Jack's Newswatch

The Washington Post this afternoon reported “President Obama delivers remarks on Ft. Hood shooting at end of tribal leaders conference.” The transcript begins:

SPEAKER: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA[*] OBAMA: Please, everybody, have a seat. Let me first of all just thank Ken and the entire Department of the Interior staff for organizing just an extraordinary conference.

I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It’s good to see you.

Ah, the dangers of giving shout outs without a teleprompter.  Crow is not a Medal of Honor recipient.  As noted by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society:

The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States. Generally presented to its recipient by the President of the United States of America in the name of Congress, it is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Crow’s name is not included on the Society’s Medal of Honor recipient list.  He was, however, awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, in August.

Obama, often described as “cerebral” by the mainstream media, should know the difference between the Medal of Honor and the Medal of Freedom, especially since he personally awarded the latter to Crow.  Don’t expect his blunder to receive wide coverage.  It’s not something he can blame George Bush for.

[Source]

Popularity: 7% [?]

California is a mess, but I love it all the same–especially the Bay Area, where I lived for 15 years. I went to Berkeley in 1962–a refugee from Amherst College, which at that time was dominated by frat boys with high SAT scores. I didn’t go to Berkeley to go to school, but to be a bus ride away from North Beach and the Jazz Workshop. In a broader sense, I went to California for the same reason that other émigrés had been going since the 1840s. I was knocking on the Golden Door.

Immigrants from Europe had come to America seeking happiness and a break with their unhappy pasts. But many Americans–from the ’49ers of the Gold Rush to Mark Twain to a young Ronald Reagan–had gone to California to find renewal. California was part of the American frontier, but, as Carey McWilliams points out in California: The Great Exception, it developed outside the framework of the American frontier. It was not an extension of the East or Midwest, but became a state in 1850 before other Western states. It was an island in the sun without Pilgrim winters or windswept prairies. It nourished its own dream of wealth and well-being. It was the American dream all over again, but dreamt within America.

California has fulfilled many of those dreams. It has extended and enhanced the promise of America–from the discovery of gold to the introduction of the movies and television, the aerospace industry, Silicon Valley, and the Central Valley’s giant farms that supply a quarter of America’s food. It has also been a political and cultural vanguard–from John C. Fremont, the first presidential candidate of the anti-slavery Republican Party, to Progressive Governor Hiram Johnson, Socialist Upton Sinclair, old-age-pension agitator Francis Townsend, and down to Richard Nixon, Earl Warren, and Reagan. The New Left staged its first mass protests in Berkeley. Gay rights came out of Los Angeles and San Francisco. And the New Right was spurred by California’s tax revolt and by the backlash against illegal immigration.

[More]

Notes:

John B. Judis is a senior editor of New Republic, where he has worked since 1984. As a visiting scholar at Carnegie, Judis wrote The Folly of Empire: What George W. Bush Could Learn from Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Judis’ articles have appeared in American Prospect, New York Times Magazine, Washington Post, Foreign Affairs, Washington Monthly, American Enterprise, Mother Jones, and Dissent. He has written five books, including The Emerging Democratic Majority (with Ruy Teixeira), The Parodox of American Democracy, and William F. Buckley: Patron Saint of the Conservatives.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Sarah Palin has entered the fray over a congressional special election in New York’s 23rd district that has turned into a battle among Republicans over how to define themselves as they seek to recover from the election routs of 2006 and 2008.

On one side, the party establishment is backing a GOP moderate named Dede Scozzafava who is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as stout a conservative as any, has endorsed Scozzafava in the belief that she represents the best chance of winning in a region where Republicans have fallen on hard times and ideological conservatism doesn’t always sell.

On the other side is Gingrich’s former colleague, onetime House majority leader Dick Armey, and a host of conservative groups who have deemed Scozzafava to be a RINO (Republican In Name Only) and have bolted to support a Conservative Party candidate named Doug Hoffman.

Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 14% [?]

