Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Presidential Proclamation -- National Poison Prevention Week, 2013

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

NATIONAL POISON PREVENTION WEEK, 2013

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

For more than 50 years, Americans have marked National Poison Prevention Week by highlighting the steps we can take to protect ourselves and our loved ones from accidental poisoning. This week, we carry that tradition forward by encouraging common-sense precautions and raising awareness about how to respond in a poison emergency.

Thanks to greater public awareness and stronger safeguards, we have dramatically reduced childhood death rates from accidental poisoning -- but work remains. To keep our kids safe, parents and caregivers can take action by storing medicine and hazardous products out of their children's reach and removing unused or expired medications from their homes. Anyone who believes a child or loved one has been poisoned should call the National Poison Help Line immediately at 1-800-222-1222.

Today, the majority of unintentional poisoning deaths are caused by overdoses involving prescription drugs, including painkillers. As my Administration works to address this serious public health issue, all of us can take part by using, storing, and disposing of medications correctly, and by speaking out about drug misuse and abuse in our communities. For more resources on preventing drug overdose and other forms of poisoning, visit www.PoisonHelp.HRSA.gov. Information about safe drug disposal is available at www.DEAdiversion.USDOJ.gov.

To encourage Americans to learn more about the dangers of accidental poisonings and to take appropriate preventative measures, the Congress, by joint resolution approved September 26, 1961, as amended (75 Stat. 681) has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation designating the third week of March each year as "National Poison Prevention Week."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim March 17 through March 23, 2013, as National Poison Prevention Week. I call upon all Americans to observe this week by taking actions to protect their families from hazardous household materials and misuse of prescription medicines.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

BARACK OBAMA

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

President Obama discusses the need to harness American energy in order to reduce our dependence on oil and make the United States a magnet for new jobs. He highlights his all-of-the-above approach to American energy -- including a proposal to establish an Energy Security Trust, which invests in research that will help shift our cars and trucks off of oil.

In the first foreign trip of his second term in office, President Obama will meet with the new Israeli government and speak to the Israeli people, as well as meet with the Palestinian leadership and the King of Jordan.

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

User:Sea0e75isa


View the original article here

The Political Legacy of Robert Kennedy — Barack Obama?

By John Halpin, Guest Blogger and Ruy Teixeira, Guest Blogger on Mar 16, 2013 at 11:57 am

This is part 1 of a 2 part series on RFK and the Obama coalition.

Forty-five years ago today, Senator Robert F. Kennedy announced his candidacy for the President of the United States promising to lead a moral and political uprising to end the war in Vietnam and to fight the corrosive poverty afflicting American cities and rural areas.  Affected greatly by the legacy of his brother President John F. Kennedy, his growing alignment with the Civil Rights and anti-war movements, and his work to fight the war on poverty, Sen. Kennedy sought to do what no liberal politician before him had been able to accomplish—unite African Americans, Latinos, young people, and liberal intellectuals with blue collar whites to advance progressive causes and give political voice to the disenfranchised in American society.

Kennedy’s straightforward talk about the problems of “the other America” and the need for racial reconciliation and expanded opportunities for all people—across racial and ethnic lines—rallied communities across the country.  Although his campaign lasted only 82 days before he was gunned down in Los Angeles—a few months after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—Robert Kennedy’s forward-looking vision and unique political strategy presaged a fundamental transformation of American liberalism away from its New Deal roots and towards the emergent coalition of minorities, young people, women, professionals, and middle class whites that would eventually elect Barack Obama in 2008 and re-elect him in 2012.

The decades following Kennedy’s presidential run were not easy for center-left forces as progressives faced numerous political difficulties, ideological set-backs, and outright campaign and governing failures.  A resurgent conservative movement that gained strength during the 1970’s and 1980’s successfully shifted ideological discourse and public policy away from New Deal and Great Society liberalism and towards supply-side principles, social conservatism, and aggressive militarism.  At the national level, the Democratic Party lost control of many states, particularly in the South, and a large percentage of its white working class base to an increasingly conservative Republican Party under Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich.

These ideological and political streams eventually converged to cause the most damage during the failed presidency of George W. Bush in the early 2000’s when the United States embarked on series of policy mistakes from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy and the dismantling of federal regulations to protect the environment, public health, and the economy.

With President Obama’s re-election, the tide has clearly turned for progressives as the conservative realignment in American politics has reached its peak and is rapidly declining due to long term changes in America; a new and vibrant coalition in American politics has indisputably arrived.  This powerful Obama coalition, presaged by Kennedy in 1968, has the potential to dominate politics for a generation and usher in a new era of progressive public policy.

But will it?  That depends on the extent to which this coalition can be mobilized and broadened as we move forward.

The strengths of the coalition are obvious, starting with minority voters.  The share of minority voters in the 2012 election increased by 2 percentage points, bringing their share of the voting electorate to 28 percent.  That compares to just 15 percent of voters in 1988.

Overall, Obama received 80 percent support from people of color in 2012 just as he did in 2008.  His support among African-Americans was almost as overwhelming last November (93-6) as it was in 2008 (95-4).  And his support among Hispanics (71-27) improved substantially over its 2008 level (67-31).  In addition, Obama achieved historic levels of support among Asian-Americans, carrying them by 73-26, compared to 62-35 in 2008.

Adding to the power of the minority vote is the certainty of its continued growth.  The share of minority voters in the 2016 election should be around 30 percent and, in the 2020 election, around 32 percent.

Millennial generation (born 1978-2000) voters are also a central component of the Obama coalition.  Young voters in the 18-29 year old age group — all Millennials — defied skepticism about their likely levels of voter turnout, comprising 19 percent of voters in 2012, up from 18 percent in Obama’s historic campaign of 2008.  In addition, since many Millennials are now older than 29, the share of Millennials among voters is significantly underestimated by just looking at 18-29 year olds.  Taking these older Millennials into account, the true share of Millennials in the 2012 electorate was probably around 26 percent.

