TOLD YOU SO. When the spineless Republican congressional leaders were trying to figure out some way of not dealing with the repeated Democrat filibusters of judicial nominees, we offered our two cents:


All right, so they didn't wait even that long. The point is, there's no reason whatsoever in trying to be reasonable or statesmanlike with Democrats. Drudge is reporting this:


If they have any brains or judgment at all, Bill Frist and Andy Card should take Chuck Schumer out for a night on the  town. They can hold their noses throughout, but they should thank their slimy benefactor for being dumb enough to let the truth slip out. He's absolutely right about the Republican record on Supreme Court appointments. All the attempts to nominate relative moderates or "stealth" conservatives have blown up in their faces. The key votes in all the rulings Republicans deplore have been coming from justices appointed by Republican presidents.

It's a curious fact that it's the most obvious ideas that are hardest to prove to people who consider themselves reasonable. What does it take to drive home this one, simple, dead-obvious point? THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

There's no clearer way to state the truth, no set of words that will be easier to understand or more accurate about the situation. There's no need for elaboration if the dunderheads in charge can't absorb the essential reality of this sentence. Therefore, all we can do to drive the point home is to use the oldest and most effective strategem in politics, one the Democrats have perfected to an art form: sheer repetition. So here goes:

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN A STATE OF TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY; IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS, THEY WILL LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE.

Are you starting to get it, Mr. Frist, Mr. Card, and Mr. Bush? Yeah, we thought not.

[NOTE: At least temporarily, Drudge removed the Schumer story from his website. But even if it turns out to be unconfirmable, we stand by our advice to the Republicans. The situation really is that obvious.]

REGRET. Yeah, it's a bit late. Canada Day is really celebrated on July 1, but it's impossible to pay attention to it until after the July 4th festivities are over. Even now, I feel kind of guilty discussing Canada Day without having done more to reemphasize the profound significance of the American Independence Day. Yet it may be the case that focusing on the Canadian counterpart will do exactly that. The only possible meaning Canada represents to the U.S., after all, is as a vivid example of "the road not taken."

There were British North American colonies in the 18th century who revolted against Britain and colonies who didn't. That is the real distinction between our two countries. The Canadian colonies preferred monarchical despotism to freedom if the price for freedom was war. Ever since, the Canadian colonists and their descendants have had to salve their egoes by pretending that they made the better bargain, which can only be true if there is something inherently better about the culture they fell into by refusing to shape their own independently.

The contemporary commentators who are busily looking for the causes of Canada's recent and increasingly strident slanders of their southern neighbor tend to overlook this first, most important explanation of the hostility. It's not that they have become, through a series of passive accidents, more left wing in their politics than the U.S. It's not that their European worldliness and wisdom alerted them in advance to the dangers of a conservative, God-fearing Texan as President of the United States. It's not that their loftier "green" sensibility has given rise to some new conviction of moral superiority over the more densely industrialized nation to the south. It's that Canada has failed in every possible way to prove to us or themselves that they really were smarter to remain in thrall to a king who ruled their lives from an ocean away. And the bitter consequences of that failure are growing more acute and undeniable every day.

What does Canada Day celebrate? Not the fierce announcement of separation from the Crown documented in our Declaration of Independence, but a beneficent act of the British Parliament to set them free from afar:


There are three additional points of interest about this history. First, Canadians had attempted armed rebellion against the Crown at least twice before in the 1830s but failed. Second, the province of New Brunswick was originally created because of the influx of American Tories who fled or were expelled from America for refusing to back the American independence movement. Third, the "Canada Day" which now celebrates this largely bureaucratic event was called "Dominion Day" until 1982. The word offers an interesting mix of connotations. Does it mean "Release from British Dominion" Day? Or "At Last We Finally Have Dominion Over Ourselves" Day? Actually, neither one is completely correct, because it wasn't until 1931 that another act of the Brit Parliament accorded Canada a national status equal to the U.K., which status was earned by the United States in 1783 with the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. It's not hard to see why 'Dominion Day" was officially deep-sixed after a typically Canadian period of inaction.

