The Beginning of the End: Undoing the Mistake of 0-8

Olympics Defeat Will Hurt Obama [Peter Wehner]

I will, with some hesitation, dissent from Jonah’s political analysis. My instinct is that the Chicago Olympics fiasco will hurt President Obama a fair amount and that it’s not an “inside-the-Beltway” phenomenon (I usually think the “inside-the-Beltway” vs. “rest of America” mindset is overdone).

In my judgment, what happened Friday will begin to cement an image about Obama that is negative — that his supposed “golden touch” is very nearly the opposite; that his rhetorical talents and appeal are vastly overstated (he delivers a major health-care speech to a joint session of Congress and it does nothing to move the needle; he then makes a personal appeal to the IOC and Chicago is dropped from the list in the first round); and that he is a surprisingly weak figure who is easily rolled by Democrats on Capitol Hill, by adversaries around the world, and, now, by the IOC.

So much of politics has to do with when disparate issues metastasize, for good or ill. I don’t know if we’re at that point with Obama just yet — but we’re a good deal closer than we were. He hurt his prestige a great deal today, and he failed in an environment when things look bad and he is beginning to seem overmatched on almost every front. (The slapdown by the IOC, when combined with the unemployment rate reaching its highest point since 1983, is a tough combination for the White House.)

Things can, of course, change, and change quickly. But I suspect this moment will be remembered as one that adds to an increasingly negative “narrative” of the Obama presidency.

Few presidents have suffered this much loss of support in so short a period of time — and things will probably get worse before they get better. Friday didn’t help. Mr. Obama has sustained a political wound at a vulnerable moment for him.

Lest We Forget: D-Day 65th Anniversary

Reenactment from Saving Private Ryan:

More detailed information here and many more videos here.

The New Obamanation Auto

Andrew Steele: Lover of Myths

I just heard Charles Adler interview the Globe & Mail's Andrew Steele. I've never heard someone alter the facts in order to support his own theories. Among the many things he said, here were some gems:

1. Pierre Trudeau was loved by Western Canadians.
   
   
2. Jean Chretien won because he was arrogant.

Do actual F-A-C-T-S not matter to him?

Dennis Miller Quote of the Day

"Let's face it, Buzz Aldrin was just one karate chop from being the first man to walk on the moon."

Steve Winwood Turns 61

I have few heroes but one of them has long been Steve Winwood, who turned 61 years old today. He was a musical genius at a very young age, co-writing and recording Gimme Some Lovin' and I'm a Man with the Spencer Davis Group. He then went on to be an integral part of both Traffic and Blind Faith.

I first discovered him in the Fall of 1980 on the first day my dad let me drive solo. He had bought a turquoise blue 1967 Buick Special for him & I to share. After dropping him off at work, I drove to school (Grade 11), cranking up the tunes on a 3rd Party Korean AM/FM/Cassette stereo he had added. And one of the two songs to play that morning was While You See a Chance, a song that has been an anthem of sorts for me ever since, especially when I needed a little inspiration!

Besides loving Winwood's music, I was also impressed with the fact that he avoided the drug scene that so many musicians get wrapped up in, and instead just focused on what was most important, the music.

Happy Birthday, Steve, and God Bless You!

Studio Version

Yet Another Example of What Journalism Has Devolved Into

Susan Roesgen is NOT a reporter. She's a "prime example" of how "journalists" have given up any semblance of impartiality and instead are just de facto spokespeople for the Obama Administration.

I do hope that YouTube lasts for a long, long time because videos like this will be prime exhibits for historians to document the corruption and downfall of the once honorable profession of journalism.

---

I have a suggestion for Saturday Night Live: Do a spoof of her Roesgen in 1776, asking the citizens of the colonies why they were revolting. How difficult would it be to envision her screaming, "What are you protesting for?! The King of England has given you so much!"

---

Update: Here's a subsequent interview with the man, whose name is Norm.