Millennial 18-29 year olds supported Obama by a 23-point margin in the 2012 election (60 percent to 37 percent). This is strong support, by far Obama’s best performance among any age group, just as was the case in 2008, when Obama performed even more strongly among these voters (66-32).

As with people of color, we will see more and more of these voters in the electorate over the next several elections, as the number of Millennial eligible voters increases by about 4 million a year.  By the 2016 election, Millennials should be about 36 percent of eligible voters and roughly a third of actual voters.  And by the 2020 election, Millennials should be nearly 2 in 5 (39 percent) eligible voters and around 36 percent of actual voters.

Unmarried women are another key part of the Obama coalition.  Obama carried this group by a wide 67-31 margin in 2012, not far off his 70-29 margin in 2008.  Unmarried women were also a larger share of voters, 23 percent vs. 21 percent in 2008.  This trend may continue in the future, since the growth rate of unmarried women is roughly twice that of married women.

While not as strong for Obama as unmarried women, their male counterparts also favored Obama, giving him a healthy 56-40 margin, close to the 58-38 margin they gave him in 2008.  And their share of voters went up even more, increasing by 4 points to 18 percent.  All told, unmarried voters were 40 percent of voters in 2012, up 6 points from 2008’s 34 percent share.

Obama also received strong support from those of non-Christian faiths (72-27) and those with no religious affiliation (70-26).  In addition, voters with a postgraduate education (a good proxy for professionals) supported Obama by 55-42 and residents of large metropolitan areas (54 percent of voters) supported him by 56-42.  Again, all of these groups have been growing and should continue to grow over time.

Obama generally did poorly among white voters but the college-educated were a relative bright spot.  He lost this group by 14 points (as compared to 20 points among all white voters) and did substantially better among white college-educated women, losing them by a modest 6 points.  White college-educated voters have been increasing both as a share of overall voters and—very rapidly–as a share of white voters.  Based on historical patterns and projections of future educational attainment, these trends should continue for some time.

(Part 2 of the series will examine strategies for connecting diverse constituencies with the white working class.)


View the original article here

Kushan Empire

(Difference between revisions)The '''Kushan Empire''' was a relatively short-lived empire that controlled a vast area from the eastern shores of the [[Caspian Sea]] across the north and east of modern [[Iran]], [[Afghanistan]], [[Pakistan]] and much of the [[Ganges River|Ganges]] valley in northern [[India]]. From the last years of the first century A.D. to its disintegration in the first half of the 3rd, it controlled all the land trade routes between the [[Mediterranean]], then under the [[Roman]]s - at the height of their power - and [[China]]. The Kushans were an [[Indo-European]] people, part of the central [[Asia]]n Tokhari confederation of tribes, and moved into the then Hellenistic lands of [[Bactria]] in northern Iran in the century before Christ.  They found themselves up against the [[Parthia|Parthians]], and turned towards the more lucrative east. By the second half of the 2nd century A.D. they were in India, which was to become their cultural base.The '''Kushan Empire''' was a relatively short-lived empire that controlled a vast area from the eastern shores of the Caspian Sea across the north and east of modern Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and much of the Ganges valley in northern [[India]]. From the last years of the first century A.D. to its disintegration in the first half of the 3rd. it controlled all the land trade routes between the [[Mediterranean]], then under the [[Roman]]s at the height of its power, and [[China]].  They did not last long. Like the Parthians. they were defeated by the [[Sassanians]], who were to rule most of south-west Asia from the first half of the 3rd century for the next 400 years.The Kushans were an [[Indo-European]] people, part of the central [[Asia]]n Tokhari confederation of tribes, and moved into the then Hellenistic lands of Bactria in northern Iran in the century before Christ.  They found themselves up against the [[Parthia|Parthians]], and turned towards the more lucrative east. By the second half of the 2nd century A.D. they were in India, which was to become their cultural base.They did not last long. Like the Parthians. they were defeated by the Sassanians, who were to rule most of south-west Asia from the first half of the 3rd century for the next 400 years.Reference: "Times Atlas of World History"

The Kushan Empire was a relatively short-lived empire that controlled a vast area from the eastern shores of the Caspian Sea across the north and east of modern Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and much of the Ganges valley in northern India. From the last years of the first century A.D. to its disintegration in the first half of the 3rd, it controlled all the land trade routes between the Mediterranean, then under the Romans - at the height of their power - and China.

The Kushans were an Indo-European people, part of the central Asian Tokhari confederation of tribes, and moved into the then Hellenistic lands of Bactria in northern Iran in the century before Christ. They found themselves up against the Parthians, and turned towards the more lucrative east. By the second half of the 2nd century A.D. they were in India, which was to become their cultural base.

They did not last long. Like the Parthians. they were defeated by the Sassanians, who were to rule most of south-west Asia from the first half of the 3rd century for the next 400 years.


View the original article here

The Obama Coalition, The White Working Class, And RFK

By John Halpin, Guest Blogger and Ruy Teixeira, Guest Blogger on Mar 17, 2013 at 12:11 pm

This is part 2 of a series on RFK and the Obama coalition.  Part 1 is here.

The potential of the new Obama coalition is truly impressive, given its 2012 performance and how many of its constituent parts are likely to grow in numbers over the course of the decade.  But the word “potential” should be stressed.  There is no guarantee that turnout and support levels will stay as high as they have been going forward.  And there is definitely no guarantee that these constituencies will remain active and involved in the legislative battles that must be fought to turn progressive policies into law.  Thus, implementing a progressive agenda will, to a large extent, be dependent on the mobilization level of the Obama coalition both in future elections and between those elections.

This is a big challenge, but Obama and his team have taken some significant steps to address it.  These steps have been driven by the recognition that the best way to maintain enthusiasm and support is to deliver for the groups that put you in office.  Thus, the administration has been aggressively pushing a number of policy priorities that resonate with the concerns of different groups in the coalition:  immigration reform, curbing gun violence, same sex marriage, climate change and universal pre-K.

