Mitt Romney Lambasted in Attack Ad for Speaking French, BBC News

Republican presidential candidate front runner has been negatively portrayed in another ad by Newt Gingrich for.......... speaking French. The ad attempts to compare Romney with John Kerry, a democrat who also knows a foreign language. The strange technique employed in this ad is not surprising because candidates will attempt more and more creative attempts at bringing themselves back up as they fall further behind (Gingrich). The ad, however, unfortunately reveals a general apathy towards foreign language in American society. Most natural born Americans do not learn a second (or third or fourth) language. The trend has the sad effect of cutting off many people from direct access to literature in other langage, friendships with speakers of other languages, and a deeper understanding of the people of cultures who speak other languages than English. The apathy, however, is understandable, as the use of English around the world has become the norm for international business and continues to grow as an international language. Americans often feel they have no incentive to learn other languages when they can travel successfully to most countries with only the English language. In spite of this, the idea that a potential U.S. president's foreign langage skills is negative is ridiculous. The president of the United States (POTUS) certainly does not need to speak French (or any language for that matter) to faithfully execute his (or her) position. There is an army of the best translators in the world to accomplish that. Foreign language skills do however give the president tools to be a more effective leader. French speaking foreign officials, businessmen, and other residents around the world will have a higher degree of respect for a U.S. leader who has given the effort to learn their language.

You can find the article here on the BBC News website

Is It Irrational To Give Holiday Gifts? The Wall Street Journal

Do you like the gifts you were given this past holiday season? Are you sure the gifts you gave are liked by the people who received them? You can hear it emphasized each year that the holiday season is not about the gift giving, but rather the time to celebrate with friends and family. In this article economists (shocker) take a different argument by questioning whether gift giving is in fact irrational. Studies have shown that receivers of gifts typically assign a lower value to the gift than the price for which it was purchased. One study even suggests that this effect means as much as a third of the money spent on gifts is wasted.

To avoid this effect, rational economists argue the only gift that should be given is cash. The behavioral economists, however, have analyzed the social utility of giving gifts. Gifts are organized as pure exchanges (ex. socks for the grandson in need of socks), paternalistic gifts that drive economists crazy because the preferences of the receiver are ignored (Gifts you think the receiver should like. Ex. a new CD),  gifts someone likes, but feels guilty buying for themselves, and several other interesting types of gifts and their purposes (ex. gifts brought for the host of a party).

You can find the article here on the Wall Street Journal website