton's fifth in Saudi Arabia, bringing the grand total of Paris Hilton shops to 42. "So proud to keep growing my brand!" Hilton tweeted. The store will sell perfumes, handbags, and footwear, along with other items in the hotel heiress's fashion line.

One thing's for certain -- it seems doubtful that Hilton will be invited to Saudi Arabia to promote the opening of her new store. She might have some problems with the dress code.

With the U.S. presidential election now closer than ever, the press is brimming with speculation about whether Barack Obama, after turning in a lackluster performance in the first debate, can reverse Mitt Romney's momentum  during his second outing tonight. And not just the U.S. media. News outlets from India to Israel are busy dissecting Obama's setback, Romney's comeback, and what the new state of play in the race means for their countries. Here's a snapshot of some of the most colorful coverage in recent days:

Britain

The British press has at times been rather brutal in assessing the shifting dynamics in the presidential race (sample Daily Mail headline this week: "Preparing for a new job already? Obama delivers pizzas to campaign workers as he gets ready for make-or-break TV debate at golf resort"). But commentators have also speculated about what a Romney win would mean for Britain. Over at the Telegraph, Tim Stanley argues that David Cameron and his Conservative Party have expressed their preference for Obama too openly. "By airing these views in public the Tories have gambled too much on Obama winning the election," he maintains. "And if he doesn't, then they'll have a President on their hands who they have routinely insulted. That can't be good for the Atlantic alliance." (Stanley, for the record, thinks tonight's debate will end in a draw or Romney win.)

Meanwhile, Sir Christopher Meyer, a former British ambassador to the United States, writes in the London Evening Standard that an Obama victory would be best for Britain:

Romney could turn out to be an excellent foreign policy president, yet right now, his foreign policy team is split between neo-con hawks and those of a more pragmatic, "realist" world view, similar to our own. We don't know which faction will come out on top. In the circumstances, we're better off with the devil we know - and that's Obama.

China

The state-run news agency Xinhua has a warning today for the presidential candidates: "[I]t would be both politically shortsighted and detrimental to China-US relations if they turned the town-hall-style meeting into a China-bashing competition" (the news outlet appears to be confusing tonight's debate with the third and final debate on foreign policy, which will touch on topics such as "the rise of China and tomorrow's world"). Sure, both candidates' tough talk on China may be nothing more than campaign bluster, Xinhua observes. But "these chameleonic politicians should not always expect that the wounds they have inflicted to the China-US ties would heal automatically" once they assume office.

India

In an article on the possibility that India could be dealing with several new world leaders in a matter of months, the Times of India marvels that "from being a candidate who could barely control his own Republican Party, Mitt Romney has surged forward to be a surprisingly competent debater and a more than credible opponent." Still, the paper adds, the outcome of the U.S. election may not have a major impact on bilateral relations. "The Indo-US relationship has now become institutionalized and isn't actually dependent on a president," the article notes.

In a debate preview at the Hindustan Times, the U.S.-based journalist Rashmee Roshan Lall argues that Romney is unlikely to endear himself to India or the world during Tuesday night's event.  True, she notes, the "New Delhi punditocracy has always thought Republican presidents suit India much better than Democratic ones." But Romney doesn't mention India on the campaign trail and wants to "reinstate the US as globocop, albeit with a makeover that borrows heavily from some of the darker manifestations of Lord Voldemort." She concludes with a question: "Is it better to be steamrollered or simply ignored or might the best option for India and everyone else be four more years of Obama?"

Israel

As the U.S. race has tightened -- "The presidential race has begun anew," one Israel Hayom headline proclaims -- the editorial boards at Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post have published explanations for why they'll be remaining neutral during the election. Haaretz notes, in rather vivid language, that "Romney would stick with Israel's prime minister and they would become flesh of one flesh" but adds that the substantive differences between the candidates are minor. Haaretz columnist Chemi Shalev, meanwhile, muses about the various leadership permutations that could result from elections in Israel and the United States. 

As for the upcoming debate, Israel Hayom's Abraham Ben-Avi thinks it is "Obama's last window of opportunity to rehabilitate his status as a leader" while Haaretz's Adar Primor argues that the world will still favor Obama over Romney even if the candidates sharpen the distinctions between them on foreign policy tonight. "Those [around the world] who have shaken off their Obama fixation have done so largely because in certain areas of policy he is seen as having adopted the Republican agenda," Primor writes.

