Off the coast of Greece‚ an individual striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) has been spotted. While this is not unusual in itself‚ the reason this dolphin is making waves (pun intended) is due to a rather strange variation in the appearance of its flippers. The flippers on both sides of the animal look hooked‚ giving the appearance of thumbs.Researchers from the Pelagos Cetacean Research Institute have seen the dolphin engaging in normal behaviors with its pod in the Gulf of Corinth‚ within the Ionian Sea between mainland Greece and the Peloponnese peninsula. Striped dolphins are a fairly common species‚ with males typically 2.7 meters (9 feet) long and weighing around 158 kilograms (350 pounds)‚ while females are 2.4 meters (8 feet) and 150 kilograms (330 pounds). They are a very social species and travel in large groups of as many as 100 individuals‚ known as pods. They are energetic‚ fast‚ and nimble through the water‚ and will even leap as high as 6 meters (20 feet) above the surface‚ according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."It was the very first time we saw this surprising flipper morphology in 30 years of surveys in the open sea and also in studies while monitoring all the stranded dolphins along the coasts of Greece for 30 years‚" Alexandros Frantzis‚ the scientific coordinator and president of the Pelagos Cetacean Research Institute‚ told Live Science.                  As for the cause of the unusual flipper‚ it is most likely a problem that arose during the genetic development of the dolphin in the womb. Human and dolphin anatomy is remarkably similar when it comes to the wrists and hands. “Dolphins‚ their ends are exactly like ours‚ they have segments that compose the wrists‚ the segment that composes the metacarpal bone and the segments that compose our fingers‚” said Professor Bruno Cozzi‚ author of Anatomy of Dolphins and veterinary anatomy specialist‚ during an interview with IFLScience. “Their fingers come together in a unique order‚ with very tough connective tissue. In this case‚ one of the buds‚ instead of sticking together with the other ones‚ has remained separate‚ and this probably happens in the first to second month of fetal life. It is difficult to say which part without an X-ray‚” continued Cozzi. "Some abnormality has happened during development‚ one in a million". Dolphins have remarkably similar hand structures to humans.Image credit: VectorMine/Shutterstock.comCozzi is confident that the cause of the flipper variation is not a result of injury. “It’s genetic. How can I tell? Because with a trauma or injury it would only be on one side to cause the variation. It is on both sides‚ bilaterally on the dolphin‚ so it’s genetic.”Cozzi wonders if the genetic trait will be passed on to any offspring the dolphin might have‚ but thinks it is unlikely: “It is most likely a recessive [trait]‚ it's not dominant.” However if you were to see the same variation in the flippers [in the offspring]‚ it would mean that a [trait] that has been buried by evolution as useless is coming back again‚ but it's absolutely not likely”.The experts think this happened during fetal development‚ and not injury or trauma to the flippers.Image courtesy of Alexandros Frantzis / Pelagos Cetacean Research InstituteFortunately‚ Cozzi does not think the dolphin will suffer negative consequences as a result of the variation in flipper appearance. “Since they are not using their flippers in a prehensile way‚ [it] won’t affect the dolphin too much. Maybe slightly less performance in swimming.”On a positive note the dolphin has been seen "swimming‚ leaping‚ bow-riding‚ playing" according to Frantzis‚ so is likely living a normal dolphin lifestyle and is not affected by its unusual flippers. 

