WASHINGTON — Overspending has been such a part of the fabric of the nation’s capital that the fiscal watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste has gone through a number of pig mascots. It was Coburn who famously dismissed earmarks as “the gateway drug to Washington’s spending addiction.” Poppy the potbelly pig attended a CAGW news conference Wednesday to mark the release of its “2024 Congressional Pig Book,” which exposes billions in dubious spending via congressional earmarks. CAGW calls the pink pamphlet “The Book Washington Doesn’t Want You to Read.” (READ MORE from Debra J. Saunders: Hunter Biden Is Guilty. But You Knew That.) As Rep. Tom McClintock, a California Republican and rare skinflint politician in the town that math forgot, explained, the 8,222 earmarks exposed this year represent projects so unnecessary that sponsors don’t “dare spend their own taxpayers’ money, but they’re perfectly happy to have taxpayers in other communities foot the bill for them.” Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., summed up the practice, saying, “Earmarks are used to buy bad votes for bad bills.” The tab for these earmarks this fiscal year: $22.7 billion, according to CAGW. Both political parties look bad. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is the top earmark spender — followed by Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Angus King, an Independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York. CAGW gave Collins “the Whole Hog Award” while its “You Cannot be Serious Award” went to Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., for granting $1.7 million to New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, even though, CAGW protests, the Gotham landmark held assets of $5 billion last year. To qualify for the Pig Book, a project must check at least one of these boxes — requested by only one chamber of Congress, not specifically authorized, not competitively awarded, not requested by the president, funded in excess of POTUS‘ spending plan or the previous year’s funding, not the subject of congressional hearings or serve only a local or special interest. Under such circumstances, the results are not optimal. As then Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James stated in 2015, “The biggest lesson I have learned from the F-35 is never again should we be flying an aircraft while we’re building it.” Overall, Democrats took advantage of earmarking opportunities by a much larger margin than Republicans, according to CAGW — 99.6 percent versus 62.4 percent. Some readers may recall the days when Washington could boast a small but hearty band of fiscal hawks reliably ready to take on big-spending boondoggles. Political giants such as former GOP Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma fought pork barrel profligacy and made senators who sponsored said projects squirm. It was Coburn who famously dismissed earmarks as “the gateway drug to Washington’s spending addiction.” Stories about a $223 million “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska inflamed public opinion against the practice. The heat was sufficiently intense that Washington did away with the practice for a decade, only to see it reemerge in 2021. This new Pig Book shines the spotlight on 8,222 earmarks. Since 1991, President Thomas Schatz said, CAGW has identified more than 130,000 earmarks that cost $460.3 billion. Since the mid-1990s, Communications Director Alexandra Schatz Abrams tells me, CAGW has used at least six pigs and piglets. Poppy was preceded by, among others, Faye and Annabelle, Rudy and Churchill. (READ MORE: November Is Coming and Biden Has Another Border Plan) Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Arizona, blamed the media for rewarding members with positive coverage “when they bring home the bacon.” They’re not giving away their money, Lesko warned. “That’s our money.” Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post This Porkbelly Pig Says Just Say No To Pork appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It was a proud moment when the Philippines, where I lived for over five years, became the first country to accept biotech Golden Rice. That was in 2021. It’s now a dismal moment that the nation’s highest courts, acting independently of President Marcos or the legislature, have banned it, along with genetically-engineered Bt eggplant. Golden Rice began in the 1990s with collaboration between the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH-Zurich) and the University of Freiburg, Germany. Ingo Potrykus and Peter Byer were its main developers. ETH-Zurich itself, the European Commission’s agricultural research program, and the Rockefeller Foundation funded the project. As the FDA notes, the old-fashioned engineering through cross-breeding … is haphazard and slow, often taking centuries. Underdeveloped countries in Asia rely on rice to an extent Westerners cannot imagine. On my first trip here my female companion startled me when as a way of saying she was hungry she exclaimed “I need rice!” Unfortunately, in parallel with Western sliced white bread, their white rice provides little nutrition other than calories with a quick sugar fix. They start with brown rice and strip out anything healthy. (READ MORE from Michael Fumento: We Unlocked the Secret to Beating Obesity. It’s Time to Act Like It.) I wrote at tremendous length about Golden Rice in my 2003 book BioEvolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing the world, and in numerous articles. My late friend Norman Borlaug, was a major advocate for the grain. In his 2000 paper “Ending World Hunger. The Promise of Biotechnology and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry,” he wrote, “The affluent nations can afford to adopt elitist positions and pay more for food produced by the so-called natural methods; the one billion chronically poor and hungry people of this world cannot. New technology will be their salvation, freeing them from obsolete, low-yielding, and more costly production technology.” Borlaug, called “The Father of the Green Revolution,” received the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize, with the Nobel Committee declaring, “More than any other single person of this age, he has helped provide bread for a hungry world.” He developed wheat varieties and improved crop management practices that first transformed agricultural production in Mexico during the 1940’s and 1950’s and later in Asia and Latin America, sparking what today is known as the “Green Revolution.” Because of Borlaug’s achievements in preventing hunger, famine, and misery around the world, when he died the executive director of the UN World Food Program said he “saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived.” Borlaug “believed firmly in exploiting the new opportunities for creating novel genetic combinations to meet the challenges arising from climate change. He was also an advocate of ‘public good’ research, and argued for the free exchange of genetic material,” according to his obituary in the world’s most prestigious science journal, Nature. Despite his and the best efforts of many others, including the Department of Agriculture-Philippine Rice Research Institute (DA-PhilRice) in partnership with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the appeal of Golden Rice could not defeat the anti-biotech lobby that could give a rodent’s rump about stuff like malnutrition in poorer countries because they’re sitting fat (often literally) and happy, suffering over-nutrition from the likes of U.S. Twinkies and British Cadbury Mini-Rolls. (“GMO -free,” natch.) But finally, three years ago, sanity won out in the Philippines. In short order: In October 2022, farmers in the Philippine province of Antique harvested nearly 70 tons of Golden Rice on a large scale for the first time. In January 2023, the Department of Agriculture Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) announced that more than 100 tons of fresh paddy “Malusog