It's ironic indeed that Canada Day happens to fall three days before American Independence Day on the calendar, as if they somehow preceded us into national adulthood. Is this why the Canadians insist on imitating our means of celebrating our Independence Day, with parades and fireworks? (Unless their firecrackers are intended to duplicate the sound of British MPs snapping their valises shut after the critical session of Parliament...?) There may be many Americans who are fooled by this, especially since we are so used to being regarded as a young country by the nations of the Old World with whom Canada has continued to associate itself. But it's worthwhile to remember that as a nation Canada is only 138 years old compared to our 229, which is, by the way, the oldest continuous government in the world, with the sole exception of the U.K.

Canada is in reality our ne'er-do-well younger brother. Too harsh, you say? Consider that Canada is the second largest country on earth in terms of territory. Yet it has just over a tenth of the population of the U.S. We grew because we were attractive as a home and a way of life to people from around the globe, who flocked here to make this country the richest and most powerful in the history of civilization. During the same period of time, Canada has not only languished in terms of population but lagged in terms of per capita GDP -- just 75 percent of ours -- despite the boasts of its derivative Brit-Labor-Party style government. And much of the income they do enjoy is a by-product of their proximity to us: 90 percent of Canadians live within 100 miles of the Unites States. Canada is the younger brother we find ways of supporting that he doesn't have to acknowledge so that he can retain his fragile pride.

But little brother also has more problems in his homelife. For a quarter century Canada has teetered on the edge of breakup as its French province Quebec intermittently sues for divorce. Canadian unity has not been annealed by a counterpart to the American Civil War, which may have saved some lives in the short run, but the result is that Canada can never be united by a set of founding ideas, as we have been, because their unity consists principally of the geographic accident that its components were the last leavings of the British colonial experiment in North America. In fact, Canada still styles itself as a "confederation," which is the same loose affiliation tried out by the United States before its failure prompted the writing of the Constitution.

The metaphor of troubled homelife suggests the image of the unhappy wife. Is it mere coincidence that the carefully compiled list of Canadian celebrities includes the likes of k.d. lang, Joni Mitchell, Alanis Morrisette, Sara MacLachlan, Jann Arden, and Nellie Furtado? Probably. But it's hard not to see some basis in Canadian culture for all those intense "songs about myself" offered up by the sad-voiced girls on their acoustic guitars. And it's not just the women. Who sounds more consistently miserable than Neil Young, Gordon Lightfoot, and Leonard Cohen?

Is it any wonder that Canada will seize on every opportunity to badmouth its taller, stronger, happier, and more prosperous older brother? Fredo couldn't help resenting his Godfather brother Michael for dominating his life. He couldn't help betraying him at every opportunity. And when you ally yourselves with the enemies of your friends, some part of their ill intentions will rub off on you. That's the story of one of Canada's more recent betrayals, the subversion of the American military and legal institutions it sponsored during the Vietnam War.


Canada resented the American policy in Vietnam and Lyndon Johnson's anger at their dissension from his leadership. So they plighted their troth with a set of fugitives who reminded them of their own Tory origins. Yet they couldn't help remembering that fugitives are losers in the long run. This knowledge only compounded their animus against the U.S., which now has to be continually refreshed and rejustified to smother its unwelcome implications about themselves.

Can there be any doubt that this is what is going on with the Canadian response to the Iraq War? Nationally, they are so weak they can't field an army of more than 1,000 or so combat troops, and they don't dare test national unity (Quebec!) by attempting a controversial foreign commitment. All that's left is pillorying the United States for its very lack of the weaknesses that so cripple Canada -- particularly the strong national identity shared by Americans.

In the United States we have a pledge of allegiance to the flag. In Canada, the flag is a recently adjudicated compromise, not a symbolic embodiment of the country's defining experience, but an irrelevant homage to a species of tree.


Canadians themselves are suspicious about the validity of their flag, which is why they continue to harbor paranoid fears that the more potent American flag is being smuggled into their currency.