Russia

Russia's RT didn't buy the widespread verdict that Romney trounced Obama in the first debate, noting that the "tepid" forum had shown the candidates to be "two sides of the same coin." But Romney's post-debate bounce has spurred the Russian press to give the GOP candidate a closer look. News outlets covered Romney's Russia comments during his recent foreign-policy address in Virginia but cautioned against reading too much into the aggressive rhetoric (the state-run Voice of Russia did note that "a serious politician should avoid making that kind of remarks with respect to another leading country"). One Russian lawmaker, meanwhile, accused Romney of embracing George W. Bush's failed policies and presiding over the "last convulsion of the American-style world."

In the most creative commentary, the Voice of Russia compares the debates to chess matches and quotes the chess player Vladislav Tkachev:

"Very often the real moves, such as the candidate's plan of actions and package of reforms, remain in the background and the psychological factor comes to the fore. Suffice it to look at the footage of the confrontation between Karpov and Kasparov to see that the duel of the eyes, a springy step and an overall aggressive look were of paramount importance. It is common knowledge how difficult it is to give the right answer when exposed to the rival's glare. The response of the audience can also either pep one up or completely demoralize. Barack Obama with downcast eyes did not look his best this time, side by side with his opponent who radiated confidence."

However, there are more debates ahead and the results could change. After all, Obama is leading in public opinion polls. The main thing for him now is to get rid of the image of a serious, thoughtful and humane but not very determined leader because this is the wrong style for the time of change. However, chess practice shows that the style of playing games cannot change overnight.

Germany

The German press has adopted the Mitt-mentum narrative -- as U.S.-based journalist Gregor Peter Schmitz wrote in Der Spiegel, Joe Biden's vice presidential debate performance "almost single-handedly revived the Obama campaign, which was in danger of being put on life support after the president's disastrous debate performance in Denver." But news outlets have also pointed out that the race would look very different if it were held in Germany (or many other European countries, for that matter), where more than eight in ten people would support the Democrats. "Obama has assured victory -- among Germans," a headline in Die Welt declares (an article in Berliner Morgenpost suggests that Obama's overwhelming popularity in the country helps explain why Romney didn't visit Germany during his overseas trip this summer).    

Pakistan

The Pakistani press has covered the narrowing race. "Even the New York Times, which favours Mr Obama, concedes that Mr Romney has continued to surge since the debate," an article in Dawn observes. But in an op-ed for the same newspaper, Muhammad Ali Siddiqi argues that the weeks since the first debate have shown Obama to be the true victor. "Mr Obama was consistent, without flamboyance, and stood his ground" while "Mr Romney played to the gallery," Siddiqi notes. He adds that "Mr Romney would like to conduct his foreign policy in Cold War fashion" but admits that, contrary to the impression in Pakistan, foreign policy has "taken a back seat in the campaign."

The State Department's decision to remove the Iranian exile group Mujahedin-e-Khalq from its Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list certainly looks depressingly cynical, coming after the group waged a years-long PR, lobbying, and advertising campaign, paying political VIPs including Rudy Giuliani, Howard Dean, Tom Ridge, and Ed Rendell tens of thousands of dollars to endorse their cause. The idea that a group blamed for the killing of six Americans in the 1970s, as well as dozens of deadly terrorist bombings against Iranian targets afte,r that is “the largest peaceful, secular, pro-democratic Iranian dissident group” -- as its advertising boasts -- doesn't pass the laugh test.

But it's also true that the group, despite its creepy cultlike behavior, hasn't carried out a terrorist attack in years. As FP contributor Karim Sadjadpour tells the New York Times,  “I don’t think the world really looks that much different. U.S.-Iran relations will remain hostile, and the M.E.K. will remain a fringe cult with very limited appeal among Iranians.”

Under the PATRIOT Act, for a group to be included on the list, it's required that the "terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States." But a quick glance at the most recent edition of the FTO list shows quite a few groups that don't -- or no longer -- meet that standard either:

