“During the Sunday show, Romney criticized Gingrich, the former House Speaker, for making a statement in May that “cut the legs out” from under the plan, part of a 2012 budget Ryan proposed back in April. “Are we going to deal with entitlement reform or not?” Romney asked. “Republicans came together, Paul Ryan was the author of the plan. But almost every single Republican voted for it, and the Speaker said this is ‘right-wing social engineering.'” Romney’s actual Medicare plan is not as extreme as Ryan’s, however. Instead, it preserves the existing Medicare program, allowing seniors to choose to receive vouchers for private insurance instead of the government plan, while Ryan would end Medicare in favor of a voucher system. Fox host Chris Wallace pressed Romney on his support for the Ryan budget, suggesting that Ryan’s plans to eliminate $700 billion in aid to states, including $127 billion in food stamps, would make Romney vulnerable to Democratic attacks in the general election. Romney said that he would help the poor by growing the economy, and suggested that cutting government benefits for the poor wouldn’t cause problems. “Cutting welfare spending dramatically, I don’t thinkwill hurt the poor,” Romney said………”
I wonder if taking away Mitt Romney’s trust fund, maybe cutting it dramatically, would not hurt him? I mean taking it away retroactively, since he is now “self-made”. Right wing radio gasbags are right: Obama can blow this guy away in 2012. Even the beleaguered Humphrey, with Chicago ’68 around his neck, almost beat Nixon. And Nixon was smarter. Cheers
mhg
“Un groupe de professeurs d’université chinois a décerné à Vladimir Poutine un «prix de la paix» copié sur le prestigieux Nobel, en saluant les «remarquables» talents pacifiques du premier ministre russe, notamment son opposition au «bombardement de la Libye par l’OTAN». Le nom du lauréat du «prix de la paix Confucius» a été annoncé mardi à l’AFP par l’un des organisateurs, Qiao Damo. M. Poutine était notamment en lice avec la chancelière allemande, Angela Merkel, ou Yuan Longping, le père du riz hybride chinois……………”
Interesting that the Chinese decided to give Russia’s Putin a peace prize. I suppose because his country has not been engaged in any foreign war for decades. The Russians have had no Iraq, no Afghanistan, no Yemen, no Pakistan, no possible Iran, no nothing: I wonder how the Russian budget deficit is faring. In our region of the Middle East the potentates give each other prizes all the time. Prince X bin Y awards Prince Z bin W the award for the most wedded. Prince S bin OB awards shaikh B bin S the award for humanitarian thinking (not doing). Prince Yin bin Yang awards Prince Yang bin Yin the Prince Yin bin Yang bin Ying award for just “showing up”. You can call them Woody Allen awards: remember what he said about “showing up is 80% of life”?. After the ceremony they all leave by driving up the Prince Yang bin Yin bin Yang Al Yong Avenue. In the new township named after Prince Polygamous bin Greed bin Bribe bin Nepotism. Mutual incestuous awarding of prizes. Now about that hybrid rice………… Cheers
mhg
BFF “Nor did I find much sympathy for Obama in Israel. The right thinks of him as a naïf who can easily be out-maneuvered, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently done. The left is disappointed in him for the same reason: that Obama let Netanyahu push him around. The spectacle of members of Congress leaping to their feet to clap after almost every sentence of Nethanyahu’s address gave comfort to the right that America could always be manipulated. To the Israeli left it was pathetic. “Netanyahu could have been reading from the telephone book,” said author and journalist, Yuval Elizur……..”
What can I say? Members of Congress were intoxicated by all the bullshit Mr. Netanyahu spread under the some of the Capitol, as he is wont to do wherever he goes. They recognized a sour b.s. disseminator, a right-winger, one of their own. Only better at it. Cheers
mhg
“The “Iran Threat Reduction Act” HR1905, passed on November 2 by the House Foreign Relations Committee, neither reduces an Iranian threat, nor puts significant pressure on Iran’s leaders to change policies with which the United States disagrees. A corresponding bill has been introduced in the Senate (S1048). If passed, the House bill would, however, make it illegal for any American diplomat to speak to or have any contact with an Iranian official unless the President certifies to Congress that not talking to the Iranian officials “would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States” 15 days prior to that contact. Former U.S. Ambassadors William Luers and Thomas Pickering point out that this bill is not only illegal, it places the United States in greater danger in the world…….”