This strategy is a good one.  These fights are all substantively important in policy terms and may, with luck, result in some important victories.  And they should indeed pump up enthusiasm levels as different groups in the coalition see how strongly Obama is willing to fight for their priorities.  Nor does it seem likely that a big political price will be paid for touching on issues that have a social dimension; the country has moved rapidly in a progressive direction on most of these issues and these issues lack the power they once had to elicit a backlash.

However, the strategy has to be supplemented by efforts not just to mobilize the Obama coalition but to expand it.    And among the chief targets here is the white working class, just as it was for Bobby Kennedy in 1968.

The white working class was the key force behind the Republican landslide in 2010 — Democrats lost the group by 30 points.  And they were a glaring weakness for Obama in 2012, when he lost them by only a slightly more modest 26 points.  These voters, despite their declining numbers, will be an ever-present threat to progressives in elections and to progressive governance as long as they remain so hostile to progressive principles and policies.

The solution is to bring a significant segment of these voters over to the progressive side.  It does not have to be a majority of these voters.  The Bobby Kennedy coalition can be dominant with a strong minority of the white working class, but one that is committed to progressive policies and large enough to derail the super-majorities among the voters that conservatives rely on.

Such a coalition would make the task of progressive governance far easier by breaking up the mass base for conservative counter-mobilization.  And it should greatly reduce the threat white working class voters pose to progressive fortunes when rising constituencies falter or fail to turn out at high levels.

But how can this be done?  It is no doubt a substantial challenge, but one that can and must be addressed.  At CAP, we are launching a project—the Bobby Kennedy Project—to do just that.  The goal is to figure out how to reach both the white working class and more progressive-leaning demographic groups through unifying values, policies and messages.

Our initial work suggests that a successful approach will require a relentless focus on social opportunity for all people and an economic agenda that puts the interests of working- and middle-class families first.  In particular, the burgeoning research and policy agenda around “equity and growth” provides a good model for policies that can successfully unite a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, cross-class coalition.  The evidence is increasingly strong that rising inequality has inhibited growth and that higher growth in the future is more likely with policies that broadly diffuse opportunity.  These policies are America’s future and also perhaps the glue that can finally join a critical segment of the white working class to America’s rising demographic groups.

The rise of the Obama coalition has already changed American politics.  Expanding this rising coalition into a Bobby Kennedy coalition could transform our politics for a generation.


View the original article here

Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity

(Difference between revisions)In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

According to a 2007 study reported in the Journal of Family Issues, adherents of liberal Christianity are more likely to engage in marital infidelity than theologically conservative Christians.[1]

Liberal Christianity also embraces the evolutionary paradigm (see also: Evolution and liberalism).

In July of 2000, Creation Ministries International reported:

For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion.

In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’[2]

? Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?? Morals decline linked to evolution

View the original article here

Presidential Memorandum -- Deferred Enforced Departure for Liberians

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

SUBJECT: Deferred Enforced Departure for Liberians

Since 1991, the United States has provided safe haven for Liberians who were forced to flee their country as a result of armed conflict and widespread civil strife, in part through granting Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The armed conflict ended in 2003 and conditions improved such that TPS ended effective October 1, 2007. President Bush then deferred the enforced departure of the Liberians originally granted TPS. I extended that grant of Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to March 31, 2013. I have determined that there are compelling foreign policy reasons to again extend DED to those Liberians presently residing in the United States under the existing grant of DED.

Pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States, I have determined that it is in the foreign policy interest of the United States to defer for 18 months the removal of any Liberian national, or person without nationality who last habitually resided in Liberia, who is present in the United States and who is under a grant of DED as of September 30, 2011. The grant of DED only applies to an individual who has continuously resided in the United States since October 1, 2002, except for Liberian nationals, or persons without nationality who last habitually resided in Liberia:

(1) who are ineligible for TPS for the reasons provided in section 244(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(B);

(2) whose removal you determine is in the interest of the United States;

(3) whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States;

(4) who have voluntarily returned to Liberia or his or her country of last habitual residence outside the United States;

(5) who were deported, excluded, or removed prior to the date of this memorandum; or

(6) who are subject to extradition.

Accordingly, I direct you to take the necessary steps to implement for eligible Liberians:

(1) a deferral of enforced departure from the United States for 18 months from March 31, 2013; and

(2) authorization for employment for 18 months from March 31, 2013.

BARACK OBAMA

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

President Obama discusses the need to harness American energy in order to reduce our dependence on oil and make the United States a magnet for new jobs. He highlights his all-of-the-above approach to American energy -- including a proposal to establish an Energy Security Trust, which invests in research that will help shift our cars and trucks off of oil.

In the first foreign trip of his second term in office, President Obama will meet with the new Israeli government and speak to the Israeli people, as well as meet with the Palestinian leadership and the King of Jordan.

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Remarks by the President on American Energy -- Lemont, Illinois

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Argonne National Laboratory
Lemont, Illinois

1:31 P.M. CDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody!  (Applause.)  Hello, Illinois!  Hello!  It is good to be home!  (Applause.)

Well, let me begin by thanking Ann for the great introduction, the great work she’s doing, the leadership she’s showing with her team on so many different, amazing technological breakthroughs.  I want to thank Dr. Isaacs and Dr. Crabtree for giving me a great tour of your facilities. 

It’s not every day that I get to walk into a thermal test chamber.  (Laughter.)  I told my girls that I was going to go into a thermal test chamber and they were pretty excited.  I told them I’d come out looking like the Hulk.  (Laughter.)  They didn’t believe that. 

I want to thank my friend and your friend -- a truly great U.S. Senator, Senator Dick Durbin -- huge supporter of Argonne.  (Applause.)  An outstanding member of Congress who actually could explain some of the stuff that's going on here -- Bill Foster is here.  (Applause.)  Congressman Bobby Rush, a big supporter of Argonne -- glad he’s here.  (Applause.)  We’ve got a number of state and local officials with us, including your Mayor, Brian Reaves.  (Applause.) 