Everybody’s talking about “shallowing”‚ the new sex act guaranteed to increase Pleasure For Her! But what is this technique? Is it really as orgasmic as they say? Should we be worried? Or is this just another “fluid bonding” situation? Don’t worry you crazy kids; we’ve got your answers.The term “shallowing” doesn’t have a long history behind it – it was first named in the literature just two years ago. But far from being some newfangled futuristic sex maneuver‚ it’s likely something you’re already intimately familiar with. After all‚ the report that brought it to the world’s attention – a survey of thousands of women from around the world and within the US – found that about six out of every seven respondents already used the technique to make sex and masturbation more fun.So‚ what does it involve? Well‚ the name is actually pretty descriptive: the idea is to keep penetrative touch to the entrance‚ and just inside‚ of the vagina‚ rather than going further in. You can use fingers‚ a toy‚ a penis‚ a tongue – whatever gets you off‚ literally – just as long as you don’t go too deep.“If you practice penetrative sex‚ you might have already found it pleasurable when the head of the penis creates pressure at the vaginal entrance before or at the very beginning of penetration‚” she said. “[It’s the] same with a toy or fingers‚” Cecile Gasnault‚ brand director of sex toy company SmileMakers‚ told Glamour magazine last year.“The idea is to go in only by a few centimeters‚” she said.While “less is more” doesn’t always apply when it comes to sexy times – and what is and is not erotic is of course notoriously subjective – there’s some good science backing up shallowing for pleasure. While much has been made of the extraordinary sensitivity of the clitoris‚ the vulva – that is‚ the external female genitalia (because no‚ you cannot see a person’s vagina from the outside unless something has gone seriously wrong) – is also packed with nerve endings. As a comparison for our penis-endowed pals‚ it’s thought that the amount of sensation felt by the vulva is roughly the same as the scrotum‚ and we all know how squeamish you get about that.“[The vulva] actually contains 90 percent of the vagina's nerve endings‚” Gasnault explained‚ “which is why its stimulation can feel very pleasurable – be it with a partner or solo. So it's worth paying some attention to it.”But the advantages to shallowing aren’t confined to just exploiting those nerve endings. Experts recommend using the technique slowly‚ as “[it] can be a great way to get more in touch with your nerve endings and how they pertain to your pleasure in your body‚” Marla Renee Stewart‚ sexologist and sexual wellness expert for sex toy company Lovers‚ told Well+Good.Other benefits include increased anticipation and excitement when having sex with a partner‚ sex therapist and licensed clinical social worker Chanta Blue told Well+Good – and it’s a boon for when deeper penetration “isn't pleasurable‚ comfortable‚ or possible‚” she added.So: shallowing. Give it a go! Or don’t‚ we’re not your sex boss. Unless…

Ever been watching a scary movie and wished you could shield your eyes from what’s on the Big Screen without the shame of actually having to shield your eyes? For some people‚ not seeing what’s in front of them is a simple case of relaxing the ciliary muscle‚ but not everyone can blur their vision on command.The ciliary muscles help your eyes to focus by changing the shape of the lens. When it’s relaxed‚ it pulls on fibers that cause the lens to flatten and thin out. When they contract‚ the opposite happens‚ releasing tension on the lens so it becomes fatter and rounder. Our focusing power is strongest when the lens is spherical rather than flat because it’s better able to bend and refract light so that it’s focused on the retina‚ meaning contraction of the ciliary muscle improves the clarity of our vision. When it’s relaxed‚ things get a bit blurry.Curiously‚ some people appear to be able to voluntarily relax the ciliary muscle so that their vision becomes unfocused. It’s a skill Dr Karan Raj describes as “the world’s most useless superpower‚" but not everyone has it. Excuse us while we enroll in Godolkin University. IFLScience is not responsible for content shared from external sites.And to make it even more useless‚ it seems doing it too often can get you in trouble.“Excessive unfocusing can lead to visual strain and fatigue‚” says Raj. “Constantly shifting between focused and unfocused states might overstimulate the ciliary muscle and the eye’s focusing mechanism. Repeating this divergent squint too often could disrupt your normal binocular vision‚ coordination between the eyes‚ and eye alignment.”Voluntary relaxation of the ciliary muscle isn’t the only visual phenomenon that’s not shared by everyone. About 76 percent of all non-visually impaired people experience something known as "floaters". These appear as moving structures‚ like little worms‚ that sometimes appear in your field of vision if you are staring at something bright and uniform such as the sky‚ snow‚ or a white screen.Their scientific name is Muscae volitantes‚ or "flying flies" – but they are not insects. As an excellent TED-Ed video explains‚ they are tiny objects within your eyes. They could be bits of tissue‚ red blood cells‚ or protein clumps floating in the vitreous humor. This is the gel-like substance between the lens and the retina that keeps the eye in shape.It’s a reminder that there are all sorts of subtle ways in which our perceptions of the world around us can vary. And when it comes to interpreting those perceptions? Well‚ don’t even get us started on aphantasia.