Rice” had been harvested across 17 pioneer production sites in the country. The harvested Golden Rice was distributed to households with pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, and preschool children at risk of vitamin A deficiency in selected provinces. The rice was developed by splicing two daffodil genes and a third bacterial gene into the rice plant that encoded enzymes into the rice genome. These allow the rice plant to produce and accumulate beta-carotene, not incidentally giving it that daffodil color. The body readily absorbs the beta-carotene. Sadly, in the urban areas, Filipinos, especially the women, are absolutely exploding in girth such that most are now overweight and perhaps 15 percent are obese. By next week it will be a fifth. But it’s different in the provinces. Around one in five children from the poorest communities in the Philippines suffer from vitamin A deficiency, which affects an estimated 190 million children worldwide. It’s the most common cause of childhood blindness, as well as a contributing factor to a weakened immune system. As to Bt eggplant, in the Philippines, bugs rule and the country loses up to about three-fourths of its eggplants from insects, requiring massive spraying to even make a dent. Bt eggplant has the insecticide spliced in. “This milestone puts the Philippines at the global forefront in leveraging agriculture research to address the issues of malnutrition and related health impacts in a safe and sustainable way” said Dr. Jean Balié director General of IRRI, a CGIAR research center, at the time of approval. “The regulatory success of Golden Rice demonstrates the research leadership of DA-PhilRice and the robustness of the Philippine biosafety regulatory system,” he added. The attractive-looking rice has also received food safety approvals from regulators in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the U.S., but the Philippines was the first country to approve commercial cultivation. Developed countries just don’t have much need for beta-carotene supplementation, and megadosing with store-bought supplements can be harmful. The Golden Rice project was always an affair of the heart — good people just trying to do good.   Potrykus and Beyer worked to legally secure Golden Rice as a humanitarian project and licensed it to Syngenta, a biopharmaceutical company, to protect the technology for non-commercial use. The inventors established a “Golden Rice Humanitarian Board” to oversee the development of the technology and grant licenses to national and international research organizations to adapt Golden Rice to local conditions.   The humanitarian sublicense allows resource-poor farmers to grow Golden Rice varieties royalty-free without additional costs for the trait. . The inventors credit Adrian Dubock of Syngenta with helping them navigate the complex intellectual property legal system to protect the technology for humanitarian use.   Alas, both the obvious usefulness of the crop and the lack of a major agricompany like Bayer behind it, has made it an easy target for green groups to delay, delay, delay, regulation. (Six years now and running in Bangladesh.) And to ultimately kill it in the Philippines. Recombinant gene-splicing (with myriad synonyms such as “GMOs” or the one I commonly use, “biotech,”) that Borlaug hailed as the continuation of his Green Revolution, is touted as dangerous. And the reason is pretty much just because it’s new and first done in the laboratory — ostensibly by foolish if not evil scientists such as Victor Frankenstein and Henry Jekyll. It also takes a lot of money to develop these methods, meaning the multi-national environmentalists and the left stand opposed to deep-pocketed companies such as Monsanto, now part of the much bigger multi-national Bayer. Yes, since it’s a much better technique for breeding it theoretically could cause more harm. That’s true of so much technology such as the internal combustion engine, which initially saved cities from the horrors of mountains of horse manure but have brought us the trains, planes, and automobiles that we can’t imagine life without. The same engine, of course, has made war vastly more deadly, has polluted the air of many cities, and is tagged, rightly or wrongly, as a major contributor to alleged global climate change. The arguments against recombinant genetic engineering largely come come down to what in legal terminology is called “touchy-feely,” and “warm and fuzzy.” Or perhaps imagine a petulant child crying “I don’t wanna!” Thus Greenpeace, which brought the Philippines lawsuit, speaks of “food sovereignty.” Eh? The Center for Food Safety has warned of “super weeds and super bugs,” meaning they have resistance to insecticides. That’s a problem that goes back over a century. Penicillin use quickly led to resistant bacteria; good thing we didn’t have people like the Center for Food Safety when it was approved and rushed into use and inaugurated the age when people no longer feared death from a blister. Such was the fate of President Calvin Coolidge’s son. Indeed, penicillin remains first-line treatment for terrible diseases such as congenital syphilis. The Union of Concerned Scientists says it eschews genetic modification in favor of “sustainable farming practices that enhance resilience and promote food security.” That’s exactly what biotech food does. The real concern is that recombinant gene technology is new. As the FDA notes, the old-fashioned engineering through cross-breeding is as old as history. But the process is haphazard and slow, often taking centuries. Cattle, hogs, and turkeys are vastly larger and tastier than they were formerly and chickens lay far more eggs. Corn went from a grass to ears in pre-Columbian times to more recently standing as high as an elephant’s eye. But it took gene-splicing technology to create corn that produces a protein lethal to specific pests, such as the European corn borer, and corn that is resistant to herbicides, enabling them to be more easily and efficiently protected from weeds. Currently, over 90 percent  of U.S. corn, upland cotton, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets are produced using biotech varieties, and unless you’ve gone out of your way to avoid them, you’ve eaten (or worn) all of them. If you’re reading this, it’s likely they haven’t killed you. But the first recombinant product approved in the U.S. goes back to only 1994, a tomato that stayed fresh longer but apparently didn’t taste very good. More than 120 varieties of GM crops that have been approved in the U.S., mostly versions of herbicide tolerant or insect resistant crops. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications lists 32 distinct approved crops, although some haven’t been commercialized. Unlike with so many medications, none has ever been withdrawn. (READ MORE: Trillion Tree Trickery: The Sad Truth About Tree Planting for Climate Change and Diversity) In case global warming is real (or regardless thereof), biotechnology is being employed to develop drought-tolerant crops including wheat, rice, tomato, soybean, and cotton. Drought-tolerant corn, including certain varieties developed with genetic engineering, is already being grown across dry areas in the United States. Drought-tolerant wheat is approved for use in Argentina and Brazil. Of course, to the extent the threat of warming is useful to curb civilization one can see how these developments would be perceived as negative. Organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the European Commission have publicly said genetically modified foods are safe to eat. Left-leaning philanthropist Bill Gates, despite his execution in the first South Park movie for developing Windows 98,  believes that biotech food is “perfectly healthy” and sees them as important to fight against world hunger and malnutrition. Putting money behind mouth, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has invested heavily in the development of bio-fortified crops such as … wait for it …  Golden