I found this oddly amusing:

"The odds of dying in a terrorist attack are a lot lower than they are of dying in a car accident, unfortunately," Obama said when asked by Leno if it is still safe for Americans to travel abroad in light of recent heightened terrorist threats.

Freudian slip? :-)

I think I know what he was going for - that car accidents are so numerous there's a better chance you'll run into one of those (pardon the pun) than a terrorist attack, and it's unfortunate that car accidents kill so many people. But by throwing in that "unfortunately" where he did, it makes it sound as if he's bemoaning the fact that there aren't more terrorist attacks!

Well maybe he can look to Yemen in joy where the chances to die in obummers drone strikes might be higher than dying in a car accident.

Indeed, very poor choice of words. VERY poor choice of words... oh my...

Actually, yeah. The "unfortunately" implies "which are quite high actually". Which, so, doesn't sound very reassuring, as comparisons go...

I think you interpret his meaning correctly, but it can easily be seen as a freudian slip too, either that he'd like more terrorist attacks at home so it would be easier to brush over the extreme surveillance they are carrying out, or aggressive wars in country X, Y or Z, or that they'd like to murder more people in their own terrorist wars using drones. Though to be fair, they do whack a great deal of people that way, so wanting more would be kind of perverse.

I don't follow his policies very closely, but the insight of his discourse often impresses me.

As anyone who read Bruce Schneier's book titled "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly about Security in an Uncertain World" will know, motor vehicle accidents was the #1 cause of death in the US (with 41 700 deaths per year, multiple times the casualties of 9/11) after heart diseases, cancer, diabetes and flu/pneumonia at the time the book was written in 2003 (and I saw no notable improvement in the security of our road system since them).

Of course, many would like to move earth and sky to fight terrorism, but heaven forbid that significant improvements be made to our road system to make it less of a slaughterhouse.

Also, the #1 and #3 causes of death (heart diseases and diabetes) could be greatly alleviated with a better diet, but again, this is an issue that make the "freedom above all" proponents uncomfortable. Heaven forbid that the state (or other non-profit agencies) try in any way to influence what people eat.

Well, only sarcastically, really. It's pretty clear what happened in his mind. His thoughts were suddenly stuck on car accidents and their high number, really bad things - and his training/experience as a public speaker automatically made him add something to express his discontent with that fact. That's such an automated process that he had no time to think it through and notice what that "unfortunately" meant in the context of the first part of the statement. Plus lobbies spread false information on what diet is the healthiest and what effect which physical conditions have on the health (for example some statistics treat any cause of death in an obese person as a death *caused by* obesity - even if the guy got bitten by a poisonous snake while being obese). The last thing you want in a system where lobbies get away with that kind of shit is the government telling you what to eat.

Edit: Oh yeah, also for anyone who wants to see and hear the actual footage: LINK (if the timestamp in the link fails - it's at 5:33).

'me chuckling'

I am sorry but as of now everytime I think of Obama I am always reminded of this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB5Lttr53Vk

There are numerous things that the government can do.

First of all, ban all TV commercials as well as posters for junk food (my mother thinks they should do it for all food). I believe they do that for cigarets already.

Tax any junk food more (both to make the price not so darn attractive and also to pay for future medical expenses due to the health problems that food will bring... complications due to mass junk food consumption is a huge drain on the healthcare system). They do this already for cigarettes so there is a precedent here too.

In grocery stores, make them relegate junk food at the back of the store, not the front. Again, they do that for cigarettes already as they can't be put on display, they need to be hidden beneath a counter.

Give a small tax breaks to people with an obesity-related health condition who loses a certain amount of weight as well as people who are in the healthy BMI range (with provisions for those with high muscle mass). This is justifiable by the fact that they cost the state less on medical expenses and some of that saving can be passed on to them as an incentive.

None of the thing I suggested above are outrageous. It just requires the realization that like cigarettes, junk food is poison and it's consumption should be discouraged. It should not be a product that big corporations aggressively market.

They already tax junk food here, it's called sales tax. Grocery here is 2.5% while other items are 5%. Can't remember if the candy I bought was taxed as grocery or other item.
You would also have to define what is junk food. Jerkey, is it junk food or dehydrated lunch. Popcorn, junk food or healthy snack. Cashews/Almonds with Salt junk food, without not junk food.
How much room in the back of the store do they have...I think 75% of the store will have to move back there.

Not really wanting to debate this, but water is poison, too, when you have too much in a short period of time. Not from my experience here. They are usually behind a counter and still very visible although an employee has to get them for you.

That varies per state. Some just have a flat sales tax, some have an extra tax on prepared foods, etc.

99.999% of people won't consume water to the extent that it hurts them (it doesn't have the addictive properties of junk food). Actually, they tend not to drink enough of it.

Junk food is another matter entirely, as the obesity pandemic in both our countries (but especially yours) will attest.

Very possible, but here, the cigs are completely hidden from the consumers in compartments beneath the counter.

Here, they are completely visible, but only available in a certain aisle of the store. You usually see a longer line in that aisle of the store.

You are wanting to exclude a particular item just because 99.999% won't consume enough to harm then?

Let's focus on particular items then. I doubt that 99.999% won't consume enough Cheetos to harm them fatally either.

Reporting in from Ohio: Cigs are not under the counter. In all convenience stores, they're in a massive display behind the counter. Reasons are twofold, you have to ask for them, which means the clerk can then check you out and card you as the case may be, two, because of the advertising ban on anything that could be construed as an attempt to market to minors. This is why Philip Morris/RJ Reynolds/Camel don't have any social media campaigns as well, because of the potential for contact with minors, whether intentional or unintentional.

Also, if you want government involvement with junk food, bitchslapping Monsanto and GMO foods would go a long way towards steering people back towards natural, organic and healthy choices. Even the so-called "healthy" foods we have marketed to us aren't even healthy, due to genetic tampering, additives, preservatives, etc. Anymore, the only way you can be sure is by starting your own garden.