And I could not come to Argonne without bringing my own Nobel Prize-winning scientist, someone who has served our country so well over the past four years -- our Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu.  (Applause.) 

Now, I’m here today to talk about what should be our top priority as a nation, and that's reigniting the true engine of America’s economic growth -- a rising, thriving middle class and an economy built on innovation.  In my State of the Union address, I said our most important task was to drive that economic growth, and I meant it.  And every day, we should be asking ourselves three questions:  How do we make America a magnet for good jobs?  How do we equip our people with the skills and training to do those jobs?  And how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living? 

Those of you who have chairs -- I wasn’t sure everybody had chairs there.  (Laughter.)  Please feel free to sit down -- I'm sorry.  Everybody was standing and I thought Argonne -- one of the effects of the sequester, you had to -- (laughter) -- get rid of chairs.  (Applause.)  That's good, I'm glad we've got some chairs. 

So I chose Argonne National Lab because right now, few areas hold more promise for creating good jobs and growing our economy than how we use American energy. 

After years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to take control of our energy future.  We produce more oil than we have in 15 years.  We import less oil than we have in 20 years.  We’ve doubled the amount of renewable energy that we generate from sources like wind and solar -- with tens of thousands of good jobs to show for it.  We’re producing more natural gas than we ever have before -- with hundreds of thousands of good jobs to show for it.  We supported the first new nuclear power plant in America since the 1970s.  And we’re sending less carbon pollution into the environment than we have in nearly 20 years.

So we’re making real progress across the board.  And it’s possible, in part, because of labs like this and outstanding scientists like so many of you, entrepreneurs, innovators -- all of you who are working together to take your discoveries and turn them into a business. 

So think about this:  Just a few years ago, the American auto industry was flat-lining.  Today, thanks in part to discoveries made right here at Argonne, some of the most high-tech, fuel-efficient, pretty spiffy cars in the world are once again designed, engineered and built here in the United States. 

And that’s why we have to keep investing in scientific research.  It’s why we have to maintain our edge -- because the work you’re doing today will end up in the products that we make and sell tomorrow.  You’re helping to secure our energy future.  And if we do it well, then that’s going to help us avoid some of the perils of climate change and leave a healthier planet for our kids.  But to do it, we’ve got to make sure that we’re making the right choices in Washington. 

Just the other day, Dr. Isaacs and directors of two of our other national laboratories wrote about the effects of the so-called sequester -- these across-the-board budget cuts put in place two weeks ago -- and specifically the effects it will have on America’s scientific research.  And one of the reasons I was opposed to these cuts is because they don’t distinguish between wasteful programs and vital investments.  They don’t trim the fat; they cut into muscle and into bone -- like research and development being done right here that not only gives a great place for young researchers to come and ply their trade, but also ends up creating all kinds of spinoffs that create good jobs and good wages.   

So Dr. Isaacs said these cuts will force him to stop any new project that’s coming down the line.  And I’m quoting him now -- he says, “This sudden halt on new starts will freeze American science in place while the rest of the world races forward, and it will knock a generation of young scientists off their stride, ultimately costing billions of dollars in missed future opportunities.”  I mean, essentially because of this sequester, we’re looking at two years where we don’t start new research.  And at a time when every month you’ve got to replace your smartphone because something new has come up, imagine what that means when China and Germany and Japan are all continuing to plump up their basic research, and we’re just sitting there doing nothing. 

We can’t afford to miss these opportunities while the rest of the world races forward.  We have to seize these opportunities.  I want the next great job-creating breakthroughs -- whether it’s in energy or nanotechnology or bioengineering -- I want those breakthroughs to be right here in the United States of America, creating American jobs and maintaining our technological lead.  (Applause.)  

So I just want to be clear -- these cuts will harm, not help, our economy.  They aren’t the smart way to cut our deficits.  And that’s why I’m reaching out to Republicans and Democrats to come together around a balanced approach, a smart, phased-in approach to deficit reduction that includes smart spending cuts and entitlement reforms and new revenue, and that won’t hurt our middle class or slow economic growth.  And if we do that, then we can move beyond governing from crisis to crisis to crisis, and we keep our focus on policies that actually create jobs and grow our economy, and move forward to face all of the other challenges we face, from fixing our broken immigration system to educating our kids to keeping them safe from gun violence. 

And few pieces of business are more important for us than getting our energy future right.  So here at Argonne, and other labs around the country, scientists are working on getting us where we need to get 10 years from now, 20 years from now.  Today, what most Americans feel first when it comes to energy prices -- or energy issues are prices that they pay at the pump. And over the past few weeks, we saw -- we went through another spike in gas prices.  And people are nodding here.  They weren’t happy about it.  The problem is this happens every year.  It happened last year, the year before that.  And it’s a serious blow to family budgets.  It feels like you’re getting hit with a new tax coming right out of your pocket.  And every time it happens, politicians -- they dust off their three-point plans for $2 gas, but nothing happens and then we go through the same cycle again. 

But here’s the thing:  Over the past four years, we haven’t just talked about it, we’ve actually started doing something about it.  We’ve worked with the auto companies to put in place the toughest fuel economy standards in our history.  And what that means is, by the middle of the next decade, our cars will go twice as far on a gallon of gas.  And the standards that we set are part of what’s driving some of the amazing scientists and engineers who are working here at Argonne Labs.  We’ve set some achievable but ambitious goals.  So in the middle of the next decade, we expect that you’ll fill up half as often, which means you spend half as much.  And over the life of a new car, the average family will save more than $8,000 at the pump.  That's worth applauding.  That's big news.  (Applause.) 

In fact, a new report issued today shows that America is becoming a global leader in advanced vehicles.  You walk into any dealership today, and you’ll see twice as many hybrids to choose from as there were five years ago.  You’ll see seven times as many cars that can go 40 miles a gallon or more.  And as costs go down, sales are going up.

Last year, General Motors sold more hybrid vehicles than ever before.  Ford is selling some of the most fuel-efficient cars so quickly that dealers are having a tough time keeping up with the demand.  So by investing in our energy security, we’re helping our businesses succeed and we’re creating good middle-class jobs right here in America.