• The Abu Nidal Organization -- a PLO splinter group -- was a major terrorist organization in the 1980s and 1990s, but has barely been heard from since Abu Nidal's death in 2002. 
• Aum Shinriyko, the Japanese cult that carried out the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, hasn't carried out any attacks since.  
• ETA -- the decades-old Basque nationalist group, is thought to have fewer than 100 active members since hundreds were arrested by French and Spanich police, and hasn't carried out a major attack since 2009.
• The Continuity Irish Republican Army may have fewer than 50 members, and these days spends more time on political infighting than planning attacks.
• Gama'a al-Islamiyya  was once Egypt's largest terrorist group and it's former spiritual leader, "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdul Rahman is in jail in the U.S. for his part in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, but the group has largely renounced violence since the early 2000s and now has its own political party with seats in the Egyptian parliament. 
• The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam were decimated by a Sri Lankan army offensive in 2009 and despite reports of regrouping abroad, the Tigers haven't been able to mount any major operations since. 
• The Morrocan Islamic Combatant Group was one of the organizations implicated in the 2004 Madrid train bombings but hasn't been heard from since. 
• Revolutionary Organization 17 November,  a leftist Greek militant group that targed U.S. and NATO targets in the 1980s and '90s, hasn't carried out any attacks since 2002. 
• United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia -- a right-wing paramilitary anti-FARC group -- was mostly demobilized in 2010 and the elements of it that remain are more of a drug trafficking organization than a terrorist militia. 

Some other groups, including the Real IRA and Jewish extremist organiztaion Kahane Chai, have been a bit more active recently, but have few members and can't really be said to pose much a threat to U.S. national security. Some groups, such as the Libya Islamic Fighting Group, have been reconstituted, or are operating under different names than the ones on the list. 

According to the State Department website, before 2004, a group had to be redesignated every two years to appear on the list. But now, the onus is on the group to make its case -- as the MEK did that it is no longer a terrorist:

IRTPA provides that an FTO may file a petition for revocation 2 years after its designation date (or in the case of redesignated FTOs, its most recent redesignation date) or 2 years after the determination date on its most recent petition for revocation. In order to provide a basis for revocation, the petitioning FTO must provide evidence that the circumstances forming the basis for the designation are sufficiently different as to warrant revocation. If no such review has been conducted during a 5 year period with respect to a designation, then the Secretary of State is required to review the designation to determine whether revocation would be appropriate. In addition, the Secretary of State may at any time revoke a designation upon a finding that the circumstances forming the basis for the designation have changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation, or that the national security of the United States warrants a revocation.

New groups, like Pakistan's Haqqani network or Lebanon's Abdallah Azzam Bridgades, are added with some regularity. Though as some of the names still on the list indicate, groups aren't removed that often unless -- like MEK -- they are in a position to mount a public case for their delisting. (Thankfully, it's hard to imagine Aum Shinriyko advertising on the Washington metro!)

Categorizing miltiant groups, which don't always have one universally used name, or a fixed membership, is always a bit tricky. As Aaron Zelin, recently explained for FP, a surprising number of jihadi groups have emerged in different countries in recent months, all calling themselves Ansar al-Sharia.

Back in June, I noted that the State Department had decided not to list Nigeria's Boko Haram -- a group that is more active and arguably much more of a threat to U.S. economic and political interests than many of those on the list -- though it did list some Boko Harma leaders as "Specially Designated Global Terrorists," a different category.

At the time, Reuters reported that Boko Haram as a whole had not been added to the FTO list so as "not to elevate the group's profile."  That makes a certain amount of sense, but it also suggests a need for a larger housecleaning on the list. Their American FTO status is about all the militant credibility some of these groups have left. 

For months now, the right and the left have argued about whether this year's contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is a repeat of the 1980 race between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. It's a comparison that benefits Republicans, who want to portray Obama as helpless on the economy ('Are you better off than you were four years ago?'), feckless on foreign policy (both Carter and Obama faced attacks on U.S. embassies), and politically vulnerable (Reagan surged ahead of Carter in the homestretch; the Romney campaign has its fingers crossed).

On Wednesday, National Journal's Sophie Quinton argued that Romney's criticism of Obama in the wake of Tuesday's assaults on U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya was a marked departure from Reagan's response to the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and ensuing hostage crisis in 1979-1980. When Carter's effort to rescue the American hostages in Iran failed in April 1980, Quinton points out, Reagan took the high ground, asserting that "this is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united." When Reagan later debated Carter in the fall, she adds, he refrained from answering a question about how he would handle a similar crisis because of the sensitivity of the issue.

That's some impressive restraint. But while Reagan did ocassionally express support on the campaign trail for Carter's responses to the Iranian hostage crisis (praising the decision to freeze Iranian assets, for example), he was far less diplomatic on many other occasions.