Rice. But major environmental groups? I haven’t been able to find one that sided with science and humanity. Nobody has been more influential than Greenpeace. In 2016, 127 Nobel Laureates signed a letter condemning the international group for “misrepresent[ing] the risks, benefits and impacts” of  genetically altered food plants. That included co-discoverer of the basic DNA structure, James Watson. The letter called on Greenpeace to “cease and desist,” and on governments to embrace “seeds improved through biotechnology.” Said the laureates, “Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped.” (Allegations that the group was directly behind a 2013 attack on a Filipino Golden Rice test field have never proferred hard evidence; although “encouraged” would certainly work.) So it was that Greenpeace filed suit in the Philippines in 2022, and in late April the Court of Appeals gave them what they wanted, with the Supreme Court upholding it. The ruling directed the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PRRI) and the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) to cease and desist from commercially propagating, field testing, and conducting activities related to Golden Rice. In doing so, the appeals court cited something called a Writ of Kalikasan, a legal remedy unique to Philippine law providing a constitutional right to “a balanced and healthy ecology in accordance with the rhythm and harmony of nature.” “Rhythm and harmony of nature?” Seriously? But yes, Greenpeace found a touchy-feely weapon to defend its touchy-feely position. Kalikasan is based on something called The Precautionary Principle, a mushy term environmentalists popularized that ignores what may be gained and instead concentrates 100 percent on potential harm, real or imagined. Not incidentally, I asked my favorite Chat AI, Perplexity, in neutral terms to describe The Precautionary Principle. Instead it went on the attack against it! If applied, the principle is effectively insurmountable — like the joke about putting someone in a round room and telling him to sit in the corner. “We conclude that concerns about risk-risk trade-offs are not a reasonable argument against future application of the precautionary principle,” stated a paper in The Journal of Risk Research, frequently citing work from an obscure author and journalist named Michael Fumento. “Indeed, sound decision-making processes in the face of uncertainty should always consider and attempt to mitigate reasonable risk-risk trade-offs.” (A companion meaningless term the greens love to use is “sustainable.” Once at a conference I asked the environmentalist speaker to define it without using the word “sustainable”; he could not. It’s explicable only with tautology.) Greenpeace called the Philippines decision a “monumental win.” And it was. For them. But Potrykus was horrified. “The court decision is a catastrophe for Golden Rice in the Philippines and elsewhere,” he told the journal Science. Many members of The National Academy of Science and Technology, Philippines quickly condemned the ruling. Whither hence? It’s definitely not going to help approval in Bangladesh, although presumably it doesn’t have such a ridiculous constitutional clause. But opponents will cite it. Meanwhile, gene-splicing may be the only hope to save the world’s Cavendish bananas, widely considered the best variety, from a disease called Fusarium or Panama Wilt. Australia has just licensed a biotech “back up” banana that is nearly immune to the disease. The Philippines is the world’s second-largest banana exporter with most comprising the Cavendish variety. (Although only an inferior type is sold domestically.) But if Panama Wilt comes to the country, Kalikasan and The Precautionary Principle would dictate that biotech bananas cannot be grown there. Except … Golden Rice has always been an affair of the heart with people donating time and patents and little money to be made. That might seem good, but it has continually made it an easy target for those seeking regulatory delays (six years now in Bangladesh) and now an outright revocation. It might be okay to have kids go blind but the moneyed interests are not going to let any court stop a lucrative export. Rest assured The Precautionary Principle will give way to the Profit Principle. Michael Fumento is an attorney, author, and journalist, who has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The National Review, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Forbes, Reason, Policy Review, the Spectator (London), the Sunday Times of London, the Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. The post The Developing World (Still) Needs Golden Rice appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“Game seven.” The words themselves have a magical ring. Just saying the two “most exciting words in sports” sends the cliché generator into the red zone. For, indeed, players give “110 percent” in these games and “don’t leave anything on the field” as both teams have their “backs against the wall” and “everything is on the line”; it’s “winner take all” in a “do-or-die seventh game.” The hockey game Monday night … provides an opportunity for the rarest of rare feats — a comeback from a 3–0 deficit to win a finals series. They’re the words that plant even non–sports fans in front of the flat screen to partake of the drama, the urgency, the finality that a game seven offers. And on Monday evening, the National Hockey League will have its ultimate showdown, its cash cow, the event that puts the suits in the home office in back-slapping mode as they watch the TV ratings soar: a Stanley Cup Final game seven between the Florida Panthers and the Edmonton Oilers, and it’s for — forgive me — all the marbles. Game sevens weren’t always a thing. The early days of baseball featured random final series in which the finale could come in game three or, in 1887, in game 15. From 1919 to 1921 baseball experimented with a best-of-nine World Series, before settling, for the 1922 fall classic, on a best-of-seven, which is where baseball has been ever since. (READ MORE from Tom Raabe: The WNBA Needs Caitlin Clark) Professional hockey, too, has used a variety of formats to crown its champion. In the early years, a single game determined the champion. Since then, Cup-winning teams have been determined by composite score after two games, best-of-three series, and best-of-five series. Only in 1939 did major league hockey settle on the present best-of-seven format. So intriguing — and profitable — is the idea of a final do-or-die game that three of the four major American sports have built this finality into their playoff structure. Seven seems like a fair number. Fewer games could produce a less-than-deserving champion; more seem gratuitous, possibly lending to boring contests, and self-defeating. Writes Michael Weinreb in Grantland: It is only natural to presume that — since it has proven near impossible for a team to rebound from a 3–0 deficit to win a seven-game series, and since a 2–0 deficit seems like so much less of a psychological black hole — the seven-game series is a Platonic ideal, and to extend it or shorten or otherwise experiment with it would be blasphemous. The finality, the urgency of the game has produced some of the most memorable events in all of sports. Maybe because it’s been around the longest, maybe because it still lays claim (at least officially) to the moniker “America’s pastime,” baseball has offered the brunt of these. Two game sevens in the 1920s stand out. In the seventh game of the 1924 World Series, Walter Johnson, one of five inductees in the initial Hall of Fame class of 1936 and widely regarded as one of the nicest guys in baseball history, lost his first two starts in the series. In the ninth inning of a tied seventh game, the Big Train was brought in as a reliever and pitched three scoreless innings to give the Washington Senators their first and only world championship while playing in Washington. Nearly a century would elapse until