As you probably know, the US has been working with NATO allies in Europe to bolster their missile defense system to provide protection for us and the rest of Europe in the event that Iran or other rogue nations attack. The agreement is to put 10 missile defense interceptors in northern Poland.

“Hours after the signing, Russia’s Foreign Ministry warned that Moscow’s response would go beyond diplomacy. The system to be based in Poland lacks ‘any target other than Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles,’ it said in a statement, ‘In this case Russia will be forced to react, and not only through diplomatic’ channels.” “Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed any suggestion the 10 missile defense interceptors … represent a threat to Russia. ‘Missile defense, of course, is aimed at no one,’ Rice said. ‘It is in our defense that we do this.’” “Such comments ‘border on the bizarre, frankly,’ Rice told reporters in Warsaw. ‘The Russians are losing their credibility,’ she said.” “‘It’s 2008 and the United States has a … firm treaty guarantee to defend Poland’s territory (my edit: as do all members of NATA) as if it was the territory of the United States. So it’s probably not wise to throw these threats around.’”

I don’t understand Russia’s complaint. We even offered to allow Russia to be a part of the missile defense deal. And we’ve told Russia that even its current stock of conventional weapons is no match for what this missile defense system offers. It is for defense not offense and would not work well against Russia. Some people have claimed that we would be up-in-arms if Russia signed a deal with Cuba and started putting missiles back there. That’s true, we probably would… The point is that this is not the same. We and our allies have a legitimate reason for worrying about attacks from other countries. Russia has no reason other than to attack for stationing missiles in Cuba.

Dont Throw Away Your Capitalism Just Yet - Freakonomics - Opinion - New York Times Blog.

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

The Freakonomics economists ask that question. There is also a little quiz about financial literacy. I got all three questions correct. How’d you do? Overall, I feel that all or most of the recent financial/housing troubles are solely because of people buying things that they just can’t afford. I heard multiple stories of people getting approved for a $200,000 mortgage but being unable to be approved for even a secured credit card!

In his article, entitled Arguments against Idiots, Glenn Beck goes on the offensive against “liberal whiners:”

What the liberal whiners say:

1.’The rich don’t pay their fair share’

2.’The working class carries the full load in this country, while the rich just keep getting richer, and paying LESS’

3.’How about those 50 hedge fund managers Barack Obama talks about all the time who made $29 billion, but actually paid less in taxes than their $60,000 a year SECRETARIES!’

4.’I'm sick and tired of all the corporate welfare in this country’

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1.Really? According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1% of wage-earners in this country pays nearly 40% of the burden (an 11% INCREASE over 1999, when WHO was President? Oh that’s right…Bill Clinton). Not fair? Well, you may be saying, ‘that’s because they have ALL the wealth!’ Wrong again. The top 1% of earners account for just 21% of the total adjusted gross income. Hmm. Come to think of it…you’re RIGHT! That really isn’t fair. They’re paying DOUBLE what they should be. By the way, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the load. When you get all the way down to the top 50% of earners, they account for 96.4% of the entire tax burden. The next 10% pays 3.6%. And the bottom 40% of wage earners…pay NOTHING. That’s right, nothing. In fact, they pay nothing, and then often get a “refund” (handout) at years end.

To see his other responses, continue reading on glennbeck.com

I still love the taste of a true Coca Cola, especially on a hot summer day after a hard day of sailing. I hate the taste of diet sodas. However, now it is usually the calorie-free Coke Zero because I’m probably stuck inside studying. Anyway, the taste is “okay.” It is definitely not a true replica of the original (proven by a blinded test when Coke Zero first came out), like the taste infringement lawsuit commercials joking imply. It isn’t horrible like the diet varieties (or worse, a Pepsi). This is where Stevia comes in. I had first heard of this sweetener by reading the ingredients on my 100% Natural Whey protein, which is sweetened by stevia. Truvia is a “great tasting, zero-calorie sweetener made from rebiana, the best tasting part of the stevia leaf.” Coca Cola and Cargill have been working on this and, according to the website, will have it available sometime in 2008. On paper it looks great: zero calories and can be used in cooking applications. Its taste is supposed to be good too. Here’s hoping that it will taste just like the original Coke but have no calories! (I also think we should drop the high fructose corn syrup and go back to cane sugar…)

Here is the introduction by Paul D. Ryan, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin and a member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, to his legislative plan to secure the fiscal future of the United States:

merica faces a choice between two fiscal and economic futures.

In one, ever-rising levels of government spending overwhelm the Federal budget and the U.S. economy with crushing burdens of debt and higher taxes. It is a future in which America’s best century is the past century.

The second future is one in which the principles that created America’s freedom and prosperity are restored. It is the path set out in my plan, A Roadmap for America’s Future.

Currently, we are on a path of unsustainable Federal spending. The main problem is the looming crisis of entitlement spending. The well-intentioned social insurance strategies of the past century – particularly Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – are headed toward financial collapse.

Not only will these programs grow themselves into extinction, they will immensely burden our economy and budget – piling massive amounts of debt on future generations, crippling our ability to compete in the international marketplace, and dramatically reducing Americans’ standards of living.

We can and must set a different course. But the time for talk has passed. We need a plan.

Based on the input of many, I developed A Roadmap for America’s Future to:

1. Ensure universal access to health insurance, fulfill the missions of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and make these programs permanently solvent.

2. Return Federal spending growth to sustainable levels and lift the debt burden looming over future generations.

3. Promote sustained economic and job growth and put the U.S. in a position to lead – not merely survive – in the international marketplace.

We are going to have to tackle these problems, or they’re going to tackle us. My plan addresses all these issues at once because piecemeal, incremental “fixes” cannot match the magnitude, the urgency, and the interrelated nature of these challenges.

