Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘Washington Post’ Category

>What A Great Day – With Glenn Beck At The Helm We Shall Not Fail!

I present the following by Stephen Stromberg, Clinton and Obama sychophant, just to show how easy it is to get sidetracked by excellent writing skills. Yes, Stromberg is a great writer–one of the best I’ve encountered on political pages. But when you read this you must remember that this is the lib who praised Robert Reich, labor secretary for Clinton and general loud-mouth spokesman for all liberality.

Yes, in insidious and perverse ways this writer Stromberg can contort and twist the truth to his way of thinking. Be careful not to get sucked into his climate-change ideas, to the idea that to say we can’t drill for oil is actually good.

Stromberg says it: “The president has tried to inoculate himself against criticism for high gas prices. I’ve got news for both Obama and Stromberg. Americans are smarter than that. His rhetoric is not working. Rising gas prices are partially a direct result of gas policy in the world, but basic fundamentals apply, supply and demand, dummy? We have less gas and oil, our prices rise.

I believe the Democrats have successfully organized hundreds of Strombergs to write articles and Op Eds for the liberal press, to wit NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, etc. They are supposed to soften up the illerate right wing, to convert us over to their progressive thought patterns. Don’t be sucked in. Refuse to believe that having no oil for our cars is a good idea. That our idea of “drill, Baby, drill” is dump rhetoric that has no meaning today and that Brazil does. Hey, that rimes.

We “gave” Brazil two to ten billions of dollars to drill in the Gulf of Mexico when Obama is tying the hands of oil men in America, refusing in many, many cases to allow them to drill. It is such bad policy that it will come back to bite him in the 2012 elections despite the organized efforts of the likes of Stromberg and other of Obama’s minions.

By the way, Obama’s speech was a definite failure. he didn’t convince one single driver that gas prices were up due to things beyond his control. Good presidents keep constituents in mind…always. Don White

President Obama wants to reduce oil imports by a third in ten years

In what a senior aide has promised will be a “concerted” transition to a new energy initiative, President Obama Wednesday will declare that he wants to reduce America’s oil imports by a third in ten years.
The political context is obvious: The president has long sought to inoculate himself from criticism over rising gas prices. Last year Obama announced that he would allow oil and natural gas exploration in untouched areas of the outer continental shelf. Then the Deepwater Horizon rig blew up in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama reversed his decision, closing off some areas he had been poised to open. And his Interior Department has since moved cautiously in permitting new drilling in the gulf. So now that gas prices are up,Republicans are mercilessly attacking the president. No doubt exactly what the White House thought it would avoid as it developed its original offshore drilling plan.
And the policy? High gas prices, of course, aren’t Obama’s fault — as if a few drilling leases would make a noticeable difference in the massive world oil market. But a new focus on oil imports can lead to funny energy policy. Reducing carbon emissions — which directly addresses climate change, the great environmental threat of our time, and should also discourage oil consumption — is a lot more important than simply reducing foreign oil dependence — which leads policymakers to do things such as over-subsidizing corn ethanol, with dubious environmental benefits.
We’ll see how the president manages these priorities in his speech, but I’m hoping to hear a lot more about some of the promising policies for greening the electricity sector he proposed in his State of the Union Address.
By Stephen Stromberg  |  06:05 AM ET, 03/30/2011 

>Richard Cohen Got It Right In His Union Obesity Op Ed

>I don’t usually reprint in its entirety an op-ed from the Washington Post. But in this case I am because I believe for a change one of its standard liberal op-ed writers, Reichard Cohen did a bang up job of analyzing what’s going on in Wisconsin.

When you have liberals criticizing the unions in Wisconsin, you have a different ball game. Unions are wrong, Governor Walker is right in this one. And as a result, unions will become weaker – not necessarily due to anything Scott Walker is doing, but because how prideful and, yes let’s say it – richly obese – the unions and Wisconsin’s school teachers have become.