another Washington baseball team won a world championship, the Nationals, in 2019, also in a seven-game series. Two years later, in 1926, the St. Louis Cardinals, down three games to two to the New York Yankees, behind a great pitching performance by Grover Cleveland Alexander, took game six and were up 3–2 in the seventh inning of game seven when manager Rogers Hornsby signaled down to the bullpen to bring in “Ol’ Pete,” as he was called. The thirty-nine-year-old, however — and the report is disputed — was sleeping off a hangover from overtippling after his game six triumph. Up to the task, the cagey old-timer set down the Yankees for three innings until Babe Ruth reached first with two outs in the ninth. With Bob Meusal at the plate (a .315 hitter) and Lou Gehrig on deck, the Babe inexplicably took off for second base, and was gunned down easily to end the game, and the Series. The Cardinals have had a knack for seventh-game appearances, winning in 1926, as mentioned, but also in 1931, 1934 (Gashouse Gang teams), 1946 (billed as Stan Musial v. Ted Williams but won when Enos Slaughter scored from first on a single in the eighth inning), 1964, 1967, 1982, and 2011, but losing game sevens in 1968, 1985, and 1987. The Yankees, for all their historic glory, have lost more World Series seventh games (6) than they’ve won (5), and those losses have been heartbreakingly memorable — from the loss to Brooklyn in 1955 (Sandy Amoros’s sensational catch) to the 3–2 loss to the upstart Arizona Diamondbacks in 2001. But it was the seventh game in the 1960 series, often called the best game seven of all time, that everyone remembers. With the game tied 9–9 in the bottom of the ninth, Pittsburgh second baseman Bill Mazeroski hit a 1–0 pitch over the Forbes Field left-field wall for the only walk-off homer in World Series game seven history. In the last decade, only the Cubs’ 8–7 final game victory over Cleveland in 2016, which ended their 108-year title drought and stripped them of their “lovable losers” label, had commensurate seventh-game emotion. Some of the great moments in World Series history have occurred not in game sevens but in earlier contests, whether deciding or not. Willie Mays chased down Vic Wertz’s deep fly to center in the Polo Grounds in a 1954 game one, and Kirk Gibson launched his hobbling, fist-pumping walk-off homer in game one of the 1988 Series. Lou Brock’s infamous non-slide into home plate, which gave the Detroit Tigers life and ended up costing the Cardinals the 1968 Series, came in game five. Don Larsen’s perfecto was in game 5 of the 1956 Series. Joe Carter’s walk-off homer in 1993 was in a game six, as was Carlton Fisk’s wave-it-fair home run (in 1975). Possibly the most exciting game in recent World Series history also came in a game six, in 2011, when the Cardinals warded off two last-out, last-strike threats to tie the Texas Rangers in the ninth and also the 10th, and then win on a walk-off home run by David Freese in the 11th, 10–9. (READ MORE: Trouble in the Picklesphere) NBA finals game sevens have lacked baseball’s level of drama. Although 19 Finals have been decided with an ultimate contest, many of the iconic NBA finals moments have occurred in games other than the last one. Michael Jordan’s 1998 game-winner versus Utah came in game six; his “shrug” game was game one of the 1992 finals; his “flu” game came in game five of the 1997 finals. Magic Johnson’s junior, junior skyhook was a game four affair (1987); his 42-point outburst as center (replacing an injured Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) to beat Dr. J’s 76ers was in game six in 1980. John Paxson’s and Steve Kerr’s game-winners both came in game sixes, as did Ray Allen’s game-tying corner three in 2013. Jerry West’s 60-foot buzzer-beater to tie the Celtics occurred in a game three. Arguably, the first great finals game seven came in 1957, when the Boston Celtics, with new center Bill Russell, outlasted a Bob Pettit–led St. Louis Hawks, 125–123, in two overtimes, to win the first of Russell’s amazing 11 NBA titles. Victimized for many of those titles were the Los Angeles Lakers, who faced the Celtics in the NBA finals throughout the 1960s, losing to them in game sevens three times. The heartbreaker was in 1962, when Laker Frank Selvy, with the score tied, missed an open 12-footer from the baseline with five seconds to go (the Lakers lost in overtime). All told, the Celts bested the Lakers in the finals in 1962, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1968, and 1969 (no wonder Jerry West is so cranky in Winning Time). The 1969 affair went seven and garnered the last of Russell’s 11 rings. Played in Los Angeles, it featured a lucky bounce by a Don Nelson shot that, late in the game, hit the back of the rim and then the ceiling of the arena (I exaggerate only slightly) before dropping through the net. Other memorable game sevens include the Willis Reed game in the 1970 finals, when the big center, hobbled with injury, raised the roof of Madison Square Garden by merely limping out of the tunnel prior to tipoff, then trundling up and down the court to hit two early jumpers and set the tone for a Knick triumph over the Lakers. LeBron James’s fourth-quarter chase-down block and Kyrie Irving’s long jumper with 53 seconds left in the 2016 game seven gave Cleveland its only basketball triumph ever, and the first championship of any kind for the city since the 1964 Browns. The hockey game Monday night packs added juice, for it provides an opportunity for the rarest of rare feats — a comeback from a 3–0 deficit to win a finals series. While any number of teams have successfully fought back from a 3–0 deficit to win early playoff series in all three sports, no baseball or basketball teams have ever done so in a World Series or NBA Finals. Hockey boasts the only such successful comeback — the Toronto Maple Leafs fought back to defeat the Detroit Red Wings after being down 3–0 in the 1942 Stanley Cup Final. This year’s Edmonton Oilers have a chance to duplicate that feat on Monday night. The post The Reverie of Game Seven appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from X22 Report: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Mike LaChance, The Gateway Pundit: There is no denying that conservative scholar and historian Victor Davis Hanson is one of the smartest men in America. He understands not only the politics of the right, but also the progressive left. As Trump is rising in polls where Republicans are not even supposed to be competitive, […]

  Anyone with an interest in European history will be familiar with the Field of the Cloth of Gold. This event—a two week peace-summit between England and France—is remembered as the greatest spectacle of the sixteenth century. Although it achieved very little politically, it is sure to have been one of the grandest displays of wealth and kingship ever staged.   Let us venture back to the most exciting of times—the summer of 1520—to attempt to discover what happened when France and England finally put down their swords after centuries of war and dispute. Why, when, and how did King Henry VIII meet King Francis I?   Beginning With the Basics: Who was King Francis I of France? Francis I, by Jean Clouet, 1527-30, Source: Wikimedia Commons   Although he is now considered one of the more successful French kings, Francis I was not born to wear the crown. He was originally known not as king, not as prince, and not even as duke. Yes, during his earliest years, this future monarch was known simply as “Francis of Orleans.”    Francis’ father was a Count (Charles of Angouleme), and his mother was the famously clever and politically savvy regent, Louise of Savoy. Their family home was the Chateau de Cognac, an impressive, tenth-century Castle in the French department of Charente.   At the time of his birth in September of 1494, the young Francis was certainly not expected to inherit the throne from his third cousin, the young King Charles VIII. His ties to Royalty were distant but legitimate; Francis was the great-great-grandson of King Charles V.   