Who “won” the presidential debates is open to conjecture (and what really matters is who wins on November 6th).

But it won’t be spin that determines who wins the Presidential Face Off — that’s up to you.

First round voting is open until October 26.

Yesteday I took my daughter to the Apple Store to get her long-promised iPhone. (The “$99” iPhone, by the way, costs $99, plus a protection plan you’d better get whether or not the user is a 14-year-old girl who keeps the phone in a back pocket, plus the state sales tax that is charged on the “value” of the phone — $648 — and not the sale price, which means that the “$99” iPhone costs $248 plus a 2-year plan that adds $30 to my phone bill, for a grand total of $968. Happy birthday.)

After we were done depositing more fortunes into the Jobs family trust, my two kids got excited. “Look, Dad!” said my son, pointing to a store a few doors down, “A bookstore!”

The two of them were so excited because they hadn’t seen a bookstore in a mall — in fact, a bookstore anywhere — in so long. It was like spotting a unicorn.

“Where?” I said.

“Over there!”

I looked closely at the sign above the distant store. “That says Brookstone. They sell electronic gadgets.”

“Oh,” they both said. Then they went back to playing with their electronics as we walked to the car.

I just asked someone, “What time is it?”

She responded, “Now?”

“No,” I said, “12 minutes ago.” Who would want to know what time it isn’t? (I could guess what time it isn’t, and always be right.) Of course you want to know what time it is now. So why do people so frequently respond with, “Now”?

Here’s Andrew Sullivan on the death of the print edition of Newsweek. Or, as I’ve spelled it for years, Newsweak. Because by the time it was in there, it was over.

Which, for me, raises the salient point: In print or in digital form, who needs Newsweek? It’s not just the format that is dying — and to which Sullivan says good riddance — it’s the underlying concept of a regularly issued magazine intended for cover-to-cover consumption. Sure, I still get The New Yorker, but I’m not reading it front to back. Why not? Because unlike during the heyday of magazines (and newspapers), there’s incredible competition for my time from other information sources — most notably the Internet. Here’s how I’ll read Newsweek onscreen: If I’m searching for something and it comes up, or if something from it comes across to me in another way (through social media, let’s say). Otherwise, I’ll be reading Newsweek online the way I’ve been reading Newsweek in print the past 20 years: not at all.

Finally, here they are.

Felix Baumgartner’s space jump, retold in plastic.

Here’s California Governor Jerry Brown, once known as “Governor Moonbeam,” on what he’s learned. To put it succinctly: He seems to have learned optimism.

Here’s Brian Wilson’s response to Mike Love, also printed in the Los Angeles Times, which must be loving this little controversy. Take a good look at the guys in the photo above. I don’t think we’re going to see them all together soon — and maybe never.

A week ago, I emailed some friends furious about the latest shenanigans of Mike Love of the Beach Boys. Love had unceremoniously called an end to the Beach Boys’ 50th anniversary tour, pulling the plug on an experience that had surprisingly revitalized Brian Wilson and the crew and resulted in an actually pretty good album, “That’s Why God Made the Radio.” Wilson had been looking forward to continuing the tour, and even recording another new Beach Boys record. I couldn’t have been more thrilled — but now this was all off, because Love held the rights to the “Beach Boys” name, and planned to misappropriate that name by resuming his tour of truck stops and juke joints with Bruce Johnston. Here is the story I sent my friends; I’m still pretty animated about it, and was complaining about it against last night when I saw Peter Gabriel at the Hollywood Bowl with my wife and some friends.

Evidently, I’m not the only person who felt outraged, because Mike Love felt compelled to respond. This was in yesterday’s LA Times, which I hadn’t seen before foaming at the mouth about this issue last night. Here’s the piece.

It bears reading.

In Mike Love’s view, this contretemps seems mostly not about relationships or even the primacy of the progenitors. (He says in the end “The Beach Boys are bigger than those who created it,” which on the face of it seems true, but which also diminishes the roles of specific members of the band. If “those who created it” aren’t as important as “The Beach Boys,” then I suppose it’s perfectly acceptable to tour with one just one founding member and call it “The Beach Boys.” I look forward to Pete Best’s tour as the Beatles.) No, it’s mostly a business decision:

“Like any good party, no one wanted it [the tour] to end. However, that was impossible, given that we had already set up shows in smaller cities with a different configuration of the band — the configuration that had been touring together every year for the last 13 years. Brian and Al [Jardine] would not be joining us for these small market dates, as was long agreed upon.

“It is not feasible, both logistically and economically, for the 50th anniversary tour to play these markets. It’s vitally important for the smaller markets to experience our live shows, as this is how we’ve maintained a loyal fan base for 50 years. You can’t sustain a fan base on a great catalog alone. You must take your music directly to the people.”

In other words, if the Mystic Lake Casino Hotel in Prior Lake, MN, doesn’t get this performance by Mike & Bruce, the Beach Boys’ legacy will succumb.

Mike Love holds the license to the band name, so he can go out with just his baseball cap and a tambourine and call it “The Beach Boys” if he likes. Me, I’m just glad I got to see the real band in Dallas in April. It was a great show, and a cherished experience — and it doesn’t look like there’s going to be another one like it.

Tonight’s the first Romney-Obama debate, and I’ll be watching.

My prediction: Unless Mitt Romney falls on his face so hard that he shatters every bone in his physiognomy — or unless Clint Eastwood wanders onto the stage — the press is going to anoint this as a win for him. Why? Because they want the game to go on. Look at all the coverage of polls; to focus on polls is to focus on the horse race, and not on the real need for political impact. Today I read a front page story in the Wall Street Journal about how Obama and Romney are pretty much tied. How many people in this poll are likely to vote? 832. That’s right, 1000 people were polled, and 832 of them are likely voters. 832 people who were almost assuredly influenced by the very fact that they were being surveyed, as essentially proved by Heisenberg.

One thing I’ll be looking for is how well Mitt Romney does with on-the-job training. Sure, Obama is now experienced at being President. But Mitt Romney is far more experienced at running for President — he’s been running for President for six years. (And, seemingly, getting worse at it.)