I wrote an article yesterday about this in  Go there.

I said “Right now teachers in Wisconsin have pensions and health care insurance paid for entirely by the taxpayers. Walker is only asking that they pay for 5.8 percent of their own pension plan and 12.8 percent for their health plan. What on earth is going on?”

If you could get someone else to pay 94 percent of your pension for the rest of your life, you’d be singing love songs to everyone and jumping up and down with joy. So would I. Read Cohen. I’m usually criticizing him and his liberal ideas. Not on this one:
Richard CohenGovernment pensions, an obesity epidemicGovernment workers, on our dime, have run off with pensions they do not deserve.

>Washington Post Beats The Drum For A Whacked-Out Obama

>I read David S. Broder of the Washington Post on “the slow changes” Obama is making and it made me sick. I didn’t comment on the economic side, which is so whacked out that even a school child could figure it out – that we won’t have enough money to pay for all his wasteful spending and it will wind up inflating everything we buy and eat. But Broder doesn’t get it. I am reprinting the editorial without permission because I think my readers need to see what BS the Washington Post editorial writers are producing these days.

Then, below the editorial, you will see my reaction which covers only one small portion of Broder – the Nuke meetings and reductions that everyone is already heralding as the greatest thing since peanut butter.
Don White


Archive   |   Biography   |   RSS Feed   |   Opinions Home   |   Politics Home
We are beginning to learn that the Obama presidency will be an era of substantial but deferred accomplishments — perhaps always to be accompanied by a sense of continuing crisis. His vaunted “cool” allows him to wait without impatience and to endure without visible despair. It asks the same of his constituents.

These thoughts were generated by the events of the past few days in Washington, when a glut of 46 visiting heads of state caused a massive traffic tie-up and a veritable windstorm of talk, all to yield a promise that two years hence, we may see major steps toward control of loose nuclear weapons and their fuel.
A year ago in Prague, Barack Obama — treading deliberately and dramatically further down the path of disarmament than his predecessors of either party had dared to go — drew his portrait of a world substantially freed from the fear of atomic annihilation.
This week, responding to his leadership, the nations of the world — with a few notable exceptions on both sides of the Arab-Israeli divide — sent their leaders to Washington to signal their assent to that aspiration.
Two years from now, they or their successors will reconvene, and we will be able to measure how much — or little — progress they have made individually and collectively toward this noble goal.


This is the characteristic pattern, we can begin to see, of Obama’s great initiatives. It is repeated in health care and in economic policymaking, and — it seems safe to speculate — it is likely to be followed in education, energy, the environment and fiscal policy as well.
Take health care. More than a year ago, Obama outlined a vision of a redesigned system, covering far more people at substantially lower per capita cost. He was notably sparing in how to get there, and for many months it was not clear that Congress would take up the challenge. In the end, a law was enacted that addressed exactly that goal. But it will be four years at least before its key components are in place and another four beyond that until its financing mechanism will really be tested.
Take the economy. The “emergency” measures designed to deal with the manufacturing calamities and the overall housing and economic crises Obama inherited were quickly passed in 2009. But none was expected to show results at that moment. For month after month, there was no sign that the downward spiral had been slowed, and only now, more than a year later, are there enough positive signs — in employment, in sales and in profits — that many economists are willing to talk about recovery.
It is likely that if and when Congress responds to other challenges Obama has given it — to restructure financial regulation; to rationalize energy, education and environmental policies; and to slow the ruinous growth of entitlement programs — the pattern will be the same: incremental steps leading to possible future breakthroughs.
For a nation whose culture has produced a psychology demanding instant gratification, this politics of deferred satisfaction is something not easily learned. In his political career, Obama has been a perfect embodiment of an impatient generation. He rocketed through his few years in Springfield to capture a Senate seat from Illinois, then quickly became impatient with the Senate’s ways and set his cap for the presidency.
But somewhere, he has learned the virtues of patience when it comes to governing.
I think it is welcome to have a president whose vision extends beyond the duration of his own term of office, though it entails a political risk that he could be cut off by the voters before any of his hopes are realized. If the current high level of public frustration fuels a Republican resurgence well beyond the normal midterm losses for a president’s party, it is possible that next year might bring a serious effort to repeal the health-care act and reject his initiatives in international affairs.
I do not think this is likely. But a president who is not driven by a compulsion to provide instant gratification for his constituents must also cultivate adult patience in them. My bet would be that Obama has that capacity.