In the realm of human imagination‚ the boundaries between fiction and reality have often blurred‚ giving rise to remarkable technological leaps.From the futuristic visions of video calls in Star Trek becoming the cornerstone of modern communication‚ to the notion of voice-activated assistants akin to science fiction's digital companions‚ our world has consistently drawn inspiration from the creative musings of storytellers. Take‚ for example‚ HAL 9000‚ the iconic AI from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey‚ known for its cold‚ calculating demeanor and unnerving calmness. And how could we forget its murderous intentions?Contrast that with Holly‚ the quirky and eccentric ship's computer in the British sci-fi comedy Red Dwarf‚ with their witty banter and endearing personality. These contrasting personalities have left an interesting mark on our perception of AI and voice-activated systems in the real world‚ shaping our expectations and aspirations for the technology. Science fiction has envisaged concepts from space travel to artificial intelligence long before they materialized.These intersections between science fiction and reality continue to shape the future‚ with each innovative step forging a connection between the fantastic and the factual.British author Malorie Blackman explored the idea of xenotransplantation in her book Pig Heart Boy. Xenotransplantation involves grafting or transplanting organs‚ tissues‚ or cells from one species into another. The story follows Cameron‚ a boy with heart failure who receives a transplant from a genetically modified pig. While Blackman's book imagined a futuristic concept‚ it eerily foreshadowed the real-life work scientists are doing today with animal-to-human organ donation.Pig hearts: the future of organ transplantation?  In groundbreaking new research‚ doctors have successfully transplanted pig kidneys into human participants. These pioneering procedures were once only imagined in science fiction stories.Yet the concept of using animal organs to save human lives has now become a reality.The recent achievements in xenotransplantation show how quickly fictional concepts can leap from the page to the lab.While research into using primate organs for humans began in the 1960s‚ immunological rejection posed a major barrier. Pigs have become the focus for their anatomical similarity to humans and ability to be bred specifically for donation. Still‚ differences between pig and human tissues can lead to rejection. Scientists are using gene editing to remove sugars on the surface of pig cells that trigger this immune response in humans. Other approaches involve knocking out genes for pig proteins that can activate clotting and inflammation. Pharmaceuticals and genetic modifications help control the recipient's immune system to prevent it from attacking the foreign organ.These efforts paid off in several recent milestones.In September 2021‚ NYU Langone Health researchers accomplished a successful kidney transplant from a genetically engineered pig to a brain-dead human patient‚ with no rejection issues.In January 2022‚ the University of Maryland School of Medicine performed the first-ever pig heart transplant in a living human‚ resulting in the patient surviving for 2 months.In 2022‚ surgeons at NYU Langone Health successfully transplanted pig hearts into two brain-dead people‚ followed by another xenotransplantation trial in 2023 that transplanted pig kidneys into two brain-dead recipients.After running this recent study‚ co-author Dr Jayme E. Locke‚ professor of surgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine‚ explained to IFLScience that this research “allowed us to demonstrate the life-sustaining renal function of genetically edited pig kidneys in an adult human.”Dr Locke pointed out that the biggest hurdle to xenotransplantation evolving in the future is the regulatory approvals needed to move to clinical trials‚ however‚ the development “has the potential to completely solve the organ shortage crisis.”While xenotransplantation provides hope for saving lives with animal organs‚ it also raises ethical questions.Is xenotransplantation ethical – for humans and animals?  Evan Thornburg‚ a bioethicist who explains ethical concepts under the username @gaygtownbae on TikTok‚ pointed out that we must consider the ethical treatment of both animals and human recipients. The ethical considerations surrounding the use of animals in transplantation and related research can be categorized into two key areas.First‚ there are concerns related to animal ethics‚ encompassing aspects such as their treatment‚ rearing‚ living conditions‚ sentience‚ and potential harm‚ with implications for communities like vegans‚ vegetarians‚ or Buddhists.Second‚ there are ethical dimensions related to the human recipient‚ including beliefs about the process of using animals for transplantation‚ sustaining one's life through another's tissue‚ access to treatment‚ sustainability of treatments‚ and the manner in which informed and enthusiastic consent is obtained.These ethical considerations are vital in shaping the discourse surrounding animal-based transplantation and research. Broader preemptive public education is crucial‚ particularly on medical and scientific concepts‚ as most people encounter these topics only during a medical crisis.With limited health literacy‚ it is important to integrate health science information into education systems early to enable informed consent during critical healthcare decisions.Thornburg noted to IFLScience that “a huge component of bioethics as it pertains to clinical care and treatment involves thinking critically (and respectfully) about belief systems and religious doctrine that followers utilize as their moral and decision guidance.”