The Reader

Beyond brilliance! Tells a complex story in an intelligent, compassionate way.

The New Bigotry of the Secular Left

1692: Salem Witch Hunt

2009: Ottawa Christian Hunt

A Walk Back from Chinatown

With just a few days left on my trip, I thought it was due time to partake in some Dim Sum! So I took a bus over to Chinatown. I looked at a few places I had recorded the names of but chose to go to Mei Sum, the same place I had gone last year. It was very good and comparable in taste to what one can get back in Vancouver.

My bus transfer was still good for several hours but it being a nice day, I decided to walk back to Waikiki - a distance of 4 miles.
Here's the famous Iolani Palace, home to some of Hawaii's royalty and fictional home to Steve McGarrett and his colleagues on Hawaii Five-O.
This is a look back at the downtown business sector.


I tried to give this stray cat a good scratch but he wasn't having any of it!
This is the capitol building of the 50th State of America.





These are the satellite dishes of KGMB, the local CBS affiliate.
I've never been inside the Convention Center but love the glass architecture.
IMHO this is the coolest new building in all of Honolulu. I don't know its name but on my next trip need to find a way to get up top to photograph it!


I *believe* this mural was painted by Robert Wyland.

Boeing 747 Anniversary

January 22, 1970 was the first commercial flight of a Boeing 747 aircraft. It was flown by Pan Am between New York and London.

---

The origins of the 747 are rather infamous. The creation of the airplane reportedly all started from this simple note in 1965:

Dear Mr Boeing, Please build us a very big aeroplane soon. If it is pretty as well that will be a bonus. We will buy lots of them. Yours sincerely, Pan Am

Anti-Semitism: Then and Now

German Nazis Plastering Jewish Owned Stores in 1933
More photos here



Islamist Nazis Attacking Starbucks in London in 2009
And why you ask? Because their CEO, Howard Schultz, is Jewish. Story here. Analysis here.

---

Update: For a Canadian perspective on the virulent anti-Semitism, here's a compelling summary of what recently happened in Calgary.

90th Anniversary of the Boston Molasses Disaster

I have a habit of keeping track of unique or strange events in history. Here's one you've probably never heard of: On January 15, 1919 in Boston, Massachusetts 21 people were killed and 150 were injured . . . by a huge wave of molasses that rushed through the streets at 35mph!

You can read the full story here.

The Double Anti

I've been thinking a lot more about the various groups attending the pro-Hamas rallies. For those who aren't aware, this includes some gays and even some Jews. If you were a psychologist and your boss said, "I need you to come up with a solid explanation of why those who would be immediately oppressed if Fundamentalist Islam seized power would possibly rally in support of the same right now", what would your explanation be?

These days I'm reading an amazing book by Tony Judt about Europe after WW2. I'm currently in the section focused on the 1950's. It was clear that while the USSR was oppressing millions of people, some very horribly, many in the West refused to criticize them; some even publicly showed support to the USSR and against the USA. Note that this especially included many in Western Europe, who just around a decade before had only escaped the clutches of Adolf Hitler because of America. Talk about a short memory!

Were all of these people mentally ill? That's an easy way to sum things up but probably not accurate. Judt concludes that they were "anti anti-communist".

So in their minds, most of these folks went to sleep each night, comfortable that they were not pro-oppression. They were of course, in deep denial about what was going on behind the Iron Curtain. But absolutely no different than those today who will first & foremost criticize America & Israel yet be highly reticent to criticize Radical Islam, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, North Korea, Russia, China, Cuba, or any number of African dictators.

Though in the end equation, to any of us with even a mildly right-leaning bent, refusing to criticize totalitarian regimes appears to be exactly the same thing as lending them support; or at least giving them a free pass to do whatever they want.

Looking at the psychology of all this . . .

The Left is generally more emotional, more moved by the immediate circumstances, and rarely looks at the long term view and/or long term repercussions. Words like hypocrisy, dishonour, and self-responsibility have little meaning to those on the Left.