In fact, the debate between Carter and Reagan over the Iranian crisis was remarkably similar to the rhetoric we're hearing now from the Obama and Romney campaigns. Let's take a look at some examples:

U.S. weakness at fault

Reagan: In November 1979, just weeks after radical Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Reagan argued that Carter's policies had diminished respect for the United States around the world. "[L]et us be respected to the point that never again will a demented dictator dare to invade an American embassy and hold our people hostage," he said. The Associated Press reported at the time that "Reagan repeatedly said he wouldn't comment on the Iranian situation because remarks by presidential candidates might upset possible secret negotiations" to free American hostages. "But in each case," the news outlet added, Reagan "followed his refusal with criticism" of Carter's Iran policy.

Romney: Romney, it seems, is far less conflicted about speaking out, but he too has suggested that Obama's failure to lead created the conditions under which attacks on U.S. missions could occur. "The attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place and that American leadership is still sorely needed," he said at a press conference on Wednesday. Romney surrogate John Bolton was more blunt in an interview with the Washington Post. "The perception of American weakness that provided the foundation for these attacks is largely because of Obama administration mistakes and lack of resolve," he argued.

Embassy attack symptomatic of bigger issues

Reagan: In November 1979, the Washington Post also reported the Reagan quote above, but with some additional context. Reagan claimed that the lack of respect underlying the embassy attack stemmed from the Carter administration's destructive desire to be liked, whether by supporting the SALT II nuclear arms deal with the Soviet Union or transferring control of the Panama Canal to Panama. "Isn't it about time that we said to the administration in Washington that we're not so concerned if other countries like us?" the Republican candidate asked. "We would like, once again, to be respected by other countries."

Romney: Romney cited his differences with Obama on Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, and Syria during his press conference, and Romney surrogate Dan Senor made a more explicit connection between the events of the last couple days and these larger issues during an appearance on CNN. The violence, he contended, is a reminder of the "chaos that a lot of the policies of this administration has sowed. Chaos in the Arab Spring. Chaos where allies in Israel feel that they can't rely on us. You saw the flare up over the last couple of days with the prime minister of Israel and the president."

Violation of American principles

Reagan: In the weeks after the attack in Tehran, Reagan lashed out at the Carter administration for violating an "American principle" by not granting Iran's deposed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi permanent asylum. "If you read those words on the face of the Statue of Liberty, we have a history of being an asylum for political exiles," Reagan asserted. "And he certainly was as loyal an ally for a great many years as this country have possibly have had."

Romney: Romney has also appealed to American values in denouncing the Obama administration, arguing that the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, in publishing a statement and tweets condemning an anti-Islam American film before a crowd gathered at the compound, had issued an "apology for America's values." The first response to an embassy breach "should not be to say, 'Yes, we stand by our comments that -- that suggest that there's something wrong with the right of free speech,'" Romney declared.

'Shoot first' mentality

Carter: During his convention speech in August 1980, Carter noted that "while we Democrats grapple with the real challenges of a real world, others talk about a world of tinsel and make-believe," adding that "[i]t's a make-believe world, a world of good guys and bad guys, where some politicians shoot first and ask questions later." (h/t: Washington Examiner)

Obama: In an interview with CBS on Wednesday, Obama criticized Romney for swiftly denouncing the administration's foreign policy while news of the U.S. mission attacks was still developing. Intentionally or not, the president echoed Carter. "Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later," he observed. "And as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that. That, you know, it's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts."

No time for politics

Carter: In October 1980, ahead of his only debate with Reagan during the race, chastised the Republican candidate for breaking a pledge to refrain from discussing the Iranian crisis. "The fate of the hostages is too important ... to be made a political football," Carter explained. Reagan, for his part, claimed the hostage issue was fair game. "Breaking my pledge might be if I waited until 7:15 on Election Day and then brought the subject [up] as he did in the Wisconsin primary," Reagan retorted (he was referring to Carter's surprise news conference on Iran on the morning of the state's primary).

Obama: In an interview with Telemundo on Wednesday, Obama argued that the aftermath of the U.S. mission attacks was not a "time for politics." As president, he added, "my obligation is to focus on security for our people ... and not having ideological arguments on a day when we're mourning."

There are some differences between the two periods, of course. Reagan did not publicly criticize Carter for several days after students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran, while Romney issued a statement hours after the attacks in Egypt and Libya. But within weeks, Reagan was weighing in forcefully on the issue. And by December 1979, the Washington Post reported that Reagan was "finding it hard to restrain himself" on Iran and had "suggested for the first time that he might make the Iranian issue a major theme of his political campaign once the hostage question is decided."