However, for the next four years of his life, the prospect of kingship grew steadily more and more likely for Francis. While he was still an infant, he inherited the Earldom of Angouleme on the death of his father and became a Count in his own right. This may seem grand enough for a three-and-a-half year-old child to be getting on with, but things continued to escalate at an alarming rate.   At the age of just 27, as a result of a sudden head injury, Charles VIII died unexpectedly and without an heir. He was immediately succeeded by a new King, Louis XII, who conveniently also lacked a dauphin to rule after him. He would later produce two daughters, Claude and Renee, but thanks to the Salic Law which prevented women from inheriting the throne, they were ruled out of the line of succession.   Coat of Arms Claude of France, by Odejea, Source: Wikimedia Commons   Having not even reached his fourth birthday, Francis suddenly found himself automatically named Heir Presumptive. This meant that he was presumed to take the throne on the death of the king, but could theoretically be displaced by the arrival of a prince. As was befitting his new station, Francis was swiftly vested with a new title, that of Duke of Valois.   It was not until 17 years later that Francis inherited the throne from Louis XII. Disappointingly, and not for want of trying, Louis failed to produce a boy, and became the next in a line of French Kings to die without male issue. By this time, Francis was already married to Louis’ daughter Claude, who also happened to be Heir Presumptive to the Duchy of Brittany through her mother, Anne. The new King Francis was crowned, at the age of 20, in the Cathedral of Reims on the twenty-fifth of January 1515. Claude stood beside him as his beloved Queen Consort.   Throughout his reign, just like King Henry VIII, Francis I attempted to paint himself as the very picture of a successful Renaissance Prince. He was extremely capable both physically and mentally, was proficient in many languages, and had great understanding of many academic subjects.   Not only was he interested in scholarly topics such as geography, arithmetic, Hebrew, Latin, and history, but he was also skillful in pleasures such as tennis, jousting, hunting, riding, wrestling, dancing, music, and chivalry.   King Francis was also keen to establish himself, and his country, as one of the strongest European nations. The moment he placed himself on the throne, he set about continuing the work of his predecessors. Their dream had been to complete the conquest of Milan and Naples, and Francis took it upon himself to rise to the challenge. Most notably, Francis defeated the Swiss at the Battle of Marignano in 1515.   Francis I on horseback, by Francois Clouet, 1540, Source: Fine Art America   The Encyclopaedia Britannica, a lengthy and trusted publication written in Victorian Britain, gives many favorable descriptions of King Francis I and his reign. According to his entry, King Francis was “a renaissance patron of the arts and scholarship, a humanist, and a knightly king, he waged campaigns in Italy and fought a series of wars with the Holy Roman Empire.”   The British historian, Glen Richardson, described the rule of King Francis as a great triumph. “Under Francis,” he began, “the Court of France was at the height of its prestige and international influence during the sixteenth century.” He continued, “Although opinion has varied considerably over the centuries since his death, his cultural legacy to France, to its Renaissance, was immense and ought to secure his reputation as among the greatest of its kings.”   Little wonder there was some rivalry between Francis and the competitive King Henry of England. Whether they liked it or not, these two kings just happened to rule neighboring countries throughout the same decades; Henry from 1509-1547, and Francis from 1515-1547. Their first recorded face-to-face meeting took place in June of 1520, at the Field of the Cloth of Gold.   The Treaty of London Henry VIII and the Barbor Surgeons, by Hans Holbein the Younger, 16th century, Source: Wikimedia Commons   We know that the Field of the Cloth of Gold took place in Calais and that it was held to bring peace between the two kings. We also know that it began on the 7th and ended on the 24th of June during the year 1520 and that nothing so magnificent had ever taken place in Europe before.   However, to understand why it was necessary for King Francis to meet with King Henry in the first place (and why it was necessary to put on such an exhibition), we must first rewind through two years of history, and focus for a moment on the summer of 1518.   It was around this time that Cardinal Wolsey (Chief advisor to King Henry VIII and supreme power in England), was beginning to work on one of the riskiest but greatest projects of his lifetime. This project would soon become known as the Treaty of London, and it was with this Treaty that Cardinal Wolsey intended to unite England peacefully with every other nation in Europe. The idea was originally conceived by Cardinal Wolsey himself, and the terms of the Treaty were considered, negotiated, and confirmed under his expert guidance.   The basic terms of the Treaty of London could not have been more simple. Firstly, all participating nations agreed that they would not attack each other under any circumstance. (if obeyed, this in itself would have been nothing short of a miracle).   Secondly, all participating nations would join together and come to the aid of any other participating nation that found themselves under attack from a foreign nation. Lastly, participating nations who broke the Treaty by attacking another participating nation would find themselves not only excluded from the Treaty but united against by all other nations in Europe.   Map of Europe in 1500, Source: Brilliantmaps.com   Essentially, the Treaty of London was a promise of enduring friendship between all those who had been invited to join. Signatories included Burgundy, the Holy Roman Empire, Sweden, Portugal, the Netherlands, the Papal States, and Spain. All in all, there were twenty leading states in Europe. At the time, the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Ottoman Empire were considered part of Asia.   Surely, it would have taken an extremely courageous, or extremely deluded leader to invade a country that was allied with nineteen others. In theory, this Treaty should have rendered all participating nations completely unshakeable.   Still, this agreement was not as attractive a prospect as we might imagine. Some nations took more persuading than others—and it was difficult to break old alliances and forgive old enemies. However, all the desired participants eventually agreed to Wolsey’s terms and sent their ambassadors to London. On the second day of October, the Treaty was signed under the watchful eye of Wolsey himself, and (of course) business was only concluded after a week of fun and frivolity, during which Wolsey flawlessly played the role of host.   It was all going so well for Wolsey and his Treaty of London, but unfortunately, within months of the consolidation of the Treaty, he sensed that there were still obvious tensions between two of the most important signatories. Yes, the ancient enemies of England and France were still finding it a challenge to get on amicably.   The Embarkation of King Henry VIII at Dover, by the British School, 1520-40, Source The Royal Collections Trust   As usual, Cardinal Wolsey was quick to come up with a solution and suggested that the two kings meet. It was his hope that they would form a real, personal friendship, rather than just a political one. He proposed a summit between the Courts of England and France, stating clearly that it would be held midway between London and Paris, preferably on neither man’s territory. Both kings would be treated as equals in all ways, for the duration of the excursion. Possibly to Cardinal Wolsey’s surprise, both King Henry and King Francis were willing to go through with the idea.   