President George H. W. Bush, whose father was Senator Prescott Bush, had four sons. His oldest son, George W., became a two-term president. His second-oldest son, Jeb(!), became a two-term governor.
The next two sons — Neil and Marvin — were, ahem, slightly less accomplished.
Neil Bush is mostly remembered for the savings and loan crisis, where the media worked feverishly to make him the scandal’s symbol. (Interestingly, he also appeared in the anti-Ritalin documentary film, The Drugging of Our Children, with Michael Moore.) For a while, Neil was lumped into the same category as Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, Hugh Rodham, and Hunter Biden: infamous First Family screwups.
Meanwhile, Marvin Bush isn’t really remembered at all.
I guess he worked at HCC Insurance for a while, and after Jeb(!) lost the GOP presidential nomination to Donald Trump in 2016, he endorsed the Libertarian ticket. (Shockingly, that failed to move the needle.)
I’ll betcha it was hell being Marvin at big events and important galas: “Haha, yes, my grandpa was senator. My dad was president. So was my big brother, George. Jeb(!) wasn’t president, but he was the governor of Florida. Neil is a businessman. Oh, what have I been up to? Well, yesterday afternoon, I caught a frog all by myself! Hey… where are you going?”
In a family full of high achievers, it must suck to be the least accomplished.
It’s like the Manning family: Archie Manning, the family patriarch, was drafted in the first round, #2 overall. His son Peyton was also drafted in the first round — #1 overall. So was little brother Eli.
But the oldest brother, Cooper Manning, was diagnosed with spinal stenosis and didn’t play a single down of college football, let alone reach the NFL as a top draft pick. (His son currently plays quarterback at the University of Texas.)
Again, it must make for awkward conversations at big events: “Wow, your brother Peyton won two Super Bowl rings. So did your brother Eli. And you, Cooper… have a lovely smile.”
I’m sure it’s infuriating to be overshadowed like that. I can’t even imagine what it would do to your self-image.
Fortunately, I don’t have to imagine: Thanks to Canada, we know what would happen!
The Globe and Mail is the #1 newspaper in Canada. It’s considered “the most prestigious and influential news journal” in the country, and Canada’s “newspaper of record.”
Last week, it ran a headline that made millions of Canucks spit out their maple syrup: How Canada Became Poorer Than Alabama.
For eons, Canadians have viewed Alabama as a small state that, save for a few pockets, is dirt poor. All anybody seems to know about Alabama is that Montgomery and Birmingham were the centre of the civil rights movement. In 1963, when Martin Luther King Jr. wrote his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he called Birmingham “probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States.”
So, it was a shock when Canadian economist Trevor Tombe and the International Monetary Fund ran the numbers in 2023 and 2024 and concluded that Canada had, in fact, become poorer than Alabama.
“ALABAMA?! Whatcha talkin’ aboot, eh? Y’must be jokin’!”
No joke. The Globe and Mail ran the numbers:
Alabama is also home to five million people – the same population as Alberta – and its economy is booming. The state’s unemployment rate is now just 2.7 per cent, versus 6.5 per cent in Canada, and its major employers include Airbus SE and giant defence contractor Northrop Grumman Corp. The state has also morphed into an auto manufacturing powerhouse with plants from Mercedes-Benz AG, Toyota Motor Corp., Hyundai Motor Co. and more. In 2024, Alabama made nearly as many vehicles as Ontario.
Canada’s “newspaper of record” urged citizens to “wake up”:
But being on the ground in Alabama, it was obvious that Canadians need a wake-up call. They tend to view the economy through a historical lens – this is a G7 country that has long punched above its weight. Yet capital is global now and competition for it is fierce. If Canada isn’t careful, places such as the Deep South will continue to steal jobs. The Eli Lilly plant awarded in December could have just as easily gone to Montreal, a pharmaceutical hub.
In other words, it might be time to eat some humble pie.
[…]
If Canadians remain complacent, the rest of the world will eat our lunch.
It’s an eat-or-be-eaten world, and it still runs on cause and effect. Canada’s stagnation and Alabama’s growth weren’t accidental; they were the byproduct of government decisions.
Alabama built a pro-business reputation because it enacted pro-business policies. “If you build it, [they] will come.”
