TresSugar

Fighting the New American Revolution - Energy Independence

CitizenSugar — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:00:26 -0700

The US is gearing up to celebrate Independence Day, the day when citizens vowed to fight against crushing taxes, inflation, and a rising price of necessities - Americans took a stand then against tyranny, and fought. Now as the country picnics and watches fireworks to commemorate that fight, is the situation any different?

Taxes, inflation, cost of necessities - what was once tea, is now Texas Tea - oil, all factors point to another fight. Is energy the new American Revolution? In this new battle for independence, are citizens willing to sacrifice to win freedom from the tyrannous and costly addiction we have to standard forms of energy?

John McCain's plan for a modern energy revolution takes that parallel seriously - he's dubbed his energy revolution the "Lexington Project," named for the town where, according to his speech last week, "Americans asserted their independence once before." To see the battle plan for energy independence, read more.

McCain's Lexington Project includes:

Expanding Domestic Oil And Natural Gas Exploration And Production: "John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities."
Taking Action Now To Break Our Dependency On Foreign Oil By Reforming Our Transportation Sector: Which includes innovation incentives like his Clean Car Challenge.

Investing In Clean, Alternative Sources Of Energy: The plan commits $2 billion annually to clean coal technologies and 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030.
Protecting Our Environment By Addressing Climate Change: Basically this: "A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s."
Promoting Energy Efficiency: By making the federal government conserve too - since they are the largest electricity consumer on the planet.
Addressing Speculative Pricing Of Oil: No Carter-inspired windfall profits tax and strict policing on energy market-wagering abuses.

Will this do it? Is the US headed into a new revolution? Is the US ready to wage a war for energy independence? Is it time for a Boston SUV party?

Source

Briefing Book! Knowing Is Half the Battle . . .

LibertySugar — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:30:29 -0700

Immigration: Who can access this info? US recording when citizens cross borders, keeping info for 15 years. - Donklephant
Energy: Can you have your independence and trade, too? The idiocy of energy independence. - Townhall
China: A tourism boom to follow? NBC gives Americans a beginner's course in all things Chinese. - Shanghaiist
New Orleans: Will you check out the documentary Trouble the Water? Award-winning film centers around couple trapped in Ninth Ward after Hurricane Katrina hit. - BuzzSugar
Green: Is this the way to end the food crisis? Genetically modified-food proponent makes her case. - Huffington Post

Source

Work-Sex Balance: Putting Japan in the Mood to Procreate

CitizenSugar — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:30:13 -0800

With one of the world's lowest birth rates, it's not the first time the Japanese government has tried to get in bed with the people. In the '90s, a government-organized dating program failed to produce results - and, yes, by results I mean babies. But now it's turning to the already-married business class, hoping they'll have more children if employers ensure they're home in time for sex.

A new survey shows that the average couple in Japan has sex 45 times per year. That's less than half the global average of 103 times. Why so low? To find out, read more.

Citing lack of energy, more than one third of couples under 50 did not have sex in the previous month. With health experts warning that people are too tired for sex, the government is now trying to persuade employers to give workers more time "at home." That's certainly a euphemism!

Though some companies have already made an independent effort to minimize time in the office, the labor ministry is writing a bill that would exempt employees with children under three from overtime and limit their work days to six hours. While I'm sure more sex leads to more pregnancies (problem solved!), I doubt it would increase the number of planned ones.

Having time for sex and having time for kids are two major, and completely different, problems. Is it really a smart way to grow a population? Or should they do whatever it takes?

Source

Is McCain Really Bush the III? Find Out Where They Differ

CitizenSugar — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:15:51 -0700

While some are figuring out which ditty is going to be the big summer song, Republicans are gearing up to hear months of a Democratic refrain on endless repeat. The tune? John McCain is George W. Bush in older sheep's clothing.

To find out whether they're twinsies more like Lindsay Lohan in The Parent Trap or Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny Devito in Twins, consider where they differ:

Arms Control: McCain wants a new arms control accord with Russia, nuclear talks with China, and a complete disarmament of North Korea's nuclear program.
Interrogation Tactics: He considers waterboarding illegal and impermissible.
Federal Spending: McCain's a stronger opponent of wasteful spending.
Energy and Oil: He's called for a "great national campaign to put us on a course to energy independence," saying th next president must be willing to "break completely" with the previous energy policies.
Climate Change: He supports cap and trade and wants a global accord that includes China and India.

The two agree on issues like education, immigration, Iraq, and health care. Check out the whole list to see how.

Not content just to compare McCain to Bush? To see how McCain and Obama's voting records stack up, read more.

Obama's camp has made much of McCain's voting allegiance with Bush. According to records, in 2007 McCain did vote in conjunction with the president's position 95 percent of the time – up from 77 percent in 2005 and 67 percent in 2001. He voted with his party 90 percent of the time.

By contrast, Obama's votes were in line with the president's position a not-too-slim 40 percent of the time in 2007. In 2006 he voted alongside the George W Bush in almost 50 percent of votes cast.

Obama also appears more partisan than McCain according to these numbers: Obama voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006.