The real problem, of course, is the flag itself. Like the weak country it weakly symbolizes, it is, well, weak. There can be no pledge of allegiance to a maple leaf, which is why we have witnessed the sad specter of an unofficial Canadian statement of general national allegiance spawned in a beer commercial:


What, you ask, could inspire such fevered adulation? Here it is:


Oka-a-a-ay. All those capital letters are obviously aimed at the citizens of the United States: no need to shout them to a fellow Canadian. The fact that this has been described as a unifying cri de coeur for Canada suggests that we are the only buttress they have for a national identity. They are united by their resentment of us. And unfortunately, because that resentment goes all the way back to the War for Independence they never had, it will never go away.

In a recent article in Maclean's magazine, Fox News anchor John Gibson ascribed Canadian hostility to envy:

But I disagree with Mr. Gibson. Envy is about something we think we deserve, or might have had, or should somehow be able to take. The Canadian hostility is deeper than that. The fatal fork in the road was a long long time ago, and there is absolutely no hope that they have the capacity to achieve or steal or blackmail from others (as Belgians and Koreans might still think they can via fair means or foul) what they most lack and most detest in us: Greatness.

Happy Canada Day. Their fireworks are their exploded dreams, which still shimmer and glow before their eyes like a vision of long lost paradise.


Does all of this tell us anything about ourselves? I believe so. But for the miraculous wisdom and courage of our founding fathers, the United States might be just like Canada, with a population of 30 million enervated Europeans, an incompetent socialist government, a social and cultural history lacking in brilliance or innovation, and a role in world politics as irascible pawn of the United Kingdom. Indeed, we might be several such nations, 7 to 10 million strong (or weak), quibbling and sniping and sneering at one another from sea to shining sea. Look at Canada with fresh eyes. It's what we could easily have settled for, a passive mediocrity destined to be a footnote in the history of man. Thank God for the road we took instead, and the giants who built that road so long ago.

POP QUIZ FOR AMERICANS: Quick. Name a famous Canadian political figure besides Margaret Trudeau (NSFW). Does it matter? No.

AGAINST ALL ODDS. Chalk another one up to the miraculous powers of pop music. Without mentioning the names of more than two African countries or the once august initials 'U.N.', the idealistic youth of the world struck a fatal blow to the most pernicious human condition in the history of the species Saturday. On ten stages around the globe, musicians slew poverty in Africa by making their audiences aware of its existence.

Who knew it could be that easy? In recent decades, the major industrialized nations spent $500 billion on 550 million sub-Saharan Africans trying to help them emerge from a hell of famine, disease, genocidal one-party dictatorships, and continent-wide per capita income of less than $500 a year. How can we ever forgive our leaders for not realizing that the only possible solution to the crisis lay in the reunion of David Gilmour and Roger Waters of Pink Floyd? With all the resources at their disposal, couldn't they have figured out that poverty quakes in dread at the thought of Madonna shouting the F-Word to everyone on earth via a global satellite hookup and Paul McCartney leading a half-hour worldwide chorus of "Hey Jude"?

Apparently, some observers still haven't gotten the message. In the London Sunday Times, a cynic named Simon Jenkins had the nerve to criticize not only Sir Bob Geldof's Live8, but the legendary precursor event LiveAid.


That's not a very nice thing to say. Didn't he watch the fifty or seventy explanations offered up by MTV's crack socio-economic pundits about how the "awareness" was going to force callous G8 bigwigs to finally fix things? You know, by making them aware that the kids just weren't going to stand for any more no money, no drugs, and no hope in Africa? He couldn't have, or he wouldn't have said this:


Probably, Mr. Simon Jenkins is just jealous of Sir Bob Geldof. Is he rich and famous? Did he ever have a big hit once with a band like the Boomtown Rats? And sure enough, when you look more closely at what Jenkins is saying, that's the deal. He's green with envy.

Geldof disagrees. He is a big-time interventionist. He claims legitimacy not by democratic mandate but by the dubious franchise of rock concert attendances. He tells his audiences that they do not need to give money or think. They can feel better just by chanting a mantra like monks. Awareness is self-defining. It accepts no responsibility for any political outcomes. Blame is transferred to elected politicians.