“With existing new medical research‚ scientists that make up research teams do not always consider this element‚ and how necessary to respect it is‚” Thornburg said.“Coming up with viable alternatives or more accessible care options‚ especially for the ongoing crisis that is transplant and tissue-related medical care‚ is absolutely necessary because of how much life is lost due to unmet supply and demand.”It’s important to note‚ however‚ that ‘fixing’ the organ shortage issue via a method such as xenotransplantation may result in growing disparity between populations who agree to treatment and those who oppose or cannot consent due to their beliefs.Thornburg highlights that we should focus on promoting healthcare options aligned with these beliefs and engage in education and dialogue with religious communities‚ potentially influencing religious leaders to incorporate these treatments into their principles.Dr Cat Henstridge‚ a veterinary surgeon and star of CBBC’s The Pet Factor‚ told IFLScience that while we still have a journey ahead before xenotransplants become a standard choice for recipients‚ this research presents encouraging findings and may signify a significant advancement for patients dealing with organ failure.Dr Henstridge also commented on the ethical considerations‚ emphasizing that as a veterinarian‚ her stance on this matter aligns with the treatment of any other animal employed for human benefit.If they have lived a life meeting their welfare requirements‚ allowing them to exhibit natural behaviors‚ and ensuring they have been free from pain‚ discomfort‚ and distress‚ followed by surgery and euthanasia carried out in a gentle‚ compassionate‚ and painless manner‚ then there may be limited reservations about utilizing them as organ donors for human recipients.Addressing the fear of animal-to-human transplantsExperts agree that there must be a wider public debate‚ if animal-to-human transplants are to be accepted more widely. For example‚ concerns regarding the transmission of diseases from animals to humans must be addressed. Ensuring the safety of xenotransplants is essential to prevent potential public health crises and garner public support.The ethical questions surrounding the treatment of animals and the potential exploitation of animal donors that must be addressed through rigorous regulations and ethical frameworks.There are economic and logistical challenges associated with xenotransplants‚ including the cost of breeding and maintaining donor animals.Further research will be crucial to foster transparency‚ establish ethical guidelines and pave the way for a more widespread acceptance.Thornburg said that “one of the issues that affects consent is foundational knowledge/understanding of medicine and science‚ with most people being introduced to a medical concept‚ treatment‚ or possibility only when they are enduring a medical crisis that requires decision-making.”“Between the emotional duress of a diagnosis and prognosis along with the average (American) health literacy level being around a 6th grade reading level (this is even lower is places with high poverty‚ high youth populations) enthusiastic‚ informed consent really requires having some general or starting familiarity with health sciences and treatment possibilities.”Thornburg also highlighted how the scientific community “does the general population a large disservice by not embedding this kind of information into our educational systems early.”“Especially since at any time‚ any day‚ at any point in a person's life they could end up in care or in need of an aggressive or complicated treatment that they don't understand and deeply fear.”The recent milestones in xenotransplantation showcase how science fiction concepts can translate into real innovations.Writers and artists have long been trailblazers envisioning possibilities that drive science and technology forward. As researchers continue making strides in cross-species organ transplantation‚ they turn the imagination of authors like Malorie Blackman into life-saving medical therapy.Xenotransplantation is an example of the important relationship between creativity and discovery. And it leaves us wondering – what other futuristic ideas from today's great science fiction will become tomorrow's reality?

Imagine being a stray dog in a shelter‚ longing for a forever home. Now‚ picture being an older dog in that situation. Sadly‚ the demand for senior dogs like these isn’t high‚ even though they’re brimming with love from years of waiting for that special someone to come along. This story is about Maple‚ a... The post Young couple sees elderly beagle being given away ‘for free’ online and run to rescue her appeared first on Animal Channel.

When Amanda Killen and her partner‚ Phil‚ decided to add an older dog to their family‚ they had no idea what awaited them. Their journey led them to Sakari‚ a husky who had spent most of her life in a cramped kennel with 40 other dogs‚ sold to a notorious breeder as a puppy. View... The post Dad builds outstanding snow forts for family’s rescue Husky that absolutely adores the snow appeared first on Animal Channel.