Do you think McCain is an extension of Bush? Or should the endless refrain be that he marches to his own drummer?

Source

Debate Rebate: Democrats Gamble in Vegas

LibertySugar — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:08:09 -0800

Now that they're all friends, (sooo over the race thing,) and on a first name basis, the Democrats were free to talk policy at last night's debate. While it seems like debates are supposed to help highlight each candidate's unique qualities, this slot machine came up cherry, cherry, cherry. All three support universal health care, ROTC/increased military recruitment, and energy independence - and all three oppose the war. Seems like a jackpot - unless you're undecided. Here are the highlights:

John Edwards: John seemed pretty passionate. He broke down his stance on Iraq, saying:

“I will end combat missions. And while I'm president, there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq.”

Overall, Edwards was the most willing to point out differences. He says his plan to get troops out of Iraq is more aggressive and claimed to be the only candidate not to take money from special interests.

For the rest of the candidates, read more.

Hillary Clinton: Hillary's asked Barack to co-sponsor a bill to stop George W. Bush. On the one hand it put Barack in a tight spot, while also reminding Democrats of their common enemy GWB. But, for some reason I feel like every time Hillary goes head to head with Barack on the war, she suffers a net loss. She brought up Bush again saying:

"President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil. How pathetic. We should have an energy policy right now, putting people to work in green-collar jobs as a way to stave off the recession, moving us towards energy independence."

Barack Obama: Barack offered some straight talk on his positions. His unifying personality and clear judgment are obviously his strengths. Last night he said:

“The only way we’re going to move the country forward is if we can bring the country together."

But, if Barack and Hillary are essentially in agreement on what we should do now in Iraq, Barack may have given away his trump card - opposing the war in Iraq from the start.

As a voter still weighing my options, I don't think my answer was in last night's debate. Do you think there was a big winner in Sin City?

Source

Debate Rebate: Our Reactions to the Big Biden vs. Palin

CitizenSugar — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:57:11 -0700

Whoa. That debate was like running a half-marathon at a 5k pace. It was hotly anticipated and proved to be even more intense than expected. Your fantastic comments during the debate came almost faster than the candidates' answers themselves. Here's what we thought of the big #2 showdown:

Citizen:
This was a fast and furious debate. It barely paused long enough to get questions uttered before zooming on. Perhaps the questions over Gwen Ifill's motives were wildly unnecessary as she was competent though mostly periphery to the sheer pace. The questions she asked were fair and the candidates only really loosely followed them anyway. Sarah Palin was firmly self-assured as soon as she settled in, and both Palin and Biden hammered home a 100-mile-an-hour back-up of the arguments for their respective presidential candidates, exactly what they were supposed to do.

Joe Biden brought a similar performance to what we're used to seeing from him, the wild card of course was Palin. Her grasp of foreign policy facts was bullet-point perfect tonight, and her accessibility and - I'll say it - personality really shone through. Republicans were facing an uphill climb, stymied a bit by recent poll numbers and Palin's interview performances - Palin took that challenge, and especially in the first half of the debate, hit it home.

To see the rest of my thoughts, and what Liberty has to say, read more.

During the foreign policy section, Biden hotly attacked on Afghanistan, saying, "Facts matter Gwen . . . our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principals will not work in Afghanistan." But Palin came right back, directly refuting Biden's claims leaving him quieter and repeating himself. She couched her poison arrows with a huge dose of honey, appealing to the twin desires of her supporters - to love her and leave Biden crippled. Her performance read exactly like that. She turned a question about her weaknesses into a soaring endorsement for what's good about America, "Democracy, tolerance, and freedom." If the phrase weren't already assigned to another point in history, I'd say of Sarah Palin tonight, "Mission accomplished."

Liberty:
Sidestepping Sarah Palin, Joe Biden hit John McCain's maverick reputation extremely hard. On both economic and foreign policy issues, Biden gave some strong concrete examples of how McCain mirrors George W. Bush, and how the Obama ticket differs. While Sarah Palin avoided answering the "how" of many questions, Biden offered details. Viewers may have gotten lost in a (sometimes) unemotional argument, but I think Biden's details helped affirm the narrative that the Obama/Biden ticket is more prepared to face the serious challenges.

Sarah Palin, the maverick's running mate, came out strong on issues like Americans living within their means, paying less taxes, and working toward energy independence. She often got those points by avoiding tough questions and reverting back to her strengths.

I'm sure the fact that they made it through without any major gaffes (maybe a couple minor ones), comes as a relief to both VP candidates!

What did you think? Was there a winner? Was this a game changer?

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors, CitizenSugar and LibertySugar, and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Sugar Inc.

Source

The Senate Passes the Bailout Bill

CitizenSugar — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:24:12 -0700

The Senate has passed their version of the Bailout Bill with a vote of 74-25. McCain, Obama, and Biden all voted "yes." The Senate burned the midnight oil tonight, voting on a new version of the Bailout that failed the House earlier this week. The version they considered is much beefier than the original. The main differences between the bill that failed the House and the one the Senate considered are as follows:

Raises the FDIC Cap to $250,000.
Tax breaks for individuals.
Tax breaks for business included spending on alternative energy.