So we’re making progress, but the only way to really break this cycle of spiking gas prices, the only way to break that cycle for good is to shift our cars entirely -- our cars and trucks -- off oil.  That’s why, in my State of the Union address, I called on Congress to set up an Energy Security Trust to fund research into new technologies that will help us reach that goal. 
Now, I’d like to take credit for this idea because it’s a good idea, but I can’t.  Basically, my proposal builds off a proposal that was put forward by a non-partisan coalition that includes retired generals and admirals and leading CEOs.  And these leaders came together around a simple idea -- much of our energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together.  So what they’ve proposed is let’s take some of our oil and gas revenues from public lands and put it towards research that will benefit the public so we can support American ingenuity without adding a dime to our deficit.

We can support scientists who are designing new engines that are more energy efficient; support scientists that are developing cheaper batteries that can go farther on a single charge; support scientists and engineers that are devising new ways to fuel our cars and trucks with new sources of clean energy -- like advanced biofuels and natural gas -- so drivers can one day go coast to coast without using a drop of oil. 

And the reason so many different people from the private sector, the public sector, our military support this idea is because it’s not just about saving money; it’s also about saving the environment, but it’s also about our national security.  For military officials -- like General Paul Kelley, a former Commandant of the Marine Corps -- this is about national security.  Our reliance on oil makes us way too dependent on other parts of the world, many of which are very volatile.  For business leaders -- like Fred Smith, the CEO of FedEx -- this is about economic security, because when fuel prices shoot up, it’s harder to plan investments, expand operations, create new jobs. 

So these leaders all say we need to fix this.  This is not a Democratic idea or a Republican idea.  This is just a smart idea. And we should be taking their advice.  Let’s set up an Energy Security Trust that helps us free our families and our businesses from painful spikes in gas once and for all.  (Applause.)  Let’s do that.  We can do it.  We’ve done it before.  We innovated here at Argonne.   

And in the meantime, we’ll keep moving on the all-of-the-above energy strategy that we’ve been working on for the last couple years, where we're producing more oil and gas here at home but we're also producing more biofuels, we're also producing more fuel-efficient vehicles; more solar power; more wind power.  We're working to make sure that here in America we're building cars and homes and businesses that waste less energy. 

We can do this.  The nature of America's miraculous rise has been our drive, our restless spirit, our willingness to reach out to new horizons, our willingness to take risks, our willingness to innovate.  We are not satisfied just because things -- this is how things have been.  We're going to try something that maybe we just imagine now, but if we work at it, we'll achieve it.  That’s the nature of America.  That’s what Argonne National Lab is about.  That’s what this facility is about.  (Applause.)  

Two decades ago, scientists at Argonne, led by Mike Thackeray, who’s here today -- where is Mike?  There he is right here.  (Applause.)  Mike started work on a rechargeable lithium battery for cars.  And some folks at the time said the idea wasn’t worth the effort.  They said that even if you had the technology, the car would cost too much, it wouldn’t go far enough. 

But Mike and his team knew better.  They knew you could do better.  And America, our government, our federal government made it a priority, and we funded those efforts.  And Mike went to work.  And when others gave up, the team kept on at it.  And when development hit a snag, the team found solutions.  And a few years ago, all of this hard work paid off, and scientists here at Argonne helped create a lithium ion battery that costs less, lasts longer than any that had come before. 

So what was just an idea two decades ago is now rolling off assembly lines in cutting-edge fuel efficient cars that you can plug in at night.  Well, imagine all the ideas right now with all of these young scientists and engineers that 20 years ago -- or 20 years from now will be offering solutions to our problems that we can't even comprehend -- as long as we're still funding these young scientists and engineers; as long as the pipeline for research is maintained; as long as we recognize there are some things we do together as a country because individually we can't do it -- and, by the way, the private sector on its own will not invest in this research because it's too expensive.  It's too risky.  They can't afford it in terms of their bottom lines.

So we've got to support it.  And we'll all benefit from it, and our kids will benefit from it, and our grandkids will benefit from it.  That’s who we are.  That’s been the American story. 

We don’t stand still, we look forward.  We invent.  We build.  We turn new ideas into new industries.  We change the way we can live our lives here at home and around the world.  That’s how we sent a man to the moon.  That’s how we invented the Internet. 

When somebody tells us we can't, we say, yes we can.  And I'm telling all of you, I am absolutely confident that America is poised to succeed in the same way as long as we don’t lose that spirit of innovation and recognize that we can only do it together.  And I'm going to work as hard as I can every single day to make sure that we do.

So congratulations, Argonne.  (Applause.)  Let's keep it up.  Thank you.  God bless you.  God bless America.

END  
1:50 P.M. CDT

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

President Obama discusses the need to harness American energy in order to reduce our dependence on oil and make the United States a magnet for new jobs. He highlights his all-of-the-above approach to American energy -- including a proposal to establish an Energy Security Trust, which invests in research that will help shift our cars and trucks off of oil.

In the first foreign trip of his second term in office, President Obama will meet with the new Israeli government and speak to the Israeli people, as well as meet with the Palestinian leadership and the King of Jordan.

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity

(Difference between revisions)In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

According to a 2007 study reported in the Journal of Family Issues, adherents of liberal Christianity are more likely to engage in marital infidelity than theologically conservative Christians.[1]

Liberal Christianity also embraces the evolutionary paradigm (see also: Evolution and liberalism).

In July of 2000, Creation Ministries International reported:

For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion.

In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’[2]

? Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?? Morals decline linked to evolution

View the original article here

GOP senator applauds move to ramp up West Coast missile defense

By Molly K. Hooper - 03/17/13 10:41 AM ET

The top-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Sunday praised the administration’s decision to bolster the West Coast missile defense, after threats from North Korea.

“I think all of us applaud the efforts to beef up our missile defense on the west coast,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) on “Fox News Sunday” of efforts to deal with the potential nuclear threat from the rogue nation.