dusanotes wrote:
David, as a fellow journalist I expected more from you than a pure-and-simple PR piece. You are not only not objective, you have forgotten the basics of editorial writing. In your mind, all is rosy and no one needs to pay the piper in the end. Yes, we all want to live in a world without nukes. But this president has “given” away our advantage to the Russians without anything for it. Do you live in another world? The Russians are still our enemies and would go along with reducing another country’s stock pile of long-range missiles. But don’t forget, they have far more short-range nukes than America has. We could get caught up in this never-never-land dream of a nuke-less world and jump and shout the world is safe while those of us who have lived a little longer than you, David, know the world is still a dangerous place and more caution and less euphoria over what Obama is doing should be the anthem of a credible editorial writer. You have drunk far too much of the Obama Kool-Aid to be any kind of an expert we can rely on. Donald White

>North Korea: It’s Get Tough Time For Obama

>Read my “Get Tough With North Korea” article in Political Disconnect. I answered a Ruth Marcus attack op ed article on Dick Cheney in the Washington Post and printed my comments. I think you’ll like what I said. If so chime in with your own comments. If not, do likewise.  Don White aka dusanotes

>Reverse Discrimination Is As Wrong As Discrimination

>I commented about George’s Will’s op-ed piece in this morning’s Washignton Post. I said Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Sonja Sotomayor will not be a strict constructionist in her rulings. In fact, she won’t even take the Constitution into account from all I read. She will make it up as she goes because she and Obama want to weave into our lifestyles some of that good old poverty and suffering these far left liberals want to foist on Americans because they like to bring up their lurid past.

There are millions of us who suffered from poverty and discrimination while we were growing up, but we don’t wail about it today. We let bygones be bygones and look forward to better things.

Not the far left. They want everyone to suffer as they think they did, when in reality they know nothing of suffering. From what I read, the newest member of the Court will be a loud-mouthed raving liberal from New York near Yankee Stadium who had a great bringing up by a loving mother who worked six days a week so that she could spend her time studying, then going to the best schools such as Princeton and becoming an attorney when her father only had a third-grade education. That’s a touching story and I respect it. But it should not be the basis on which America builds its future.

I had a similar beginning, but I don’t go around dredging up past feelings. It’s not healthy. Let bygones be bygones and go on and discover new things, enjoying every hour God gives us on this planet.

I made a comment under George Will’s op-ed piece in this morning’s Washington Post. Go to that story in my blog “Discrimination” now. The story is about Reverse Discrimination.

>Does Geithner Get It? Asks Post Writer Robinson


Does Geithner Get It?

.play-btn-box346x270 {position:relative;width:346px;height:270px;}.play-btn-box346x270 .play-btn {position:absolute;width:78px;height:48px;top:111px;left:134px;background:url( no-repeat;_background:none;_filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src=,sizingMethod=scale);cursor:pointer;}.play-btn-box346x270 a {position:absolute;top:0;left:0;}.play-btn-box346x270 b {display:none;}

President Obama is standing by embattled Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and defending the administration’s role in the AIG bonus fiasco.