The Joe Scarborough Scare-a-Thon surges on! On today's Morning Joe‚ Scarborough flatly declared that if Trump is elected:  "One year from now‚ it can be over. American democracy can be over.  A year from now‚ it can all be over. The American experiment—at an end. [Pounds desk] One. Year. From. Now." And file this Scarborough statement under: We Hate Media Critics. Somehow‚ sites like NewsBusters are attacking MSNBC for "reporting this‚" and not for wildly exaggerating and pounding tables and screaming "democracy is over unless you vote for Biden!" "I am still shocked by the clowns who claim to be media critics out there‚ just absolute clowns‚ that attack the media for reporting this . . . [Quoting critics] You have to understand‚ you're actually helping him by focusing on‚ you know‚ saying he is fascist."  As readers know‚ we have often‚ as here‚ documented Scarborough's fascination with that f-for-fascist word when it comes to describing Trump. Jon Meacham repeated his theme that the American people are on trial‚ especially the 15 or 20 percent of Republicans who “know better‚” but “cannot bring themselves to ending this‚ to voting against this fascistic force.” Note that in addition to seeking to scaremonger voters‚ Scarborough also trained his tirade at the Biden campaign itself. He demanded to know when the campaign workers will leave the White House and get out on the campaign trail. And Scarborough blasted the campaign for going around singing‚ "Don't Worry‚ Be Happy"—when American democracy is on the line. Joe and Mika prefaced Scarborough's rant by airing a montage of Trump's statements at a recent campaign stop in which he had kind words for autocrats Putin‚ Xi‚ and Kim Jong Un. We don't dig that talk. That helps the Scarboroughs and the Meachams feel superior. But he did have four years in the White House -- and American democracy is still going strong.  Here's a transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 12/18/23 6:04 am ET JOE SCARBOROUGH: It's getting more explicit. It's getting worse. I am still shocked by the clowns who claim to be media critics out there‚ just absolute clowns‚ that‚ that attack the media for reporting this. And some of them say‚ you just don't get it. You don't understand hi connection with the audience. You just have to understand that you're actually helping him by focusing on‚ you know‚ saying he's fascist.  . . .  It's getting more explicit. And the fact that fools that are covering the horse race would somehow attack writers‚ journalists‚ for‚ for recording this‚ and putting it to the readers without an explanation‚ "Oh‚ but he's also talking about economics that they related to‚" seems to somehow -- talk about missing the much bigger point. We're in a fight for American democracy‚ and he's becoming more and more explicit on how he wants to take American democracy down!  . . .  Yeah. Jonathan Lemire‚ let me ask you‚ though‚ you know‚ one year from now‚ it can be over. American democracy can be over. Donald Trump one year from now could win. He's told us what he's going to do. So when I say American democracy is going to be over‚ I haven't said this. Donald Trump's the guy that said it. He's the one talking about executing generals that are not loyal enough to him. Or a guy that's talking about terminating the Constitution if it gets in the way of his power. He's a guy that's talking about taking off news networks that he disagrees with. He's the guy that's talking about prosecuting and putting in jail people who disagree with him. He's the one saying that.  So a year from now‚ it can all be over. The American experiment at an end. [Pounds table] One. Year. From. Now. So let me ask you‚ with that being the case‚ and with Joe Biden's poll numbers getting worse‚ why is the White House going around singing‚ "Don't Worry‚ Be Happy?" Because that's basically what they're saying.  Why does Joe Biden still have all of his campaign people inside the White House? When are they going to go out and start working on the campaign? Not of his lifetime—of our lifetime? When are they going to start acting like American democracy is on the line‚ and stop telling everybody to not worry?