The senator, though, acknowledged the threat from North Korea is not “imminent.”

“I don’t think the threat is imminent, I don’t think they have the delivery mechanisms that are necessary to really harm us but I think it’s really good that we’re taking those precautionary measures to make sure they do not do damage,” Corker said.

The ranking member told host Chris Wallace, that he’s going to be speaking with the Pentagon and State Department this week to hash out the “technical issues.”

The administration announced last week that it would augment its missile-defense capabilities in Alaska by deploying additional missile interceptors on the West Coast.

“The reason we're advancing our program here for homeland security is to not take any chances, is to stay ahead of the threat and to assure any contingency,” said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

The move came after North Korea ramped up its rhetoric against the United States and South Korea and on the heels of a recent nuclear test.

Pyongyang has in recent weeks threatened to declare the end of the armistice which ended the Korean War and criticized new sanctions passed by the United Nations Security Council and military training exercises being held by Seoul and Washington.

View Comments

View the original article here

Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity

(Difference between revisions)In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

According to a 2007 study reported in the Journal of Family Issues, adherents of liberal Christianity are more likely to engage in marital infidelity than theologically conservative Christians.[1]

Liberal Christianity also embraces the evolutionary paradigm (see also: Evolution and liberalism).

In July of 2000, Creation Ministries International reported:

For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion.

In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’[2]

? Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?? Morals decline linked to evolution

View the original article here

Employers Say No to Obamacare

 Highlight transcript below to create clipTranscript:  Print  |  Email Go  Click text to jump within videoFri 15 Mar 13 | 07:52 PM ET A new report says employers will have to pay an extra $63 for every person insured when Obamacare takes effect. Gracie-Marie Turner, Galen Institute president; Democratic Strategist Jimmy Williams; and CNBC's Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, share their opinions.

View the original article here

VIEWPOINT: ‘Kindergartners Shouldn’t Be Taught Sex Ed’ — And Other Myths Endangering America’s Youth

“In case you missed it, Chicago public schools are set to begin teaching sex-ed to Kindergartners,” Family Research Council head Tony Perkins tweeted earlier this week. Adding his voice to a growing chorus of right-wing fearmongering, Perkins is referring to the fact that the city’s Department of Education approved a new policy requiring public schools to teach age-appropriate, LGBT-inclusive sexual health instruction at each grade level. The youngest students — the primary subjects of the recent concern trolling — will learn about anatomy, reproduction, healthy relationships, and personal safety.

It comes as no surprise that Perkins and his fellow conservatives, who are still stubbornly clinging to failed abstinence-only education policies, would be up in arms about comprehensive sex ed (especially when it acknowledges the existence of the LGBT community). But the thought of the country’s third largest school district teaching, in the school district’s words, “accurate information…[so students can] make healthy choices” still makes a lot of people outside of Tony Perkins’ circles squeamish. Mainstream media outlets were quick to raise alarm about 5-year-olds learning how to identify their genitalia, with headlines like “Chicago Passes Sex-Ed for Kindergartners,” “Sex Ed For Kindergarten Students,” and “What Age Should Kids Start Learning Sex Ed? In Chicago, It’s Kindergarten.” The popular parenting blog Babble quoted a mother who revealed the panic behind these headlines: she “just doesn’t think it’s appropriate.”

The unfounded fear that young children will somehow become “impure” if they learn about a dirty subject like sex is deeply rooted in American culture. Our society assumes that human sexuality is dark, dangerous, and shameful — something we need to protect teens from, rather than teach them about. Teens consistently learn that it’s not okay to talk about sex because it’s supposed to be totally off-limits to them, constrained to the bounds of a traditional marriage. But this attitude has led to disastrous consequences: damaging women and LGBT Americans’ sense of sexual self-worth, fueling the STD epidemic, and creating a moral environment where rape culture has flourished. Americans desperately need to overhaul our outdated approach to sexuality, replacing our puritanism with an open, honest, nonjudgmental, sex-positive attitude that we work to instill in our kids from a young age.

Today’s fights over what’s “appropriate” to teach our children about sex are largely symptoms of the United States’ long history of sexual conservatism, which can be traced back to our Puritan roots. There have been a few more sexually liberated periods in U.S. history, like the Progressive Era at the turn of the 20th century, but attitudes about sex remained largely conservative until the women’s and gay rights movements turned everything upside down. Those movements coincided in the 1970s to challenge preconceived ideas about heterosexuality and gender roles, working to normalize sex outside of marriage, sex outside of procreation, and homosexuality as equally valid human experiences.

Since then, social norms about sex have been rapidly evolving, but our sexual education hasn’t kept up — thanks in large part to the Religious Right. After the HIV/AIDS epidemic spurred schools to begin teaching information about sexually transmitted infections, religious conservatives spearheaded a hugely successful state-level campaign in the late 1990s to replace those sex ed classes with abstinence-only programs that lack any information about condoms, birth control, healthy sexual relationships, or sexual orientation. Now, the country is a patchwork of varying state-level sex ed policies, and the majority of states don’t hold the information in their public schools’ health classes to any kind of standards for medical accuracy.

Now, some lawmakers are attempting to combat the abstinence education programs that ballooned under former President George W. Bush by putting forth initiatives to expand comprehensive, medically accurate sex ed classes. But even the most well-intentioned sex ed legislation often remains somewhat stuck in our shame-based past. The Responsible Education About Life Act — a sweeping comprehensive sex ed policy that Democrats in both chambers of Congress have repeatedly pushed — still defines adequate sex education as a course that “stresses the value of abstinence.” Across the country, 37 states require that abstinence be taught in sex ed classes, and 26 states require that abstinence must be stressed as the best, safest option.