That day never came during the race. But that didn't stop Reagan from seizing on an issue that ultimately helped propel him to victory.

The 14-year-old boy in me is extremely excited about the tantalizing possibility that CIA director David Petraeus, the most talented general of his generation and one of the few broadly respected figures in American political life, is being mooted as a potential veep pick for Mitt Romney. Picking Petraeus would inject some real excitement into a race that has turned into the second coming of Clinton-Dole: a real snoozefest. It would instantly transform the 2012 election from a race over taxes, jobs, and health care (boring!) into one about the good stuff: foreign policy and national security.

But the grownup in me realizes that this a pundit's fantasy, not to mention a diversion of dubious provenance (I mean, come on -- are we supposed to believe Obama bundlers go around whispering sweet nothings in Matt Drudge's ear?). So here are five reasons why -- sorry, Bill Kristol -- it ain't gonna happen. (See also Chris Cillizza's convincing debunker.)

1. Petraeus doesn't want the job

How many times has David Petraeus disavowed holding any political ambitions? Here he is in March 2010: "I thought I'd said 'no' about as many ways as I could. I really do mean no ... I will not ever run for political office, I can assure you." Here he is in August 2012 in an exchange on Meet the Press:

PETRAEUS: Well, I am not a politician, and I will never be, and I say that with absolute conviction.

GREGORY: Well, that's what he said. But does that mean that you're totally clear? That you'd never run for President?

PETRAEUS: Yeah, I really am. You know, and I've said that I'll adopt what Sherman said and go back and look at what has come to be known as a Shermanesque answer on that particular question.

GREGORY: No way, no how?

PETRAEUS: No way, no how.

Of course, political figures go back on their word all the time. But as Petraeus himself has pointed out, it wouldn't be very auspicious for his first political act to be a flip-flop.

Not yet convinced? NBC's Andrea Mitchell tweeted earlier today: "sources close to Gen David Petraeus laugh off Drudge report he is a Romney veep possible - #notgonnahappen."

2. He's head of the CIA, for Pete's sake

Why would Petraeus want to leave his post as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, still one of the top jobs in Washington even after the post-9/11 "reforms," to be Mitt Romney's pilot fish? The vice presidency is still, even in the wake of powerful veeps like Dick Cheney and Joe Biden, a dog's breakfast. Or, as America's first No. 2, John Adams, once put it, "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." (Or, if you prefer, "not worth a pitcher of warm piss," in the immortal words of FDR's otherwise unmemorable veep John Nance Garner.) Even if you see Petraeus as an ambitious climber always looking for the next branch, the vice presidency would be a step down, not a step up. In any case, he'd probably rather run the Pentagon.

3. Petraeus doesn't do domestic policy

Like Condi Rice, Petraeus doesn't do domestic issues. And if anything, he's got even less of a paper trail on things like education, where at least Rice showed some private interest. Can you imagine Petraeus weighing in on heated debates about abortion or tax policy? Me neither. Domestic issues may bore people like you and me, dear FP reader, but they are full of pitfalls for amateurs who aren't fully schooled in constituent politics. In any case, if Romney is clear about anything, it's that this election will be about jobs and the economy. And I don't think Petraeus's strong record of creating jobs for drone manufacturers is going to cut it.

4. Romney doesn't think outside the box

Even if you ignore the fact that Petraeus wouldn't take the job, would Romney even offer it to him? That's highly doubtful. The Romney campaign is all about avoiding John McCain's mistakes -- and one of those mistakes was thinking outside the box to choose Sarah Palin, then the little-known governor of Alaska. And we know how that worked out. No wonder Team Romney is thought to be in the hunt for an "incredibly boring white guy." The former Massachusetts governor is not known for flights of fancy -- one associate told New York magazine that Romney "never took big risks" as a business executive. As a politician, he's been even more cautious.

5. The White House categorically denied it

In his item, Drudge attributed the speculation that Romney might tap Petraeus to none other than POTUS himself. "President Obama whispered to a top fundraiser this week that he believes GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney wants to name Gen. David Petraeus to the VP slot!" he wrote.

But in Tuesday's press briefing, White House spokesman Jay Carney left no room for interpretation as to whether Obama had said such a thing. "I can say with absolute confidence that such an assertion [has] never been uttered by the president," Carney said, adding a swipe at Drudge for good measure. "And again, be mindful of your sources."