The Right tends to focus on the bigger picture, longer term view. Morality and Right & Wrong have more meaning with the Right, but even more so in the macro than the micro.

Note: Before anyone points out to me about corrupt conservative politicians, religious leaders, business executives, etc. let me state unequivocally that these individuals are phony, greedy poseurs. They are actually the worst of the lot, pretending to be one thing but something else entirely when the rubber hits the road.

A perfect example of this Left-Right difference is the situation of whenever a Canadian soldier kills a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan. In no way, shape, or form can Canada be accused of being an imperialist power. So why did that Canadian soldier pull the trigger on his gun, which killed the Taliban man? The Right understands that a mother's child has just died but focuses on the bigger picture, namely that the Taliban is a horrific regime that will bring nothing but oppression and immense cruelty back onto the innocent people of Afghanistan should they be allowed to return to power. The Left, on the other hand, can pretty much only focus in on the individual death and suspects that an injustice has occurred. For them, thinking beyond the immediacy of that death just doesn't occur.

Members of the media are almost always on the Left. From a psychological perspective, I don't precisely know why this is. It might be because the nature of their work has them bombarded with event after event after event. So they tend to focus most of their attention on the immediate rather than the bigger picture. Historically I wonder if there was more of a balance between Left and Right journalists, unlike the reported 98% to 2% polls say it is now. So professionally, it's very unwise for a new member of the media to espouse anything but Leftist views.

What is so dangerous about the media being so inclined is that their power to shape public opinion is enormous. And like with any good marketing campaign, be it to sell the latest widget or fashion accessory or be it to dehumanize Jews to the level of pigs & dogs, they do alter public opinion more readily than we'd all like to admit. Of course, they take no responsibility for this, citing the old canard that "they're just reporting the news". Sigh.

One saving grace is that the mainstream media is very quickly going broke. I will regret the day if there are no more formal news reporting agencies but hopefully they will remain, albeit with much more balance ... and dare I say it, professionalism. In the early part of this millennium that P-word is sadly lacking across the journalistic spectrum. It has gotten so bad that we now have prominent TV news channels faking deaths.

Zbigniew Brzezinski: History Rewriter

Zbigniew Brzezinski was the National Security Advisor to failed U.S. President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981. Only the extreme elements of the Radical Left would argue that the United States had a successful foreign policy during those years.

Like many old men, he is now striving to rewrite history and put his own record in a better light. Here he is with Joe Scarborough and his own daughter, Mika:

The main subject they're discussing is Yasser Arafat walking away from negotiations brokered by U.S. President Bill Clinton in January 2001. For Brzezinski to now try to spin this differently is beyond disingenuous.

A Little Family History

I came across this web page from the Czech Radio Service discussing General George S. Patton. Some people are not aware that he and his 3rd Army penetrated into the Czech Republic, a few hundred kilometres east of the German border.

A few months ago I learned from my Uncle Horst, the younger brother of my dad, that Patton is the reason for my very existence!

My dad and his family are ethnically German but he grew up in a region called Silesia, most of which was ceded to Poland after World War 2. In 1945 he was just a young teenager. When the Russian Army was advancing towards Germany, all German civilians were moved further west, toward the center of Germany.

My uncle told me how they were moved by train from town to town. They eventually made it to a town called Haid, in the Czech Republic (it is now called Bor). There, one of my uncles, Gunter, was killed. He was just eight years old.

Eventually the family - my grandmother and her 2 remaining sons and 3 daughters - were brought to a town called Mies (since renamed to Stříbro), also in the Czech Republic.

Uncle Horst explained how they kept looking towards one road coming into Mies from the east, expecting the Russians to arrive at any moment. But suddenly a string of military vehicles entered from the west. It was Patton's Third Army! If this had not occurred, their fate would have been much worse and I would have never been born.