For as long as I can remember (even before the advent of the breathalyzer) Canada has been after drunks on the road.  I can’t count the number of accidents (some of them fatal) I’ve attended over the years where alcohol was involved. 

Suffice to say — a lot.

Late Saturday evening three more innocents died because of booze and like all the other fatal accidents I’ve seen and investigated I think to myself this didn’t have to happen.  It did because the booze industry is a huge industry in this country just like tobacco and they have a lot of influence over how we respond to this mayhem on our roads as they lobby politicians and create winning conditions for their trade of death.

I have long thought that the current levels of alcohol in the blood permitted by law contribute to the problem and maybe we all need to stop and think about that situation.  As things stand, drunks try to evaluate their own physical condition as they walk out of bar and being drunk  they don’t make good decisions regarding driving a car.  In their tiny and obliterated minds they try to impose a “rule of thumb” — I’ve been in the bar for three hours and I’ve had four drinks so if stopped I should be OK to drive my car. 

But being drunk they forget that they didn’t have four drinks — they had eight.

And they get in their cars and they drive — and they kill.

The drunk driving law as we now know and understand it in this country encourages this thought process and Saturday night three more innocents died. 

My view — alcohol and drugs in any form should be absolutely banned when behind the wheel.  Zero tolerance.  If you’ve had a drink you can’t drive.  If you get caught you suffer the penalties prescribed by law. 

If we adopt such a rule the liquor industry is going to be really upset but what is more important?  A human life or a tavern on the seedy side of town turning drunks loose and making a huge profit every night of the week?   Who do we care about?  The tavern or the potential victims? 

Drunk driving is easily corrected.  If you drink or smoke “even one” you can’t drive.  In that way there will be no decision for a potential drunk to consider and because they can end up in jail they won’t drive and that’s the goal isn’t it?

Saving lives?

Keeping families together and working Canadians out of jail and employed?

Why tolerate this “maybe” situation when we can end it immediately?

Something I’ve thought a lot about over the years.  Something that everyone should think about because there is a better way.  If I’m wrong you tell me why.

Popularity: 25% [?]

People who visit here will know that I have been closely following events in the US since Obama was elected.  It’s important because eventually decisions south of the border will impact Canada in ways yet to be seen.   In Canada our politics are on track and I see nothing that I am concerned about.  On the south side of the border I could not be more concerned and I have been since Obama popped up.  Nothing to do with color. 

More to do with Chicago politics, “Boss Daley” — and what I see happening is Chicago politics writ large.  I don’t like it and judging by the reactions of mainstream Americans they don’t either.

Good for them.

From what I understand about Obama’s politics he appeared as the American messiah and building on the trust he gained during his campaign he is taking advantage.

“Hey folks, you can trust me.  Give me a blank cheque and I won’t do you harm.”

“Right on — where do I sign up?”

I say this because while everyone is going ballistic regarding his healthcare plan THERE IS NO HEALTHCARE PLAN. 

Lou Dobbs said that a week ago. 

Paraphrased:  “What the hell are they all fighting about?  There is no plan that anyone has settled on.”

Good point because at last count there were five if I am correct — each sitting in various committees waiting for a decision.  And  as I write there are Democrats out there trying to sell them, each referring to a different version of healthcare legislation that has yet to be decided upon.  Talk about a mind boggling affair.

Point:  These well meaning people don’t understand it any better than the people they are trying to sell it to and Americans are getting very angry. 

So they should because nobody is about to give Obama another blank cheque. 

This guy is very expensive (just like Jack Layton).

There are strong concerns as outlined in other entries on this site and nobody is answering them properly because nobody really knows what is happening.  But that is American democracy at it’s very messiest and it is a wonder to behold.  People all pumped up about something that has yet to be decided.  My view is that it will all work out as 2010 comes ever closer and Democrats start to worry about holding their seats AND I note that sticking to the party line right now is a death sentence.  I think Democrat incumbents know it as they watch Gordon Brown in the UK go down in flames for trying to sell exactly the same bullshit.