This backward approach to sexual education means that American sexual attitudes, particularly as they relate to teens, retain our puritanical past’s unhealthy emphasis on abstinence. Teens are divided into two moral camps: the “good” ones who are abstaining from sex, and the “bad” ones who aren’t (and are shamed for it). Feminist author Jessica Valenti, who’s written a book on the topic, calls it our society’s “purity fetish.” Valenti argues that this preoccupation with purity is especially harmful to young girls, who are held to different “virginal” expectations than boys are. “Virginity and chastity are reemerging as a trend in pop culture, in our schools, in the media, and even in legislation. So while young women are subject to overt sexual messages every day, they’re simultaneously being taught — by the people who are supposed to care for their personal and moral development, no less — that their only real worth is their virginity and ability to remain ‘pure,’” she writes.

Tying young girls’ worth to their purity ultimately teaches them, as Valenti explains, that “their ability to be moral actors is absolutely dependent on their sexuality.” Equally problematically, telling teens to “save their virginity for marriage” is a concept that totally fails to acknowledge some important realities of the LGBT community — since many of those individuals have no context for society’s heteronormative concept of “virginity,” and continue to be denied marriage equality in many parts of the country. Four decades ago, gay rights and women’s liberation activists worked to move us beyond these limited approaches to sexuality. Nonetheless, our obsession with abstinence endures.

But whether or not we teach young adults that their worth is dependent on their ability to remain abstinent, they’ve proven that they’re still going to experiment with their sexuality. By their 19th birthday, seven in ten American teens will have had sex — very similar to the rates in Europe. The only difference is that European teenagers have higher rates of contraceptive use, partly because they’ve grown up in a culture that doesn’t have the same qualms about giving young adults the resources they need to have safer sex. Of course, it isn’t hard to see some of the direct consequences of our tendency to simply “look the other way” and pretend teens aren’t sexual beings: compared to the rest of the developed world, the United States has particularly high rates of both unintended teenage pregnancies and STDs.

And that’s not the only potential consequence of our misguided approach to teenage sexuality. As the American Prospect’s E. J Graff points out, purity culture is also rape culture — a societal construction that devalues consensual sex and blames rape victims for the sexual violence perpetrated against them. As Graff puts it, rape culture “lives anywhere that has a ‘traditional’ vision of women’s sexuality. A culture in which women are expected to remain virgins until marriage is a rape culture. In that vision, women’s bodies are for use primarily for procreation or male pleasure. They must be kept pure.”

The moral divide between the “pure” and the “impure,” the same messages we’ve been feeding to young adults in health classes all over the country, pops up again. Purity culture teaches youth that, once young women have defiled themselves by engaging in the depraved act of sex, there’s nothing else they won’t consent to. An “impure” woman is an active participant in whatever assaults may be committed against her; she “asked for it”; she deserves what she got; she drank too much alcohol and wore too short of a skirt; she’s already had sex with so many guys on the football team, how could she object to another one forcing himself on her? When we think of rape, we don’t think of that girl. When an emphasis on purity remains inextricably tied to attitudes about sex, the only violations that count as “real” crimes are the ones committed against sweet, pure, virginal girls.

Just like we haven’t been able to escape purity, we also haven’t escaped rape culture. This is a country where a Fox News commentator received racist rape and death threats after suggesting that our society should play a role in teaching men to not rape, where high school football players can hire a lawyer to argue that an unconscious girl consented to her rape and abuse because she “didn’t affirmatively say no,” where prestigious universities do everything they can to sweep sexual assault under the rug, where a rape survivor might be expelled from college for speaking about her case, where many local law enforcement offices don’t handle sexual assault cases correctly and can even dissuade survivors from reporting crimes, where elected officials have made so many offensive comments about rape that they were required to undergo a PR training on the subject.

Obviously, these deeply-rooted issues don’t come with easy answers. But as our society marches forward, we don’t want to keep leaving our children’s sex education behind. National policies to standardize comprehensive sexual health information across every state — and to prevent school districts from using instruction materials that “stress” harmful messages about abstinence, contain medically inaccurate information, and ignore or stigmatize LGBT experiences — would be a good start. If our children grew up in a world where discussions of sex were honest and open, rather than learning about their sexuality solely within the context of shame, they might come to understand that they are more than their bodies. In grade school, that doesn’t have to be the type of “inappropriate” sex ed that parents are so worried about. It could be as simple as making sure authority figures explain that kids have nothing to be ashamed about, that they should never be scared to ask questions about their bodies because no information is off-limits, and that they — and only they — have the right to decide how they want to be touched.

We need to go back to the beginning and find a way to totally reorient our approach to human sexuality. Ideally, our citizens should grow up learning about healthy relationships, about self-respect and respecting others, about their bodily autonomy and their right to consent, about taking steps to perserve their sexual health — and especially about their value as a human being regardless of their sexuality. We might want to start in kindergarten.


View the original article here

Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity

(Difference between revisions)In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

According to a 2007 study reported in the Journal of Family Issues, adherents of liberal Christianity are more likely to engage in marital infidelity than theologically conservative Christians.[1]

Liberal Christianity also embraces the evolutionary paradigm (see also: Evolution and liberalism).

In July of 2000, Creation Ministries International reported:

For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion.

In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’[2]

? Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?? Morals decline linked to evolution

View the original article here

GOP Senator: Republicans Are Open To Tax Increases In Grand Bargain

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) believes Senate Republicans would be open to increasing revenue through tax reform as part of a “grand bargain” to reduce the deficit. During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Corker argued that entitlement reform should be a top priority, but left the door open to reaching bipartisan consensus on deficit reduction in the next few months.

In past negotiations, the GOP leadership has repeatedly walked away from the table due to unwillingness to reach an agreement that included more revenue and, since the fiscal cliff deal, Republican leaders have insisted that the “the discussion about revenue … is over.”

Host Chris Wallace asked whether Corker and his party would be open to a compromise that include tax increases:

CORKER: I think there–by the way–is a chance on a deal. I know the president is saying the right things and we have an opportunity over the next four-to-five months. I think that we’ll know when the president is serious by virtue of a process is setup where he is actually at the table or he has a designee and whether he begins to say publicly to the American people, to all Americans, that he understands that Americans are only paying one-third of the cost of Medicare and that has to change for the program to be here down the road. But look, Chris, I think Republicans — if they saw true entitlement reform — would be glad to look at tax reform that generates additional revenues. And that doesn’t mean increasing rates, that means closing loopholes. That also means arranging our tax system so that we have economic growth. And I think we’ve been saying that from day one.