One usually has to parse White House statements for ye olde non-denial denial, but that's pretty categorical.

News of a new "seal flu" has many fearing a repeat of the 2009 swine flu outbreak that infected more than 5.7 million in the United States before peaking as a level 5 on the WHO's 6-point pandemic alert. The H3N8 flu virus was discovered after the mysterious death of nearly 200 harbor seals off the United States' northeastern coast. Describing it as "a combination we haven't seen in disease before," researchers warned that the new strain of influenza A could have severe repercussions for human health.

The real shock of the story may be the public realization that such doe-eyed creatures could cause harm. While mosquitoes and ticks, those pesky harbingers of West Nile, dengue fever, cholera, Lyme disease, and Kyasanur fever (among other assorted viral, fungal, and bacterial pathogens) are universally hated, it's hard to believe the Earth's more cuddly creatures could breed evil. Here's another 13 to ruin your next trip to the petting zoo: 

Peacocks

Peacocks are dying in droves in Pakistan's Thar Desert region in an outbreak scientists believe is linked to Newcastle disease. Highly contagious in birds, the viral infection is currently rare in humans. Its unique replication properties make it a potential candidate for agroterrorism, but more positive headway been made in its use as a human cancer treatment.

Armadillos

Found primarily in Latin America, armadillos are better known for their unique defense mechanism than their role as a global disease vector. Beneath their shell, however, these mammals shield leprosy, a rare bacterial infection that attacks the skin and nervous system. Though associated more with the bible than modern medicine, the disease remains active throughout the world -- with armadillos responsible for more than a third of infections in the United States.

Whales

The world's largest mammal offers plenty of real estate for influenza A, a viral flu strain with the most potential for interspecies transmission. Luckily, the chances for accidental contact remain slim -- just another reason to skip the whale meat.

Monkeys and apes

Described by malaria researchers as a "reservoir for human disease," monkeys and apes are widely known for harboring emerging zoonotic diseases. The HIV virus originated in African monkeys and strains of malaria, Ebola, and monkeypox virus continue to be created or transmitted by monkey and ape populations -- not to mention the cases of measles, rabies, tuberculosis, salmonellosis, shigellosis, amebiasis, balatidiasis, herpes B, giardiasis and helminthes believed to have appeared first in man's closest relative.

Dogs and cats

While many a dog-lover cheered reports of a feline parasite's negative impact on human dopamine production, man's best friend carries its own risks. Though undulant fever is more commonly associated with other species, human cases of the leptospirosis bacteria, an infection whose effect ranges from flu-like symptoms to liver and kidney failure, encephalitis, and pulmonary involvement, have been reported to originate in dogs.

Prairie dogs

More commonly associated with rats, plague seems to have chosen prairie dogs as its modern rodent host. One leg of a complex threesome that includes mice and fleas, prairie dog coteries across North America have been struck by a mass outbreak of bubonic and sylvatic plague. In an effort to cull the epidemic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has implemented a mass fumigation campaign.

Horses

While flying foxes are their natural reservoir, the Hendra and Nipah viruses have adapted to survive within horses where they take residence alongside anthrax. Worse, equine encephalitis virus, a pathogen listed as a global priority by the Global Early Warning System for Major Animal Diseases, Including Zoonoses, has spread globally. Transmitted by mosquitos, the virus can be fatal in both horses and humans.

Rabbits and hares

Elmer Fudd had a point. Beneath their long, soft ears, rabbits and hares carry a host of mites and ringworms and can breed tularemia, a bacterial infection listed as a potential bio-weapon.

Guinea pigs and hamsters

However popular with the preschool set, guinea pigs and hamsters are still rodents. Next time your kid asks to bring one home remember - these furry beasts are disease vectors of lymphocytic choriomeningitis, leptospirosis, yersiniosis and salmonellosis. Handle with gloves.

Hope springs eternal, I guess:

“I am not an old politician yet,” Medvedev said in an interview with the Times newspaper in London where he attended the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games on July 27. The Times published the interview on Monday.

“I have never ruled out that I would run for president in the future (and I am not planning to quit politics soon), if Russians are interested in this,” he said in the interview, according to the Russian-language transcript published on Medvedev’s official website.

In 2024, assuming Vladimir Putin serves two full six-year terms and  is once again constitutionally barred from running, Medvedev will only be 58. Maybe we can do this whole awkward maneuver over again. Putin would be 77 in 2030 after Medvedev serves a term, which seems a bit old to make it a threepeat, but who knows?