= 0 ) ? wp_article.comments_period : 3 ;

if ( typeof thisNode == ‘undefined’ )
thisNode = ‘admin’ ;

// (wp_article.allow_comments) && !(black list) && (white list) of ancestors and sections goes here
( typeof wp_article != “undefined” && typeof wp_article.allow_comments != “undefined” && wp_article.allow_comments != “no” )
!( thisNode.match(/\/wires$/) || thisNode.match(/^artsandliving\/(entertainmentguide|entertainmentnews|travel\/index)($|\/)/) || thisNode.match(/^business\/(portfolio)($|\/)/) || thisNode.match(/^metro\/(obituaries)($|\/)/) )
( thisNode.match(/^(artsandliving|business|cars|education|health|jobs|liveonline|metro|nation|opinions?|realestate|religion|politics|sports|technology|world|kidspost|media)($|\/)/) || thisNode.match(/^print\/(washpostmagazine|style|sundayarts|sundaysource|weekend)($|\/)/) ))
document.write(“#ArticleCommentsWrapper {display:block};”); if(! checkDaysOld(comments_period) ) { COMMENTS_ACTIVE = true ; } else { COMMENTS_ACTIVE = false ; } } else { document.write(”); } // –>

#ArticleCommentsWrapper {display:block};

// Include the WPNI functions to display SiteLife content on the page.
// –>

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Friday, March 20, 2009; Page A19

President Obama’s claim that Timothy Geithner faces a more daunting set of challenges than any Treasury secretary since Alexander Hamilton may be an exaggeration, but not by much. Geithner may indeed be the hardest-working man in Washington. But to survive, let alone succeed, he’s going to have to make a more convincing case that he’s part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Read Eugene Robinsons article 

>The Real Cost of the $819 Billion Bailout

>One of the ways rich people discriminate against the poor is in charging exorbatant interest rates. Try 42 percent, for example.

But that’s against the law, you protest. What about laws on the books prohibiting gouging or usury? You’re right, consumers are not supposed to pay rates in many jurisdictions higher than 18 percent.

The word usury means the charging of unreasonable or relatively high rates of interest. As such, the term is largely derived from Abrahamic religious principles; Riba is the corresponding Islamic term. The primary focus in this article is on the Christian tradition. The pivotal change in the English-speaking world seems to have come with the permission to charge interest on lent money: particularly the Act ‘In restraint of usury’ of Henry VIII in England in 1545. Every state has usury laws on the books.

But we’re talking about government usury. Not ours, but probably China’s. A country like the USA borrows all its money and then pays back at an effective rate of about 42 percent. Sounds awful, doesn’t it. It is!

How could we have gotten ourselves into this bind — having to pay the communists almost half of our bailout money? We’re dumb, and they’re smart. They also have savings accounts, while most Americans use a credit or debit card and spend every last dollar coming in.

When the wall came down in East Germany we thought we had won the cold war. We did. But now we’re losing it, and it’s an economic war not a political war. The more we bail out companies, banks, and governments the smaller our U.S. dollar becomes — and the less it buys at the grocery store. American people are becoming poorer, not better off because of these bailouts and many Americans are convinced the bailout stimulus package is not a good idea at all. In essence, America is becoming a socialist country and with each passing day and an increasly larger planned economy and less capitalism, we are resembling Communist China — at least socialist Germany.

Taxpayers will pay much more for the fiscal stimulus than previously revealed – over $1.17 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Most sources have assessed the cost of the stimulus package at approximately $825 billion. But the CBO reports those estimates do not include the cost of the money that must be borrowed to pay for the plan. [Editor’s Note: To view the CBO letter reporting on the total cost of the stimulus plan, go here now.]

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., asked the CBO – the research arm of Congress – to calculate the “money cost” of borrowing the funds needed to fulfill the stimulus projects being sought by congressional Democrats and President Obama. Like every other borrower, the government must pay back borrowed principal plus the interest on its debt.

The CBO responded with a Jan. 27 letter from CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf estimating the cost of borrowing the money would be $347.1 billion – or about 42 percent of the cost of the projects. That would push the total cost of the stimulus package to over $1.17 trillion.