Canada did not. Leaders such as Trudeau and Carney copied the policies of Western Europe’s social democrats, and regulated the hell out of everything. As tax dollars rolled in, they spent it on a glorious hodgepodge of new social programs. (In fact, the only government program they underfunded was the military: Canada hasn’t honored its 2% NATO defense spending commitment in nearly 40 years.)
And now they’ve fallen behind Alabama.
Sadly for the Canucks, cozying up to China won’t close the gap. It’s the exact wrong strategy at the exact wrong time. Instead of antagonizing Americans and American businesses, Canada should’ve sprinted in the opposite direction.
And been more like Alabama.
Because the dirty little secret is, Canada desperately needs America for its economic survival: Almost all the Canadian provinces trade more with the U.S. than each other. Without access to the American marketplace, Canada would be a third-world country. We might overshadow it, but it still needs us.
Remember, boys and girls: We’re living in an eat-or-be-eaten world.
And if you’re not sitting at the table, you risk being on the menu.
PRediction: Tuesday’s State of the Union address couldn’t have come at a better time. The fallout of last week’s Supreme Court decision, which invalidated certain “emergency tariffs,” continues to reverberate.
But roughly 80% of Americans have heard little or nothing about the ruling.
Those that have heard about it aren’t necessarily experts, either: Constitutional law is complex and confusing. I have a law degree, which makes me smart enough to recognize the legal stuff I’m too stupid to understand — and it’s a BIG list.
So we have a complex legal issue that’s far over the heads of most voters. The Average Joe knows it involves tariffs and Trump lost — but that’s about it.
Trump’s State of the Union address is the perfect time to reboot the narrative and explain it to the American people.
I predict the president will avoid unnecessary legalese. He won’t get in the weeds over precedent, jurisprudence, or constitutional theories. Nor will he bitch and moan about the ruling, whining about losing the case.
And I also predict he’ll refrain from bashing the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him! (Even though I’m sure he’s tempted.)
Instead, he’ll recognize this for what it is: a manna-from-Heaven opportunity to reset the narrative, reach the American people, explain what happened on his own terms, and capture hearts and minds.
Specifically, it’s Trump’s moment to cast the die for the 2026 midterms.
That’s why we’ll see the president explaining the virtues of his tariffs policies, overtly connecting them to jobs, prosperity, and affordability. He’ll note his stunning successes in winning trade concessions — such as stopping fentanyl from flooding our streets — and how he’s shifting the financial burden off the backs of hardworking Americans, and onto the backs of foreign nations and foreign companies.
It’ll be an ideological argument, backed by a full year of successes, victories, and economic growth.
Don’t expect a Trumpian temper tantrum. Expect him to surprise you with his passion and storytelling.
PRojections: The long-awaited tell-all about aliens and UFOs is almost here. After endless theories about government coverups, alien autopsies, anal probes, and all the rest, the truth is out there will FINALLY be told!
And one of two things will happen:
- There’s nothing interesting and it’s a waste of time.
- It’s the most interesting thing EVER.
It’s gonna be one or the other. No middle ground.
I’m suspecting it’ll be #1 — not because I’m anti-UFOs (c’mon, it’d be cool to talk to E.T.), but because the conspiracy argument never made sense to me.
Why hide it?
I’ve heard ufologists claim that revealing the truth would lead to panic and confusion, but if we could handle the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, COVID, and Joe Biden’s brain, we could handle UFOs.
Honestly? For most of us, life would go on as normal.
In fact, I’d argue the opposite is true: If I worked at NASA and discovered aliens were real, I have every incentive to go public ASAP — because the moment I do, my agency’s budget quadruples!
It would be the easiest “sell” to congress in history: “Gentlemen, unless you want your children to be enslaved by space ants, who’ll force them to work in underground sugar caves, I’m gonna need a bigger budget.”
That’s my projection: No aliens, no E.T., just a bunch of blurry photos and strange readings.
PRaise: Ambassador Mike Huckabee was put in a vexing position: He’s the U.S. ambassador to Israel, a devout Christian, and a loyal Republican — so how does he navigate Tucker Carlson’s microphone?
On one hand, Carlson remains uncomfortably close to certain people in the White House: Carlson’s son works for Vice President JD Vance. The ex-Fox News pundit has been marginalized since he began playing footsie with neo-Nazis and bootlicking Qatar, but he’s still one of America’s most-watched political commentators.
And his audience matters: We don’t want to leave them behind.