My view (for what it is worth) is that Obama is tryng to move far to fast and I’ve mentioned this before.  He needs to slow down and create a new body chaired by a judge who will examine and question witnesses over the period of about a year as we do here in Canada.  He will then submit his/her recommendations to the White House.  There is no rush on this matter and if Obama says there is he is after one thing only (like Al Gore) – American wallets and control of the the voter base just as they do in Cuba. 

The thing to be done today is get right in his face and tell him to “f**k off” — which is happening everywhere as I write. 

 I urge Americans to get out there and tell Rohm Emanual to bugger off also because he’s the real problem. 

Final point:  Obama is not running the country…Emanual is — and that is clear to anyone who has been watching.

You can take it to the bank.

Updates:

5:23 pm EDT, August 10th, 2009 — Palin: “Pipe Down”

5:31 pm EDT, August 10th, 2009 — Nutty Nancy weighs in

5:53 pm EDT, August 10th, 2009 — Bill O’Reilly on many issues

Popularity: 31% [?]

…can hurt us. I mean us who live out here in these communities and territories. Not you who comment from afar based on… what?

AFN’s logo

Lately, I’ve had some interesting conversations about the Assembly of First Nations and the candidates running for the job of head of that organization. We talked about who might win the job and replace Phil Fontaine. We’ve discussed the way the candidates applied for the job, and the strange method the voting chiefs have chosen to conduct job interviews (elections, if you prefer).

In other words, we’ve analyzed a lot more than what we’ve seen in the coverage by the mainstream news media, and the media’s select court jesters such as Joe Quesnel. (I compare him to one of my regulars and his fascination with a well-know conspiracy theorist-cum-blogger nicknamed “Scenty.” What would life be without them?)

As we talked about the AFN, and picked apart the coverage by the Globe and Mail, the National Post, the CBC, and other news organizations, we agreed that the mainstream has this weird idea (aided and abetted by the aforementioned court jesters) that the AFN is actually a national government.

Now where did they get that idea? More to the point, how might anyone dissuade them of this ridiculous fallicy?

[More]

Notes:

I just came across ”Shmohawk”  thanks to a link “StageLeft” provided.  He has an excellent website and I say that because in this one entry I’ve linked (there are many) he’s come up with a lesson everyone needs to read regarding our native peples and the AFN.  He is now linked in my sidebar and it goes without saying that I’ll be keeping an eye on him.  There is much to learn and it’s easy because he has a strong sense of humor as people who go there will soon find out.    

Popularity: 29% [?]

I use the word ”hubris” deliberately because it is a perfect description of Liberal entitlement, as is the notion of transference and projection — when what someone says reflects more on themselves than on those they are condemning.  Any doubts? Check out the origin of the term hubris. As Wikipedia states:

“In ancient Greece, hubris referred to actions which, intentionally or not, shamed and humiliated the victim, and frequently the perpetrator as well. It was most evident in the public and private actions of the powerful and rich. The word was also used to describe actions of those who challenged the gods or their laws, especially in Greek tragedy, resulting in the protagonist’s downfall.”

So, the Conservative Party of Canada, under Stephen Harper’s leadership and the people of Canada, have challenged the Liberal view — that they are Canada’s natural governing party and that only their values are Canadian values — and they don’t like it one bit.

To hear the hubris from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s own mouth, drop by either Blue Like You or Stephen Taylor’s sites and watch the video they have in which Mr. Ignatieff says:

“We created the country you live in. Never forget it.“ 

Also, check out some of the pro-Liberal comments at Stephen Taylor’s thread. The projection is amazing. Nothing about conservatives is right. In fact, the hate and anger some Liberals harbour for Conservatives is bordering on obsession. Yet, I know I will hear from Liberals who will say it is the opposite — it is the Conservatives who are obsessed. Which is where the transference comes in.

On a similar note, there is today’s National Post editorial, which refers to the current election sabre rattling — primarily by Mr. Ignatieff and his Liberals – as “Election Hubris.”

Popularity: 24% [?]