It’s an ambitious proposal. Not everyone will agree with every aspect of it, and that’s fine. But if nothing else, it’s my sincere hope that it will spur Congress to move beyond simply rehashing the problem – to debating and implementing actual solutions for the American people.

It is a real plan, with real proposals, real numbers to back them, and real legislation to implement it.

The details, including an independent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, is available here: American Roadmap

Today I watched the live feed from NASA of the exciting successful landing of the Phoenix Mars Lander. Since the people at NASA, JPL, etc made it look easy, it’s even more impressive considering that only half of the attempts at landing robots/equipment on Mars have been successful. Hopefully this lander will provide the science that we need to continue our quest to put Man on Mars. My parent’s generation saw the Moon landing “live.” It will be very exciting when in 20-30 years we have a fully working Moon colony and are making the first steps on Mars. It will be expensive, but, considering all the technological advancement that NASA has given us in the past, I believe that the rewards in the future will be far greater. Plus, innovation will only continue to accelerate now that private enterprise is getting involved in space travel.

Latest photos from the Phoenix Mars Lander. They are only black and white now (5/25/2008) but will be in color once the Robotic Arm Camera is operating.

President George W. Bush may turn out to be the top economic forecaster in the country.

About a month ago he told reporters, “We’re not in a recession, we’re in a slowdown.” At a White House news conference a few weeks later, despite the fact that reporters pressed him to use the “R” word, Mr. Bush refused. And on Friday, after the most recent jobs report — which produced a much-smaller-than-expected decline in corporate payrolls, a huge 362,000 increase in the more entrepreneurial household survey (the best gain in five months), and a historically low 5 percent unemployment rate (4.95 percent, to be precise) — the president told reporters: “This economy is going to come on. I’m confident it will.”

We’re in the midst of the most widely predicted and heralded recession in history. Problem is, so far it’s a non-recession recession. Score one for President Bush. In an election year, it could be a big one.

First-quarter GDP growth came in at 0.6 percent. It wasn’t the widely predicted decline, and economists expect that number to be revised up. GDP growth for the fourth quarter of 2007 was also up slightly, while the prior two quarters averaged over 4 percent growth.

Continue reading: Bush’s ‘R’ Is for ‘Right’

And, here’s a quote from Lawrence Kudlow’s blog,

Economic Resilience. When you think about it, look at what we had to deal with in the first quarter. You had the credit market seizeup; you had Bear go out; you had Lehman close to going out—not because it should have, but because the financial markets were driving it that way; you had extraordinary moves by the Fed; you had continued collapse in homebuilding, and we still grew at 0.6 percent. That says to me if the economy was going to collapse, it would have collapsed then. It’s going to get better from here. Slowly, gradually, saucer-shaped, but it’s going to get better from here.

-Jim Awad, chairman of WP Stewart Asset Management

A few months ago a few of us had a discussion regarding the taxes in the United States. We both feel that taxes (corporate and income) need to be reduced for a number of reasons, one of them to stimulate the economy. A friend of mine, who is a Libertarian, feels exactly how the author discussed in my last post feels: the rich don’t receive any more benefit from their government than the poor so why should the rich have to pay so much more in taxes?

I can understand that reasoning a little bit. However, if everyone is going to pay the same fixed dollar amount (not as a percent of income but as a fixed amount) what would be a “fair value?” $5,000, $10,000, $50,000, or more in annual taxes? What if you make just over $10,000 and have to pay everything to the government. And with any of these amounts, the very rich would go from paying way over $200,000 in taxes a year to substantially less. The argument that the government would not be able to function on this significantly lowered tax revenue causes the Libertarian to suggest that then the government is doing too much. The government should only be doing the things that it can do better than private enterprise, namely defense of its people. And further, more money in the hands of private persons means more investment which means more money to be loaned out and more jobs created. This means that the money eventually “trickles” down to the average person. So then the argument goes back to the person or family making slightly more than the fixed tax. Since a fixed tax is inherently non-progressive, what do you offer? Does everyone making less than $X not have to pay taxes? Unless you start rich, then how does anyone “move up” in life when a huge percent of income is given to the government? Rather than the tax cuts being unfavorable to the rich, a fixed dollar amount tax would be like paying with loose change to the rich but significantly prohibitive to the poor and middle class.

For the first time since the Spanish influenza of 1918, life expectancy is falling for a significant number of American women. In nearly 1,000 counties that together are home to about 12 percent of the nation’s women, life expectancy is now shorter than it was in the early 1980s, according to a study published today.

The trend appears to be driven by increases in death from diabetes, lung cancer, emphysema and kidney failure. It reflects the long-term consequences of smoking, a habit that women took up in large numbers decades after men did, and the slowing of the historic decline in heart disease deaths.

Washington Post staff writer David Brown and Majid Ezzati, co-author of the study and researcher at the Harvard Global Health Initiative, were online Tuesday, April 22, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the study.

A transcript follows.

Continue reading the transcript on the Washington Post

The sad thing is that most of these causes stem from preventable things. I remember a medical school lecture that I heard last year that said that in order to combat our nation’s growing obesity problem we as the medical community should treat obesity as a disease. For the current picture of the trend to obesity in the United States, I direct you to the CDC data from 1985-2006. And this site took that CDC data and made it into an animated GIF showing obesity rates over time. According to the CDC data, “In 2006, only four states had a prevalence of obesity less than 20%. Twenty-two states had a prevalence equal or greater than 25%; two of these states (Mississippi and West Virginia) had a prevalence of obesity equal to or greater than 30%.”

If one of the national health objectives for the year 2010 is to reduce the prevalence of obesity among adults to less than 15%, we have a long way to go.