...Live 8’s demand is apparently that governments should up the Sixties game and assume the mantle of global welfare. Voluntary giving to charity should become compulsory. The humanitarian urge should be nationalised. In addition, outcomes do not matter. Geldof is quoted in the International Herald Tribune as claiming that something must be done “even if it doesn’t work”. For him, doing something useless even if harmful is a moral advance on doing nothing.

We'll let the results speak for themselves. Wait till Mr. Jenkins sees what Africa has become over the weekend. For example, here's a photograph of the continent's once desolate northeastern coast.

He'll sing a different tune then, won't he?

FOURTH OF JULY. Live8 aside, this was a very big holiday weekend in the U.S. of A., and we can't let it go by without acknowledging the tremendous historical importance of Independence Day, as well as the sacrifices made by those who fought the good fight when it counted. In a time wen the mass media are increasingly scornful of patriotic remembrances and displays, we were heartened that the prestigious American Movie Channel chose to honor the American Experience with a showing of "Independence Day: The Fourth of July."

THE HOLLYWOOD SEAT. InstaPunk's XOFF News Team has learned that the Drudge Report will break InstaPunk's XOFF News Team has learned that the Drudge Report will break this story sometime tomorrow:


Inside the Beltway, politicians are already reacting predictably.

Senator Orrin Hatch is privately hailing the move as a "master stroke that finally recognizes the unique needs of a growing and crucially vital minority."

Democrats, meanwhile, are expressing outrage at the nomination. Senator Edward Kennedy said of the Simpson nomination, "It's a disgrace to the nation. We in the Democratic Party have called for a celebrity seat on the court for years, but it's a betrayal for this president to nominate a candidate of such mediocre qualifications. What is needed is a celebrity jurist of the caliber of Susan Sarandon, who has played an attorney at least once and has been politically active in progressive causes for years. She is smarter, more mature, and has much larger breasts than the president's woefully lacklustre choice. I am dimayed."

Senator John Kerry was equally wroth. "I simply can't believe that this president, at this stage in world affairs, when the country is mired in yet another Vietnam, would not nominate a candidate possessed of greater gravitas and zeitgeist, such as Madonna, who has gained the vitally necessary experience in European sensibilities and innovations that are needed to erase the gap between Republicans and Democrats in America," he said. "Instead, this president has seen fit to put forward a wealthy young naif of negligible breastage who cannot speak French, German, or Belgian. How can she possibly contribute meaningfully to the deliberations of the U.S. Supreme Court?"

In anticipation of the approval fight to come, units of the Maryland National Guard began surrounding the Capitol building this evening with 8800 tons of sandbags.

We'll keep you informed as more details emerge.

THE WORST THING YOU CAN DO. Peggy Noonan better look out. She wrote a column this week that's bound to get her noticed by the biggest heads in Washington. Here's a sample:

You see the similarities.

Rather delightfully, she gives much the same treatment to the senators who forged the "no filibuster, except..." deal (McCain, McCain, etc), as well as Silent Majority Leader Bill Frist, the Clintons, and Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and John Paul ("The Great") Stevens. In her coda she imagines the latter two retiring from the court to write their memoirs, which might go something like this:

She wants to know what is in the water in Washington, DC. We want to know what is going on with Peggy Noonan. Has she accomplished some kind of astral body soul swap with Ann Coulter? Ms. Noonan is often clever and perceptive, but she is never uproariously funny. Not like this. And our suspicions were heightened when we checked out Ms. Coulter's latest column, which is uncharacteristically grave and lacking in yucks:

Do you feel like chuckling? You see? And that's why we're worried about Peggy. Heaven knows, Ann Coulter's used to the abuse and assaults that flow from being a conservative with a wicked sense of humor. She's at the peak of training for dodging liberal brickbats, the slings and arrows of outrageous pundits, and the occasional cream pie that passes for reasoned argument in the halls of academe. But is Peggy up to this?