To see what else the bill will do, according to the Senate Banking Committee and what's next, read more.

Allow Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to buy up to $700 billion in bad mortgage-related securities and other bad assets.
Allow the Treasury Department to modify mortgage terms to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.
Permit the government to receive equity in companies it helps so taxpayers get a share of any future profits.
Restrict executive pay for companies aided by the program.
Create an independent oversight board to oversee the Treasury Department program.

It still remains unclear if the Senate additions will jeopardize its passage in the House where another vote is expected Friday, though members are hopeful.

Source

Bush Readies the Offshore Drill, Should Congress Say Yes?

LibertySugar — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:00:06 -0700

President Bush thinks offshore drilling might be the Nicorette gum America needs to kick its oil addiction. Yesterday Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling imposed by his father, removing one hurdle for exploration.

Bush explained:

"This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the US Congress. Now the ball is squarely in Congress's court."

Answering Bush, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said:

“Once again, the oilman in the White House is echoing the demands of Big Oil. The Bush plan is a hoax. It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence."

Considering the current oil crisis, Bush thinks America has no choice but to take advantage of its own resources. Opponents fear environmental impact, and say the plan would take a decade to produce results, while ignoring alternative energy priorities. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says oil companies should explore the 68 millions of acres already available. Should Congress follow the President's lead?

Source

Iran's Ahmadinejad: We Don't Want Confrontation With Anyone

LibertySugar — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:45:36 -0700

Anti-Ahmadinejad rallies outside the UN today turned into anti-Obama rallies critical of the senator's support of talks with Iran. Meanwhile, NPR opened a dialogue of its own with the Iranian president. Here are some highlights from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's interview with the station, during which he says Iran seeks no confrontation.

On Iran's stated plans to enrich uranium for energy, not for a bomb:
The people of the world, the majority actually, support our stand. One hundred eighteen member states of NAM have declared their commitment to our program and supported it. The Non-Aligned Movement. And 57 member states of the OIC, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, too have supported our position. . . . You are speaking of only three or four countries, led by the United States and with a couple of their European friends, and we don't care about them, because they don't represent the whole world.
On whether international confrontation is in Iran's interest:
We do not have any confrontation with anyone. We seek relations based on respect and justice. . . . Why is it that the US administration and two or three groups that follow it allow themselves to speak for the world?
On the American elections:
I ask you, can anyone in fact become a president without the support of either of the two parties here in the United States? . . . Are 300 million people here in America members of either of the two parties? No, not necessarily. People have no other choices here. You only have two choices. In Iran, at least, we have eight. Who is more free? Who has more confidence in its people?

To find out how Iran's president addresses his statements toward Israel, freedoms in Iran, and how he thinks the US and Iran can move forward, read more.

On whether rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map plays into the hands of Bush:
You are aware that 55 years ago, the US government overthrew the national government of Iran. . . . For over 25 years under the dictatorship, hundreds of thousands of our people went to prison . . . whilst our oil was being looted by American companies. Our people were demeaned. Our independence was harmed. Until the Iranian people rose [in] a popular and democratic event to create the Islamic revolution. . . . While America was there, we had no elections in our country. . . . The eight years of war between Saddam [Hussein] and our country were actually supported directly by the United States. From day one, our people were - sanctions were imposed on our people. So who exactly is the provocateur? Who is the one who seeks war?
On whether the US and Iran can move forward:
Well, yes. Of course, we've never entered the US and caused problems for the people here, but the American government has done that to us. So our first proposal is that they have to stop doing that.
On what Iran could do:
I sent a letter to Mr. Bush. That was a very good opening. I even said that I am prepared to talk at the United Nations with them. We responded positively to the request made by US government to extend a hand of cooperation in a joint security commission involved in upholding a security force for Iraq.
On freedoms in Iran:
There's a lot of freedom in Iran. The example is our interview with you. Can you ask your own president these questions? Can you really so freely meet with him so easily? Never.

After reading Ahmadinejad's interview, would you like US leaders sit down with him?
Source

McCain Pledges to Appoint Democrats in a Cabinet of Rivals

CitizenSugar — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:00:03 -0700

It looks like McCain and Obama have at least one thing in common: they both see the value in grabbing the best person for the job, regardless of party. Taking a page from Lincoln's Cabinet of Rivals, McCain said on Face the Nation yesterday that he would definitely be putting Democrats in cabinet posts. He said, "I don't know how many, but I can tell you, with all due respect to previous administrations, it is not going to be a single ... 'Well we have a Democrat now.' It's going to be the best people in America."

The challenges of the modern times take all the Ds and Rs a president can get his hands on. McCain said, "So many of these problems we face - for example, energy independence, what's partisan about that? And I'll tell you, some of them, I'll ask to work for a dollar a year." Uh-oh Michael Bloomberg - I think he's talking about you.

Think the all mixed up answer to government hasn't happened since Lincoln? Nope. William Cohen, a former Republican senator served as Clinton's defense secretary, and Democrat Norm Mineta was transportation secretary under President Bush. Schwarzenegger has already said he'd think about serving under Obama if asked - who would McCain pull in for his cabinet?

Source