Billboard Chris‚ a man who’s gone viral for opposing sex changes for children‚ spoke with father Adam Vena on Sunday outside of Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest convention. Vena lost custody of his son in California after the child’s mother insisted their two-year-old son was actually a girl. The “grooming started at the age of two" when his son‚ Aiden‚ was still in diapers‚ Vena told Billboard Chris. Vena said he received a text from his son’s mother of the toddler in a pink dress. After he spoke out against the efforts to cross-dress his kid‚ Vena said he was served a temporary restraining order for three years‚ despite there not being any evidence of “abuse or neglect" toward either his son or the boy's mother.  Later‚ a California judge ordered a gender assessment of Aiden when the boy was around four years old. Vena noted that the Powers That Be never went through steps to determine that Aiden was a “girl‚" instead saying they went from “a to z” and “assumed he wanted to be a girl” because he “wanted to wear dresses.” This is Adam Vena. He has lost custody of his son in California‚ because the mother decided the boy was really a girl. At the age of 2. Adam spoke out against this‚ and the authorities consider that abuse. He now has a 5-year restraining order forbidding him from talking to his… pic.twitter.com/VrzGZeKNzr — Billboard Chris 🇨🇦🇺🇸 (@BillboardChris) December 17‚ 2023 In court‚ Aiden is referred to as Vena’s daughter and they use “she/her” pronouns. Vena said the court considered the child “full transgender” at four-years-old.  “I was denied to ask my own questions. I went as far as hiring my own child therapist to sit in on this [gender] assessment. They denied me that. They also denied me a phone call to ask my own questions with the doctor‚” Vena claimed. So his son was being groomed and getting assistance to help "transition" and Vena couldn’t even be present for consultations. Keep in mind‚ most four-year-old kids can’t read‚ can’t swim‚ can’t tie their shoes‚ and still sleep with stuffed animals‚ yet Vena’s son is apparently mature enough to sit alone with a gender specialist to have a conversation about why he feels like a girl!? This is insanity.  Related: Wisconsin Festival of Trees Includes Satanic and LGBTQ Displays “The whole system has been stacked against me‚” Vena said. Billboard Chris summarized‚ “You don’t have to actually abuse your child. You just have to not affirm the delusion and they consider that abuse.” Now‚ Vena has a five-year restraining order against him.  “That’ll put me at eight years completely disconnected from my son‚” Vena told Billboard Chris. “I have missed‚ going on now‚ four Christmases. I still have Christmas gifts sitting at my house. One of my first videos I did on my Instagram was unwrapping his Christmas gifts from three years ago‚” he said‚ adding that opposing council noted that giving Aiden his Christmas gifts was not his mother's “priority.” It seems her priority was driving a wedge between Vena and his son. In the meantime Vena has had no success in getting visitations back. It’s heartbreaking to hear about stories like Vena's‚ who wanted to raise his son in truth but was stripped of that ability because of his science-based opinion that boys can't simply become girls. It’s also heartbreaking to realize that these stories are becoming all too common.  Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke Of The Weak: Leftist Entertainment Isn't All That Entertaining It's Demonic The left is obsessed with sexualizing everything but their gross performances are anything but sexy. pic.twitter.com/UWxVz02aPy — MRCTV (@mrctv) December 13‚ 2023

Monday morning on the big three broadcast networks brought more regularly scheduled Trump derangement‚ as anchors and reporters alike worked themselves into a frenzy over comments the former President had made at a New Hampshire campaign rally. At issue were some particularly spicy remarks Trump had made during a campaign stop in Durham‚ New Hampshire: They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done. They’ve poisoned mental institutions and prisons all over the world — not just in South America… They’re coming into our country from Africa‚ from Asia‚ all over the world. The media’s reaction looked exactly like what you’re probably imagining.     On ABC’s Good Morning America‚ congressional correspondent Rachel Scott accused Trump of “ramping up his attacks on immigrants‚ using phrases that have clear ties to white supremacy and Hitler.” Scott laid into Trump with the intensity of a grumpy hall monitor: “The former President also praising dictators. At one point invoking Russian President Vladimir Putin‚ using quotes from a top U.S. adversary to attack President Biden.” The gang on NBC’s Today were more measured‚ with senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez describing Trump’s words merely as “controversial comments about undocumented immigrants.” Gutierrez stopped short of making his own Hitler reference‚ instead leaving that dirty work to President Biden: “The Biden Campaign accusing Trump of parroting Adolf Hitler‚ who used similar wording in his writings.” He added huffily: “But only one of Trump’s Republican rivals have blasted him for the remark.” That rival was Chris Christie‚ who called Trump “disgusting” the day after the rally on CNN’s State of the Union. All three broadcast networks made sure to play Christie’s rebuke of the former President. Meanwhile on CBS Mornings‚ co-anchor Gayle King and senior White House correspondent Ed O’Keefe lamented that more Republican candidates hadn’t generated similar anti-Trump sound bites for them to use: ED O’KEEFE: Beyond Chris Christie‚ though‚ haven’t seen as much criticism from fellow Republicans. And again‚ you look at those [polling] numbers‚ you can understand. If you’re stuck in a contest with him where you’re trying to win over his supporters even though he’s ahead by so much‚ it’d be hard to go after him even over something like this. That’s crass politics for you‚ Gayle. GAYLE KING: Yeah‚ they say politics is a bloodsport. A lot of people are bleeding. It’s a shame our Alex Christy couldn’t predict the future and extend his study of Nazi analogies into December‚ because these morning shows on Monday would have really juiced those numbers.