"HE IS HISTORY, AND I AM STILL TODAY'S HEADLINE..." Life is so unfair. Matt Lauer tries to branch out from his Today Show base and cash in just a little on his popularity as the smarmy girlie-man sidekick of NBC's perkiest dominatrix and what happens? He takes the mass-media equivalent of a shotgun blast to the face. He has to stand there and pretend to like it when the numbskull TV viewers of America choose Ronald Reagan as the "Greatest American." Who could have guessed? The nominees included Michael Jackson, Madonna, Tom Cruise, and Michael Moore, for God's sake. And Matt had really done  his usual homework on the presentation and production end. When it was time to discuss the relative candidacies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, for example, Matt was masterly in his subliminal communication with viewers:


It must have been disquieting when three Republicans made the list of ten finalists, but one of them was Abraham Lincoln, and both FDR and Bill Clinton made the cut too. Who could have foreseen the terrible turn things would take?


O Calamity! O Horrors! Oh, Mommy, what have they done to your poor little boy? Reagan? Reagan? REAGAN? REAGAN?

AND HE HAD TO PRETEND TO LIKE IT. O WEEPING AND WAILING AND GNASHING OF TEETH.

There really aren't any words that can take away the pain at a time like this, and we're reluctant to do more than gravely shake Matt's hand while a tear drips slowly down our cheek, but the desire to say something helpful is too strong to overcome. So, in addition to our condolences, we'd like to offer Matt an empty platitude or two to show that our heart is in the right place. Time is the great healer, Matt. Someday -- perhaps in a year, or two, or five -- you will awaken as a whole girlie-man once again. The sun will shine, the birds will sing, and Katie will nod briefly in your direction before storming into the producer's office for another knock-down-drag-out brawl. Trust us on this, Matt. You will recover, and maybe you'll even write a bestselling book about your heroic conquest of post-traumatic shock syndrome. Tom Cruise could play you in the movie.

Does any of this help at all? No? Okay. We'll just tiptoe out of the room now and leave you alone. Sorry.

THE SMART GUYS TAKE OVER. It's supposed to be safe. Here's the promotional material:

The new design for the 1,776-foot tower is meant to make it more resistant to truck bombs. The building will now be 90 feet _ instead of 25 feet _ from West Street, the major north-south thoroughfare along the Hudson River.

The tower's cubic base will be clad in luminous materials _ probably a combination of stainless steel and titanium _ that will be shimmering and light-reflective as well as blast-resistant, according to a description of the redesign posted online by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.

As in the original design, the structure outlined in the latest plan exceeds city fire code requirements, and will have biological and chemical filters in its air supply system.

It also has the original design's extra-wide emergency stairs, a dedicated staircase just for firefighters, enhanced elevators and "areas of refuge" on each floor. Stairs, communications, sprinklers and elevators will be encased in 3-foot-thick walls.

But it isn't safe. Because the terrorists, er, foreign insurgents, still don't like us. Everyone knows that, which is why the really smart people are slowly taking over the Ground Zero redevelopment project. Debra Burlingame, a 9/11 widow, alerted us to the effort in a Wall Street Journal article earlier this month.

She also revealed the identities of those who are helping to design the IFC:


Mrs. Burlingame seems to regard this team as sinister in some way, but if safety is the prime consideration -- as it seems to be for so many Americans -- then there is no alternative to soliciting the participation of people with these kinds of backgrounds. By the time they have completed reconfiguring the Ground Zero project's architecture and content, the place will be absolutely 100 percent safe. There will no longer be any doubt that however much foreign insurgents may hate America, it's nothing compared to how much elite and powerful Americans hate America. This has to be an enormously effective deterrent to further acts of violence in the city whose most powerful people lead the world in hatred of this country. That's why the over-engineered tower described in the piece referenced above will never be built. It just won't be needed. The whole idea of a single fake-me-out tower with 50 stories of panic room office bunkers and 50 stories of uninhabited, bomb-repellent gridwork can be tossed in the trash where it belongs. New Yorkers will be able to go all the way to the tippy top of the new twin towers design that will soon be unveiled by Soros and company. What do you think of it?