Sen. Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL), also on the program, praised Corker’s comments as “honest and constructive,” and noted that the savings need to be done in a way that does not obliterate the system, as would be the case in the “Paul Ryan voucher approach.”

Corker is exaggerating the problems facing the Medicare program. According to the program’s 2012 annual trustee’s report, Medicare’s dedicated revenue fully pays for its costs and will do so until at least 2024. Even then, revenue will cover 87 percent of Medicare costs. At the current pace, by 2086, revenue would only be sufficient to cover 69 percent of costs — but even that 75-year figure would be more than two-thirds of the program’s costs.

The Affordable Care Act both reduced the costs of Medicare by hundreds of billions and improved its coverage for seniors. He has also recommended specific reforms that would save $57 billion annually from Medicare (more even than recommended by the Bowles-Simpson commission) and hundreds of billions in entitlement savings overall.

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) poured cold water on the idea of increasing taxes during an appearance on Meet The Press, saying, “There are no new tax increases because you don’t need it.”


View the original article here

California To Other 49 States: Can You Match Our Clean Energy Economy?

While the prospects of comprehensive energy legislation remain grim in Washington, real action to address climate change and grow the clean economy is being taken on the state level.

California in particular is a shining example of state-based leadership on climate, having established its own cap-and-trade mechanism — a key element in the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (also known as AB 32) — that will soon be linked with the Province of Québec which will decrease overall greenhouse gas emissions and provide greater flexibility to California businesses. The state also has a Renewable Portfolio Standard of 33 percent by 2020 (the state utilities have already met 20 percent of its electricity needs through renewables), and a net metering program allowing customers to receive financial credit for power generating by their onsite system.

Thanks to the foresight of California policymakers and ample natural resources, the state leads the nation in solar projects, solar megawatts installed, and the average cost per watt of solar. In 2011, $1.9 billion was invested in the state to install solar on homes and businesses, and there are currently more than 1,500 solar companies working throughout the manufacturing chain in California. California even ranks second in wind installation, while also leading the nation in most wind capacity installed in 2011.

Clearly, Californians have much to be proud of when it comes to taking strong action to reduce carbon emissions and fighting the urgent threat of climate change.

This week, Southern California energy providers came to DC to highlight the state’s great achievements and recommend action that could be taken at the federal level needed to maintain long term energy reliability for California while at an event hosted by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. The panelists called for three specific items of legislation that federal lawmakers can enact to not only support California policies, but create economic and environmental benefits for the entire country:

1. National Clean Energy Standard

In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama proposed a federal “clean energy standard,” which would require utility companies to produce 80 percent of their electricity from no- or low-carbon sources by 2035. The Center for American Progress has recommended that an 80 percent clean energy standard should also include a requirement that 35 percent of electricity generation come from renewable sources and efficiency measures. This standard should be met by requiring a national target of 25 percent renewable electricity generation alongside a requirement that utilities reduce demand to save energy by 10 percent.

An analysis conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that a national standard that requires all electric utilities to increase usage of renewable electricity to at least 25 percent by 2025 would create jobs, lower energy bills, and reduce harmful pollution. The analysis specifically found some 300,000 jobs would be created, $260 billion in new capital investment would occur with an additional $11 billion going to local communities from new property taxes, and consumers would save $64 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills by 2025.

Last year, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) introduced the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012. The Energy Information Agency projected that the legislation would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector 20 percent by 2025 and 44 percent by 2035.

2. Tax Credit Certainty

Key federal tax incentives — the production tax credit and investment tax credit — can help level the playing field for renewable energy in a market historically dominated by artificially low fossil fuel prices. These tax credits need to be extended long enough to give investors real certainty. For example, the PTC is set to expire at the end of 2013 and the ITC at the end of 2016. Each time Congress waits to renew these credits, financing gaps are created in the market.

3. Master Limited Partnerships for Renewables

If tax credits are not given long term extensions, then the panelists suggested Congress could make a provision in the tax code allowing energy-generation and transmission companies form master limited partnerships (MLPs). Felix Mormann and Dan Reicher, both at Stanford’s Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, recently wrote:

Master limited partnerships carry the fund-raising advantages of a corporation: ownership interests are publicly traded and offer investors the liquidity, limited liability and dividends of classic corporations. Their market capitalization exceeds $350 billion. With average dividends of just 6 percent, these investment vehicles could substantially reduce the cost of financing renewables.

Senator Chris Coons (D-Delaware) has written a bill entitled the Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act, which if enacted, could level the playing field and open up critical financing to the renewables sector.

Sea level rise, increased temperatures, more extreme hot days, and less winter precipitation are all climate driven changes that affect the health of California’s environment and citizens. If greenhouse gas emissions continue along its business-as-usual scenario projection, Southern California, specifically, will experience longer heat waves, high ozone conditions, and the elevation of storm surges that will cause severe flooding and coastal erosion. Indeed, researchers at Oregon State University and Harvard University recently published a report that concluded the Earth’s rate of warming since 1900 is 50 times greater than the rate of cooling in the previous 5,000 years.

California has made its move to prevent climate change from occurring by aggressively cutting emissions and deploying renewable energy. It’s time for Washington D.C. to follow their lead.

Matt Kasper is a special assistant for energy policy at the Center for American Progress.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity

(Difference between revisions)In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

According to a 2007 study reported in the Journal of Family Issues, adherents of liberal Christianity are more likely to engage in marital infidelity than theologically conservative Christians.[1]

Liberal Christianity also embraces the evolutionary paradigm (see also: Evolution and liberalism).

In July of 2000, Creation Ministries International reported:

For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion.

In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’[2]

? Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?? Morals decline linked to evolution

View the original article here