Washington Week with The Atlantic‚ public television’s tax-funded weekly political roundtable which they tout as "objective" and "known for its depth‚ balance‚ and civil discourse‚" offered no balance as all the liberal journalists went along 100 percent with the Democrat narrative on the Biden impeachment inquiry officially launched last week.  Friday's panel treated the House Republican initiative with mockery and contempt. Guest host Franklin Foer of The Atlantic magazine -- who recently said Biden's media treatment is too tough -- held up a Democratic House member’s snarky dismissal of the move as a wise summary. Foer: But let's get to the substance‚ because this week‚ Congressman Jamie Raskin said‚ this isn't a whodunit‚ it is -- this is a what is it? So‚ the question is‚ Steve‚ what is it? Steve Inskeep‚ Co-Host‚ NPR's Morning Edition: I think it's a fair question. If you look at four other presidential impeachments‚ you can say in each case that the president of the United States definitely did something‚ and then you could debate whether it was impeachable or convictable….In each case‚ there was an act by a sitting president that was at the center of the debate. In this case‚ it's an impeachment inquiry to find out if Joe Biden may have done something while he was not president…. Inskeep somehow skipped the significant fact that Joe Biden was Vice President from 2009-2017‚ part of the presidential team. ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl‚ aka the “three-time anti-Trump author‚” as we know him at NewsBusters‚ was blunt in his mockery. Karl: Well‚ first of all‚ because I think that there's a question of what's actually there‚ and there is nothing there. Foer: It's kind of the Seinfeld of impeachment votes‚ an impeachment vote about nothing? Karl: What are they doing? They've identified that Hunter Biden did some shady things. He certainly profited off his name. He got money. He got foreign money for business dealings. He did a lot of questionable things‚ and he was close to his father. And he did have dinner with his father at Cafe Milano at one point. Foer (sarcasm): High crime and misdemeanor‚ that. [Laughter] Karl:  But‚ I mean‚ I just don't see it going anywhere…. Karl and Foer are intentionally obscuring the point that Joe Biden met with Hunter Biden's foreign clients at that restaurant -- something Joe Biden denies‚ that he had no such "interactions." Later‚ Karl took the sentimental approach‚ giving Hunter Biden perverse credibility for his embarrassingly graphic autobiography. Karl: ….[President Biden] loves his son. He's close with his son. They talk all the time now‚ as you might expect. Look‚ Hunter -- it's such a tragic case. If you read Hunter Biden's very forthcoming biography‚ autobiography‚ that he wrote‚ really a memoir of his addiction that came out just months after Biden became president‚ it goes into incredibly lurid detail about his descent into addiction. And‚ I mean‚ this is a guy who came close to dying. In some ways‚ it's amazing that he survived it. And‚ you know‚ his father will do anything to stop from losing another son. Karl’s sympathy rounds continued‚ sounding passionate. Karl: And Hunter Biden wants to fight back against this‚ he believes that he has been‚ he and the people around him believe that he has been a victim of a political‚ you know‚ hit job. He acknowledges he's made all these mistakes. He acknowledged what you heard him acknowledge there in terms of his taxes. He was ready to plead guilty in a plea deal. Now that that's off‚ he wants to fight back and wants to fight back against the people who he believes‚ with very good reason‚ are going after him because the real target is his father…. This sentimental pro-Biden segment has been brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular‚ and taxpayers like you. A transcript is available‚ click “Expand.” PBS Washington Week with The Atlantic 12/15/23 8:03:17 p.m. (ET) Host Franklin Foer: Asma‚ I wanted to start with impeachment. Why now? What's the political imperative driving this forward? Asma Khalid‚ White House Correspondent‚ NPR: I mean‚ the why now is an excellent question‚ in part because Republicans‚ at least some Republicans in Congress‚ had been talking and investigating impeachment charges for a long time. Ultimately‚ I think what they were looking for was greater legitimacy. There were concerns from the White House that you don't have an official impeachment inquiry. Now‚ you're seeing House Republicans say‚ well‚ we have the official legitimacy to do this. But I also think that there is a political calculation here that Republicans want to muddy the waters. On the other side‚ they have a man who is most likely to be their nominee in Donald Trump‚ who is facing multiple charges. And I will say that there has long been a desire from some Republicans to just muddy the waters‚ make things confusing for voters. We've had polling‚ other outlets have had polling that