“(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT. — No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that — (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER. — The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.” Cheers
mhg
“The legislation requires the US president to impose sanctions on Iran’s central bank if he determines it is facilitating terrorism or the development of nuclear weapons, or supporting Iran’s elite military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “I believe the central bank of Iran is not only engaging in those activities; I believe it is the ultimate engine of those activities,” said the author of the central bank provision, Representative Howard Berman, a Democrat. The sanctions would effectively block from the US economy any foreign bank involved in significant transactions with Iran’s central bank. The legislation was approved by the House panel …………..”
There are many institutions and individuals in Iran that contribute to their nuclear program:
The Central Bank of Iran, by virtue of operating in Iran, supervising banks and the balance of payments and maintaining the exchange rate and monetary policy in general helps the nuclear program.
An Iranian doctor, by virtue of working in Iran helps the nuclear program (he may treat some nuclear scientist or a procurer of ‘yellow cake’ from Niger).
A street sweeper in Tehran (there are many of them since Iranians like their cities clean) helps the nuclear program by virtue of improving the quality of life of nuclear scientists and procurer of ‘yellow cake’ from Niger.
A grocer in any Iranian city almost certainly feeds some workers on some not-so-secret nuclear plants, let’s call him the green grocer of Natanz.
A home vintner in North Tehran, by virtue of supplying some secret party that some nuclear scientist or some clerk at a nuclear plant might attend, is helping the nuclear program.
A baby sitter or a housemaid in Tehran, by virtue of……..
You get the drift. It could be a virtual declaration of war, to which the Iranians will most likely only respond in kind, with virtual retaliation. That is how the Iranians, including the dogmatic mullahs, operate in the game of chess their ancestors invented. That is why the alleged Saudi ambassador plot sounds so ridiculous, regardless of all the “weighty” Western leaders who endorsed its veracity. It does not fit the pattern of a game of chess.
(one good thing is that the bill leaves it up to POTUS to decide if the Central Bank is engaged in such activities, The bad news is also that it leaves it to POTUS). Cheers
mhg
“Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi says Tehran will definitely take legal action against the US administration over calls for the assassination of Iranian officials. Salehi told IRNA on Sunday that American statesmen are so brazen that they formally discuss assassinating Iranian military figures in the US House of Representatives and the Senate. He stressed that Tehran would pursue the case through all legal and judicial channels. Salehi said that the US administration’s anti-Iran bids comes as Washington has been leveling baseless accusations against the country alleging that Tehran was involvement in a plot to kill the Saudi envoy to Washington. On October 11, the US Justice Department accused Iran of plotting to assassinate Saudi Arabian Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir with help from a suspected member of a Mexican drug cartel. Tehran says the media hype created by Washington is an attempt to deflect international attention from the anti-corruption and anti-corporatism protests currently rocking the country. ………….”
It is interesting that the Iranian leaders are becoming Americanized in at least one respect: they are becoming trigger happy in matters of lawsuits. For all I know they could also be watching Jersey Shores or Desperate Housewives (I have never watched any episode of either). I wonder if Alan Dershowitz, if he is asked, would refuse to represent the mullahs on principle. Or maybe he would rise to the challenge. What these Iranian mullahs don’t understand is that violent protests, even strong protests, don’t work in the USA. The 1960s protests (especially the Chicago events which were arguably violence committed by the police) led to the election of Richard Nixon in 1968. That was no doubt the opposite effect of what the protesters wanted (helped along by the not-so-soft racism of Nixon’s Southern Strategy) Cheers
mhg
“Months before MF Global teetered on the brink, federal regulators were seeking to rein in the types of risky trades that contributed to the firm’s collapse. But they faced opposition from an influential opponent: Jon S. Corzine, the head of the then little-known brokerage firm. As a former United States senator and a former governor of New Jersey, as well as the leader of Goldman Sachs in the 1990s, Mr. Corzine carried significant weight in the worlds of Washington and Wall Street. While other financial firms employed teams of lobbyists to fight the new regulation, MF Global’s chief executive in meetings over the last year personally pressed regulators to halt their plans. The agency proposing the rule, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, relented………….”
Who said there is no bipartisanship in the U.S. Congress? There is in fact a lot of it, but it is not used to help the American people. Look at Goldman Sachs: how many federal government potentates, of both parties, have come from that vampire venerable institution? Not to mention other financial institutions. Jon Corzine (good Blue Northeast Democrat) used to be chairman of Goldman Sachs, before he decided to purchase the state of New Jersey as a senator, then as a governor. Robert Rubin was a honcho of Citibank (Citigroup) before he joined the Clinton administration. And there have been many others. Then there is the money, lobbyist money, political cannabis, “Texas Weed” as I might call it. The money unites both parties in a bond of unprecedented bipartisanship. There is something that is noble about lobbyist money, corporate money: nothing could bring these two major parties together like lobbyist money. Nothing like bipartisanship based on free markets and the freedom of corporate expression (the latter courtesy of, a gift of, the Supremes).