Just a few months later, in January of 1519, Cardinal Wolsey was officially appointed as proctor for arranging the meeting, in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of London. King Francis wrote to Cardinal Wolsey with his approval; “power is sent from King Francis I of France to Cardinal Wolsey, by the bailly of Caen, to arrange the interview between himself and King Henry. The interview is to be between Guisnes and Ardre, where the pavilions of them and their suites may be pitched.”   Cardinal Wolsey now had the enormous and unenviable responsibility of making this meeting a success. If any element of the excursion happened to go wrong, it would undoubtedly be him who received the blame. Judging by the volume of letters and documents that passed through his hands throughout the year, it is fair to assume that he thought of very little else until the moment of their departure.   Francis the Dauphin, by Corneille de Lyon, 1536, Source: The Gardner Museum   Although the terms of the Treaty of London had already been agreed, sustaining a relationship with France would be a little more difficult than it would with some of the other, more neutral nations. England and France had been enemies for as long as anyone could remember; their histories were littered with victories and defeats, treaties and marriages, wars and appeasements.   In the hope of dispelling the tension, Cardinal Wolsey put forth some more appealing proposals. Mary, King Henry’s two-year-old daughter, would be married to little Francis, the French Dauphin. England would also release hostages taken at the Battle of Tournai in 1515. In exchange for these gifts, France was to agree not to support their old enemy, Scotland, in their ongoing and usually fruitless campaign against England. Last but not least, there was to be a treaty of universal peace and a joint crusade, beginning on an unspecified date, against the Turks.   These were just a few of the items for discussion at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. All discussions would be held chiefly by French and English advisors as they attempted to further their political friendship. In the meantime, the Kings and their followers would attempt to further their personal friendship either on the dancefloor, at the banqueting table, or on the tiltyard.   The Field of the Cloth of Gold: Incredible Facts and Figures Wrestling match at the Field of the Cloth of Gold on tapestry, 1520, Source: Wikimedia Commons   As we have nothing to measure it against in our modern world, it can be difficult to bring to mind a picture of the Field of the Cloth of Gold, and to do justice to its enormity and magnificence. The field would have been a sumptuous sight to look upon; for two weeks, the site of Balinghem in the English Pale of Calais was draped in beautiful, shimmering gold cloth.   Extremely elaborate arrangements were made for the accommodation of the Kings and their retinues, and over two thousand tents were brought for the visitors of lesser importance. Most wonderfully of all, a temporary palace, which required twelve thousand square yards, was erected to house the English entourage. Rumor had it that the fountain in the center of its courtyard flowed night and day with wine. King Francis commissioned an army of tentmakers to construct pavilions from the finest fabrics in France. The result of their work has been described as utterly spectacular.   The Field of the Cloth of Gold, by British School, 1545, Source: The Royal Collection Trust   Although it was originally intended that King Henry and King Francis should be equal for the duration of the summit, the truth remained that they spent much of their time attempting to outshine each other with their dazzling clothes, their skills and talents, and even with their attractive companions.   The numbers present at the Field of the Cloth of Gold were staggering; Cardinal Wolsey alone brought with him 300 servants. Participants included one host (Cardinal Wolsey), one cat (his feline companion), two monkeys (having been brought for entertainment), two kings, two queens, and five cardinals (Wolsey, Adrien Gouffier de Boissy, Francois Louis de Bourbon, and Amanieu d’Albret). Altogether, the English entourage amounted to 5,172 people.   Also required for the summit were 3,217 horses, 6,475 birds, 29,518 fish, 98,050 eggs, and one million pieces of firewood for burning. The whole thing was likely to have cost around 19 million pounds.   King Francis I and King Henry VIII: Their First Meeting Henry VIII meeting Francis I, by John Leech, 1850, Source: Meisterdrucke.ie   At six o’clock in the evening on the 7th of June, after two years of build-up and intense preparation, King Henry VIII and King Francis I laid eyes on each other for the first time. Quite possibly with mixed feelings of curiosity, jealousy, and affection, they rode out to meet each other formally, in the presence of their courtiers.   Although they were surrounded by friends, family, advisors, and servants, the kings chose to approach each other alone in a shallow valley; the French party waiting on one side, and the English on the other. This they did without the protection of the guards, in order to demonstrate their trust of each other. “On coming near each other, instead of putting their hands to their swords,” as a French chronicler artistically phrased it, “each put his hand to his bonnet.”   When they dismounted, to the joy of both the English and French entourage, the two kings did something completely unexpected, and completely unprecedented. They embraced each other warmly, as if they had known each other their whole lives. Their friendly feelings confirmed, they walked together towards a tent with small parties of nobles, friends, and advisors.   Amusingly, as they approached the entrance of the tent, a small dispute broke out over which king should enter last, each preferring the other to have the privilege of going first. Interestingly, it was Cardinal Wolsey who was selected to enter ahead of them, while the two kings walked in simultaneously, practically arm-in-arm with each other. The chronicler continued, “after a dispute of which king should go last, the kings entered together, and Wolsey entered before them.”    King Francis I and King Henry VIII: Their Final Parting Henry VIII, by Joos van Cleve, 1530-35, Source: The Royal Collection Trust   On the 23rd of June, the penultimate day of the event, both King Francis and King Henry attended a final Mass together. Alongside their Queens and their most trusted friends and advisors, they entered into a purpose-built, elaborately decorated chapel. As expected, the Mass was said by none other than Cardinal Wolsey.   During the service, both King Francis and King Henry took it in turn to sing the refrains, which the English Chronicler Edward Hall (1496-1547), claimed was “heavenly to hear.” Once the Mass had been completed, the kings and queens proceeded to the gallery beside the chapel to dine together in great style. This was a final evening of pleasure; in the morning the two courts would bid each other farewell.   And what better way for two kings to part than with the exchanging of gifts? According to Edward Hall, on the 24th of June, King Francis and King Henry expressed a genuine regret that their summit had come to an end.   The kings, queens, princes, and princesses exchanged gifts of horses, litters, necklaces, jewels, and other extravagant goods. King Henry kept his part of the deal by returning the hostages who had been taken at the Battle of Tournai just a few years earlier.   As a final sign of their friendship, King Francis and King Henry were determined to build a Chapel in the Val Dore, the valley in which they first met, for the daily performance of Mass. It seemed to all that the Field of the Cloth of Gold had been a success, and that King Henry and King Francis had healed the wounds of their past and formed a true liking of one another.   