My dad's family were able to catch one of the the last few trucks out and were taken right to downtown München. Six years later, he saw little future for his homeland so he boarded a freighter and came to Canada as a refugee.

Here's a famous speech of Patton's, though spoken by actor George C. Scott:
He was tough and probably unfair at times, but he sure got things done!

Stephane Dion in 1992

The Stephane Dion of 1992 appears to be most prescient of the Stephane Dion of 2008:

At 0:13 he says: "People want power, but which power? They don't care!"

Kim Campbell Must Be Smiling!

Whatever happens over the next few weeks, I have to believe that Canadians, when given the chance to vote, will show Stephane Dion and the Liberals precisely what they think of throwing away 141 years of democratic history. Ms. Campbell's infamous moniker of "the most unsuccessful Prime Minister in history" will soon become Dion's crown ... and likely stay there for eternity.

Historical Summary of Canadian Elections

In reading the comments to this post by Ezra Levant I came across yet another disingenuous talking point about the Conservatives not getting a clear majority in the recent election. Such stupidity falls under the category of "If you repeat B.S. enough times, Sheeple will accept it and no longer challenge it."

I pride myself on being a stickler for facts so such comments spur me on! Here's what I wrote to the fellow who made it:

Would you and your ilk please stop with your stupid, phoney talking point that the Conservatives only got "xx %" of the vote. This disingenuous comment has been false from the first time it was uttered and is even more so today. If you're so ignorant that you don't actually understand what I mean then please look back at the popular votes of every government where there have been at least 3 [significant] parties. It's how our system works and is basic math. So just cut it out as it's really boring us all.

When I wrote this I knew anecdotally that I was accurate but didn't know all the details. It being a miserable evening in Vancouver, I decided to do a little research. Here are some results that I think you'll find as fascinating as I did (click on the image to see it larger) :

Note: The # of Parties is based on those achieving at least 5% of the popular vote.

For those so inclined, you can download a copy of the Excel spreadsheet, complete with additional footnotes, by clicking here. The sources I used can be found here and here. If you find any errors, please let me know!

Here are some interesting facts:

1. The lowest popular vote that resulted in a minority government was 35.89% by Joe Clark's Conservatives in 1979. Note: There were three major parties at the time.
   
2. The largest popular vote that resulted in a minority government was 46.13% by Arthur Meighen's Conservatives in 1925. Note: There were three major parties at the time.
3. The lowest popular vote to win a majority government was 34.84% by John A. Macdonald and his Conservatives in 1867 (Canada's first parliament). Note: There were only two major parties at the time.
4. In a 2-party race, the largest popular vote ever achieved was 56.93% by Robert Borden's Unionists in 1917.
5. In a 3-party race, the largest popular vote ever acheived was 53.66% by John Diefenbaker's Conservatives in 1958.
6. Even at the height of his popularity, Pierre Trudeau only won only 45.37% of the popular vote [in a 3-party race in 1968].
7. Only 6 times in Canada's 40 federal elections has a party ever achieved more than 50% of the vote. Four of these times were when 2 major parties were running, the remaining two times were when 3 major parties were. The most recent of these was in 1984 when Brian Mulroney just squeaked over the half-way mark with 50.03%.
   
8. Four times in Canada's history the winning party has had a lower popular vote than the 2nd place party [1896, 1926, 1957, & 1979].
9. Those who believe that a government only has legitimacy if it gets the majority of the votes [ie. 50% + 1] thus must believe that only 6 of Canada's 40 governments had any legitimacy.
   
10. Perhaps the only consistent statistic is that since 1988, the voter turnout has been on a steady decline downward. :-(
    

"Preventing National Suicide" by Melanie Phillips

When something critically important or interesting comes along I will break free from my self-imposed exile from politics to post it. Here is such an article, by British writer Melanie Phillips. I offer it without further comment, but simply as a reference for all concerned people to reflect upon over the next 4 years.