Republicans, and Ed Koch and Joe Lieberman, are pissed that Obama is pulling out of Iraq. None of them is pissed that the Iraqis want the Americans out: they are pissed that the Americans are doing what the Iraqis want. In the old days this was called “colonialism”, when a Western guest force, usually uninvited, overstayed their welcome. The Americans had to fight several years with help from NATO the French (Lafayette and all that) to achieve what the Native Americans (aka Indian tribes) never did: get rid of the British colonial power. Now the Republicans are all opining that the United States should stay in Iraq. The great veteran of financial and downsizing wars, Mitt Romney, and that other veteran of office wars (and other office affairs) Newt Gingrich are up in arms. As are other GOP candidates.
Now I had suggested here earlier that Mr. Gingrich should head to Mesopotamia, along the border with Persia, with a view to spending some quality time as guest of the mullahs in Iran. I thought that would shore up his foreign policy credentials, if not his credibility. I am amending my earlier suggestion now. I am suggesting now that it is a good idea if Mr. Gingrich would take Mr. Romney along on his trek. To make it easier, they can each take along their hairdressers, sort of like the old colonial masters used to take along their hairdressers, butlers, cooks, shoe-shiners, etc. Mr. McCain also tempted me by showing ire at Mr. Obama for obeying the Iraqi people’s wish that US troops leave their country, but since he is not a candidate, I shall not make any suggestions. Some Arabs, especially some potentates on my Gulf, are also pissed at the U.S. withdrawal, mainly because the American occupation was like a stick they could use against the Iraqis. Now they don’t have that stick to discredit the Iraqi elections. I would suggest that Gingrich also take a couple of the ‘princes’ along on his trip. Cheers
mhg
“Iran’s supreme leader and the shadowy Quds Force covert operations unit were likely aware of an alleged plot to kill Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, but hard evidence of that is scant, U.S. officials said on Wednesday. The United States does not have solid information about “exactly how high it goes,” one official said…………… The U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said their confidence that at least some Iranian leaders were aware of the alleged plot was based largely on analyses and their understanding of how the Quds Force operates. They said it was “more than likely” that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Quds Force commander Qasem Suleimani had prior knowledge………….”
Not only does the story of the plot look like a Hollywood B-movie (Reagan peaked too early as an actor). The aftermath is even worse. Now we hear that they think it “likely” but “without hard evidence”, that it was based largely on “analyses and understanding how…”. WTF kind of case is this exactly? Normally any court of law outside the Middle East would blow this case out to the middle of the (Pacific) ocean. Next we’ll hear Tony Blair blowing the trumpet of another Gulf war based on this. This whole thing is moving too fast and furious for total credulity. Cheers
mhg
“Iran has never conducted — or apparently even attempted — an assassination or a bombing inside the US. And it is difficult to believe that they would rely on a non-Islamic criminal gang to carry out this most sensitive of all possible missions. In this instance, they allegedly relied on at least one amateur and a Mexican criminal drug gang that is known to be riddled with both Mexican and USintelligence agents……..”
My ‘educated impression’ is that most people in the ‘wider’ Arab world have strong doubts about all this. By that I mean people from Iraq through Lebanon to Egypt and North Africa. That is among those who care at all: most are too involved in their own struggle against their rulers. Most Saudis tend to believe the story because of the tensions between their country and Iran and also because their major media, like Iranian media, is government-controlled or owned by princes (Alarabiya, Asharq Alawsat, etc, etc). Most people in the Gulf GCC states, with the likely exception of Bahrain, also tend to believe this story. But that is the Gulf: most Sunnis believe anything that is publicized against Iran and most Shi’as suspect anything that is publicized against Iran. As for myself: some aspects of the story just sound too silly, as if written by someone to raise public anger, especially the quote about “who cares if 100 or 150 innocent people die in the restaurant, f–k them!” I just can’t help thinking of the USS Maine and Havana harbor. (I had a very skeptical American history professor as an undergraduate. He was especially hard on the USS Maine incident and Mr. Hearst and his ‘special little Cuban friend’. He just ‘knew’ how the Spanish-American War started. Fortunately, most history professors in the United States tend to be skeptics as well, a very healthy thing). (Clearly his ‘true’ history about Havana harbor made a strong impression on me. I won’t tell you what he called President Polk about the Mexican war). Cheers
mhg
Rattlesnake Ridge 
BFF 