The Field of the Cloth of Gold in Art: Locating Henry VIII, Francis I, and Wolsey The Field of the Cloth of Gold with arrows indicating interesting subjects   One of our most reliable depictions of the Field of the Cloth of Gold is the artwork which appears above. It is simply entitled The Field of the Cloth of Gold, and was painted by an unknown artist.   The work was probably painted within 25 years of the summit—a summit which probably took place within the artist’s living memory—and it was likely to have been commissioned by King Henry VIII himself. The work has since been acquired by the largest private art collection in the world, also known as The Royal Collection.    The arrows that have been added to the work above point out some of the most fascinating elements of the scene. Look towards the black arrow—here we are given a wonderful interpretation of the Field of the Cloth of Gold Dragon—some historians believe it to have been a kite and that it was flown to signify the climax at the summit on its penultimate day. Others go as far as to say that the dragon was carefully designed to demonstrate the equality of the two kings and that the kite represented both the salamander (the emblem of King Francis) and the dragon (to celebrate King Henry’s Welsh blood).   According to eyewitness accounts, the dragon was capable of breathing fire and smoke and hissing. This, in 16th-century Calais, would have been quite something to behold.   Now look towards the red arrow; here we see King Henry VIII as he rides out to meet King Francis on the seventh day of June. At the yellow arrow, we see Cardinal Wolsey riding onto the field beside Henry. The green arrow shows King Henry making a second appearance on the scene, greeting King Francis inside the tent. The pink arrow shows Queen Catherine of Aragon and Queen Claude acting as spectators at a jousting tournament. Finally, the white arrow shows King Henry and King Francis enjoying the tournament from a private viewing station.   The Field of The Cloth of Gold and its Political Outcome The Field of the Cloth of Gold, portrayed on The Spanish Princess, Source: Entertainment Weekly   Although renowned for its dazzling and visually pleasing successes, the Field of the Cloth of Gold is by no means remembered for being a political triumph. In truth, more critical historians conclude that the two-week summit was less of an alliance-building project and more of a chance to show off the wealth and power of the two courts. Essentially, it may as well have been a holiday arranged solely for the enjoyment of the Kings and their circles.   To the orchestrator, Cardinal Wolsey, the whole endeavor may very well have seemed like a gross waste of his own effort, time, and money. Since he spent a whole two years of his life finalizing the Treaty of London and organizing the Field of the Cloth of Gold, he is sure to have been disappointed to achieve very little in return for his works.   Under the instruction of their fathers, the Princess Mary and the French Dauphin never married as was planned. The young Francis died, young and unmarried, at the age of 18. Waiting until she was Queen and permitted to make her own choice of husband, Mary remained loyal to her mother’s Spanish heritage and married King Philip II of Spain.   As for the other nations and their allegiance to the Treaty of London—that was another thing that simply fizzled out over a short period of time. The peace that the Treaty of London produced was over before it had had the chance to begin and, unfortunately for Cardinal Wolsey, the agreement promptly fell to pieces.   With full knowledge that it would enrage the French Council, King Henry VIII chose to befriend King Charles V within days of the Field of the Cloth of Gold, and Denmark and Sweden commenced a war of their own. Pope Leo X had never truly approved of peace-making to begin with and would have rathered that these nations unite with him solely for the defense of Rome. A few years later, King Francis I, the man who named himself as the most Christian King, allied himself not with the Pope but with the Turkish Muslim Sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent, in order to force Charles V to accept the Treaty of Cambrai.   Francis I and Suleiman the Magnificent, by Titian, 1530, Source: Wikimedia Commons   Despite Cardinal Wolsey’s good intentions, neither the Field of the Cloth of Gold nor the Treaty of London secured the lasting peace that he had hoped for. The terms went wholly ignored, and unrest between England and France continued indefinitely.   Nonetheless, the story of the Field of the Cloth of Gold remains one of the best-known in Tudor history. The significance of the moment at which King Francis I of France met King Henry VIII of England should never be underestimated or forgotten.

  In the early hours of the morning of December 7, 1941, a large Japanese fleet involving no fewer than six aircraft carriers snuck into position north of the island of Oahu. In the port of Pearl Harbor, which serves the city of Honolulu, a large American fleet was moored.   This was the Japanese target. With one quick action, they intended to strike a devastating blow to the American Navy by sinking and demobilizing a sizable portion of its fleet.   As the sun rose over the Pacific, the Japanese launched hundreds of planes and caught the Americans by surprise. For just over an hour, the Japanese forces wreaked havoc, destroying ships in the harbor and planes on the ground.   Then, the Japanese left as quickly as they arrived. The surreal aftermath was filled with the screams of wounded and desperate men. Smoke filled the air, and people struggled to rescue their comrades from a watery grave.   The aftermath would also bring the United States and all its industrial might into the Second World War.   Background to the Attack on Pearl Harbor Map of the location of Pearl Harbor and the Hawaiian Islands. Source: Pearl Harbor Oahu   The Japanese and the Americans had been stuck in a difficult diplomatic relationship for much time before the two nations went to war with each other. American territorial expansion since the 1890s with the annexation of the Philippines as well as Hawaii had put the Japanese on edge, as they saw these places as being within the Japanese sphere of influence.   American sanctions on Japan had also strained relations. The United States used sanctions as a way of protesting against Japanese expansion in Southeast Asia. Of particular importance was oil, which America stopped sending in July 1940 once Japan had already declared war on the other Allies. Another nail in the coffin of a peaceful resolution was the fact that Japan was at war with China, and the United States was arming China against their imperialist foe.   Negotiations took place between the two countries but no agreement could be reached. In the spring of 1941, the Japanese military began planning for a quick and overwhelming action that would culminate in the raid on Pearl Harbor.   Seeing the entrance of the United States into the war as inevitable, the Japanese took a decision to strike a decisive blow at the American fleet.   The Attack Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Source: National Archives   On November 26, 1941, the Japanese fleet set sail. It consisted of six aircraft carriers carrying 414 aircraft. These would be the prime weapons to be used to destroy the American assets in the harbor. Aiding them would be 28 submarines. In support of the attack components, the Japanese fleet also consisted of two battleships, three cruisers, eleven destroyers, and eight tankers.   From a position 275 miles north of Oahu, 360 planes were launched in the first wave and flew south to destroy their targets moored in the Pearl Harbor port. Sharing command at Pearl Harbor, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter C. Short had been warned of the possibility of a Japanese attack, and they had taken defensive measures. Radars had been set up, and planes were moved to Wheeler Airfield, where they were safer. None of the measures taken would prove to be anywhere close to adequate.   