But on the other hand, Huckabee knew what he was getting into when he agreed to the interview: Carlson was gonna do what he always does whenever Israel, Zionism, or Jews are mentioned:
He’ll attack, sneer, mock, deride, insult, and play the “gotcha question” game.
So Huckabee would’ve been well within his rights to reject Carlson’s interview. Life’s too short to waste on bigots — and besides, this is Carlson’s business model: He needs content that’ll give him clicks.
Why should Huckabee help make Carlson richer?
It was a no-win situation, but the ambassador played it as perfectly as he could: He met with Carlson. He didn’t duck or hide; Carlson couldn’t condemn him as a coward. And he treated Carlson with respect, eloquently explaining his position.
Tucker Carlson took advantage of Huckabee’s kindness, entitling the interview, “Tucker Confronts Mike Huckabee on America’s Toxic Relationship With Israel.” (Which was marginally better than the shorter version he uploaded first: “Israel’s Purging of Christians From the Holy Land and the Plot to Keep Americans From Noticing.”)
Here are Huckabee’s thoughts:
When I sat down with Tucker Carlson on Wednesday, I was expecting a thoughtful conversation and that he would ask questions and give me the opportunity to actually respond--just like he did with the little Nazi sympathizer Nick Fuentes or the guy who thought Hitler was the good…
— Ambassador Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) February 21, 2026
As usual, Carlson carried Qatari water with gusto. This X post is worth reading:
I looked this up because Tucker's wording felt slimy. Turns out it was.
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) February 21, 2026
With a smarmy smile, Tucker says, "There are many more Christians in Qatar than there are in Israel." This is seemingly meant to imply that Qatar must not be treating Christians too poorly, given how many… pic.twitter.com/ZDA4kz8piT
SLAVES!! The Christian laborers in Qatar are modern-day slaves!
Unlike the Christians in Israel, there are virtually ZERO Christian Qatari citizens. None!
Just like Tucker’s objectivity, it doesn’t exist.
But 16% of the migrant laborers are Christian. And as Business and Human Rights Centre explained:
According to Human Rights Watch, more than 91 percent of Qatar's population are foreign workers. These are controlled by an abusive sponsorship system (according to the "kafala," the guarantee system practiced in many Arab countries), which gives employers almost complete control over workers. Despite publicized initiatives to improve their situation, workers still struggle to change jobs – even if employers have stopped paying them...Not only that, but when a worker leaves his workplace without employer permission, it is considered an "escape" that is considered a crime under the country's law.
To bash Israel, Tucker Carlson defended Muslim ownership of Christian slaves.
Helluva guy, isn’t he? (And the less we say about his “Tucker Smollett” false claim at the airport, the better.)
PRedators: This is the part of the column where we call out something negative, but in comparison to Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro’s offense was minor.
Furthermore, Shapiro may be many things, but he’s certainly not a predator. So it’s probably unfair to give him this spot.
But he’s also a Harvard-educated lawyer, so it’s reasonable to hold him to a high standard on legal analysis. And in Friday’s show, Shapiro failed miserably.
At the 4:42 mark, Shapiro said:I will say this, I do find it somewhat ironic that Justice Roberts claimed Obamacare was not a tax for purposes of finding it constitutional, but finds that tariffs are in fact a form of tax for purposes of finding them unconstitutional as promoted by the president. So I’m not a Justice Roberts fan. I think that he is quite fungible in his language…
Shapiro has it backwards: It was President Obama who claimed his healthcare mandate was NOT a tax; Roberts saved Obamacare by artfully insisting that it was.
Roberts didn’t err by being inconsistent with his definition of taxes. What’s so disappointing was how his Supreme Court bent over backwards to accommodate President Obama, yet wasn’t nearly as accommodating to President Trump.
Interestingly, later in his show, Ben Shapiro interviewed a legal expert named Ilya Shapiro. (No relationship.… I think?) And at the 32:40 mark, Ilya Shapiro greeted Ben with:
Good to be with you. And I must say, I agree with everything you said — and I’m impressed that you digested that opinion almost in live time on air — it’s a convoluted 170 pages.
This is the same Ilya Shapiro who began his May 12, 2014 Forbes essay, entitled “The Obamacare ‘Tax’ That Chief Justice Roberts Invented Is Still Unconstitutional,” with the line:
As we all know, two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts changed the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate into a tax and thus rescued President Obama’s signature legislation.
C’mon, guys. This isn’t a little thing: Y’all are supposed to be legal experts.
You can do better than that.