Despite the warnings, there was no clear evidence that any attack was imminent, and neither the commanders nor anybody in Washington had significant knowledge of any Japanese preparations. For the Americans, the day started as any other day on moderate alert. The ships had been ordered to be moored in the harbor, and a significant number of seamen had been granted shore leave.   The Calm Before the Storm by Robert Taylor. Source: Aces High Gallery   Had the commanding officers taken the extra step of reconnoitering the north of the island, perhaps they would have understood the danger they were in. But this step had been omitted.   On the morning of the attack, Washington decoded a message from the Japanese authorities that the ambassadors to the United States wished to conduct a meeting with the American secretary of state. This meeting was to be scheduled for noon, which would have been 7 am in Hawaii, less than an hour before the attack was to commence. This was convincing evidence that the Japanese intended to declare war.   The message, however, was delayed and was only received by the War Department between 9 am and 10 am. By the time the message got through to Pearl Harbor, the attack had already begun.   Meanwhile, in Hawaii, evidence of an imminent attack was ignored, disregarded, and not acted upon. More than one incident involving Japanese submarines was reported, but Kimmel wanted to wait for confirmation before taking any action. After the Japanese had launched their aircraft, they were picked up on radar, but the radar operator was told to ignore the swarm of planes he saw, as a flight of B-17s was scheduled to fly past around that time, and those in command assumed the Japanese planes were the scheduled flight of bombers.   The Opening Shots of the War Doris “Dorie” Miller. Source: University of Texas Arlington Libraries   At 7:55 am, the first Japanese plane was spotted above Pearl Harbor. By then, it was far too late for the Americans to prepare any effective defense. Within seconds, hundreds of Japanese planes were wreaking havoc, attacking ships in the harbor, and American planes were still on the ground, grouped in tight formations. The surprise and devastation were overwhelming, and any defense mounted by the Americans was done by quick-thinking individuals rather than by any command from the top.   The response from individual soldiers, sailors, and pilots was admirable. Despite the lack of significant effect it may have had on the Japanese attack, many lives were saved by alert individuals. One such man was Doris “Dorie” Miller, a Messman Third Class who served aboard the USS West Virginia. He helped move the wounded captain to safety before taking up the reins of a .50 caliber browning and firing it until it was out of ammunition. As the ship sank, he moved wounded sailors to the upper decks where they could be saved. His impact on saving lives was noticed, and he was awarded the Navy Cross for his gallantry.   Attack on the Arizona by Keith Burns. Source: Aces High Aviation Gallery   The Japanese took advantage of the surprise, and flying at the front of the first attack wave were the slow and vulnerable torpedo bombers, which constituted the spearhead to destroy the American fleet. With the element of surprise, they were able to cause significant damage. A total of 183 planes took part in this group, while a second group of 171 planes attacked the US airfields.   At the primary target of Wheeler Airfield, the damage was huge. One hundred twenty-six planes sat lined up on the ground, and they were sitting ducks for the Japanese pilots. Forty-two were totally destroyed, while another 41 suffered damage. Only six pilots managed to get to their planes and take off to provide a token resistance in the air.   The USS Arizona sinking. Source: rawpixel.com   Meanwhile, in Pearl Harbor, the Japanese were taking care of the American fleet. Within five minutes of the attack, four torpedoes struck the USS Oklahoma, and the battleship rolled over in the shallow waters. Three more battleships were sunk. The USS Arizona suffered critical hits from a torpedo and many bombs and exploded in a massive ball of fire. The death count on this ship alone was in excess of 1,170 crew members. The USS West Virginia was also struck and sank to the bottom of the harbor, while the flagship of the Pacific Battle Force, the USS California, was critically damaged, and an evacuation was ordered as the ship was lost to the sea.   The USS California listing to starboard after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Source: National Archives   At 8:50 am, the second wave sent to attack ships in the harbor arrived and continued the process of sinking the American fleet, but it was nowhere near as successful as the first wave. Several more battleships were damaged, and a handful of destroyers were sunk, including the USS Shaw, which was split in two when it exploded. No ship escaped damage. Ten minutes after this attack began, the Japanese withdrew to the safety of their carriers to the north of Oahu.   In just over an hour, the Americans had gone from a peaceful morning to being the target of a maelstrom of noise and destruction, which disappeared as quickly as it had arrived.   Losses & Casualties Sailors at Kaneohe Naval Air Station decorate the graves of seamen killed at Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941 / Official U.S. Navy photograph. Source: Library of Congress   As expected, the casualty rate was skewed heavily in favor of the Japanese. They lost 29 aircraft destroyed and 74 damaged, as well as five midget submarines. Sixty-four Japanese lost their lives, and one Japanese sailor was captured.   The American losses were grievous. Of the eight battleships in the harbor, four were sunk, and the other four were damaged. Three cruisers and three destroyers also suffered significant damage. One hundred eighty-eight aircraft were destroyed, and another 159 were damaged. A total of 2,403 Americans lost their lives, while another 1,178 were wounded.   Aftermath Avenge Pearl Harbor. Source: rawpixel.com   Despite the success of the raid on Pearl Harbor, the action was not nearly enough to blunt the spearhead of American power in the Pacific. The Japanese neglected the destruction of important service yards, and repairs on the ships began in earnest. Two battleships, the USS Nevada and the USS California, were re-floated, repaired, and put back into commission.   Battleships, however, did not prove to be the decisive factor in the Pacific Theater. American victory relied far more on aircraft carriers and submarines. Battleships were relegated mainly to shore bombardments rather than the iconic factor that would win naval engagements.   A day after the attack, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his address to the Senate, in which he described the previous day as “a date which will live in infamy.” The United States declared war on Japan. Several days later, Germany and Italy declared war on America, and the United States responded in kind.   Rising Sun Flag. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Against the industrial might and logistic capabilities of the United States, no matter how successful the Attack on Pearl Harbor may have seemed at the time, the overall effect was minimal. In addition, it served to galvanize the American public and justify American efforts in their war against the Japanese.   Admiral Chūichi “King Kong” Hara summed it up perfectly when he stated, “We won a great tactical victory at Pearl Harbor and thereby lost the war.”

As the first presidential debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump is scheduled for this coming Thursday in Atlanta, even mainstream media pundits are being forced to address Biden's cognitive decline. On Friday's episode of MSNBC's "Morning Joe," journalist and political analyst Elise Jordan framed the stakes...