suggest it is working. And a percentage of the population does think‚ in fact‚ some of our polling at NPR showed a majority of the electorate surveyed felt that President Biden had done something unethical in relation to his son's behavior. Largely‚ that's along partisan lines‚ but not exclusively. Foer: But let's get to the substance‚ because this week‚ Congressman Jamie Raskin said‚ this isn't a who done it‚ it is - this is a what is it? So‚ the question is‚ Steve‚ what is it? Steve Inskeep‚ Co-Host‚ NPR's Morning Edition: I think it's a fair question. If you look at four other presidential impeachments‚ you can say in each case that the president of the United States definitely did something‚ and then you could debate whether it was impeachable or convictable. Andrew Johnson fired a cabinet member in a way that he wasn’t supposed to‚ supposedly. Bill Clinton lied under oath. Donald Trump had the perfect phone call to Ukraine‚ as he called it‚ and then‚ of course‚ January 6th‚ the fourth impeachment. In each case‚ there was an act by a sitting president that was at the center of the debate. In this case‚ it's an impeachment inquiry to find out if Joe Biden may have done something while he was not president. There's not nothing there‚ because Hunter Biden and Biden's brother‚ James‚ and other people around Biden have been said to cash in on his name. And they certainly have had a lot of business dealings‚ some of which have gone wrong or been suspicious in some way‚ but Republicans have yet to connect it to the president. And when you go on the Oversight Committee's website‚ and they put a timeline there‚ which goes all the way to 2023‚ but there are no acts by Biden during his presidency in their own timeline. Jonathan Karl‚ Chief Washington Correspondent‚ ABC News: I mean‚ the astounding thing is they got every single Republican to vote to launch this inquiry. Now‚ look‚ he's not going to be impeached. I really don't see that happening with this narrow a margin. There are enough Republicans who have said that they're doing this simply to give the Congress the tools they need to investigate‚ to put some muscle behind the subpoena power‚ to allow them to investigate‚ which is a strange bar for an impeachment inquiry. As Steve points out‚ this is not in keeping with how impeachment has been used‚ but they got every single Republicans‚ including those‚ and there are a handful of them who are on the record saying‚ look‚ I don't see anything. Franklin Foer: But just keep going with that‚ because everybody thought a month ago or two months ago that they would struggle to bring along these Biden district Republicans‚ and yet they've gone along with this. Why do you think that they won't ultimately go along with an impeachment vote? Jonathan Karl: Well‚ first of all‚ because I think that there's a question of what's actually there‚ and there is nothing there. Franklin Foer: It's kind of the Seinfeld of impeachment votes‚ impeachment vote about nothing. Jonathan Karl: What are they doing? They've identified that Hunter Biden did some shady things. He certainly profited off his name. He got money. He got foreign money for business dealings. He did a lot of questionable things‚ and he was close to his father. And he did have dinner with his father at Cafe Milano at one point. Franklin Foer: High crime and misdemeanor‚ that. Jonathan Karl: But‚ I mean‚ I just don't see it going anywhere. And I think it -- look‚ Trump has been pushing for this from the beginning. I mean‚ Marjorie Taylor Greene is close to Trump as anybody in Congress‚ filed the first impeachment resolution the day that Biden got sworn in as president. And Troy Nehls and other Republicans made the point‚ we really need to do this so that we can show that it's not just Donald Trump who was impeached. I mean‚ it's nakedly political here. Franklin Foer: Yes‚ I'm old enough to remember the Clinton impeachment. I'm guessing some of you are too. And that felt like an event. That was something that was extraordinary. It felt historic. And now impeachment is -- they're like the cherry blossoms. They're just part of the Washington -- Asma Khalid: Every season. Franklin Foer: Yes‚ exactly. Jonathan Karl: Yes. I mean‚ you remember they brought the Starr report to the steps of the House‚ unloaded all the boxes of evidence‚ and then the impeachment inquiry started. I mean‚ it was a big deal. This is -- Steve Inskeep: There's still time. They'll work on it. They'll work on it. They'll work on it. Franklin Foer: But what does it mean as a means of constitutional redress that impeachment is just part of this ritual of trying to embarrass your political opponents? Does that mean that it's just been defanged as a way of curbing presidential power? Steve Inskeep: Well‚ it wasn't a very easy tool to use to begin with. We are in a strange environment where it is hard to see -- I mean‚ I don't understand how the tool would work at all. And it hasn't been used to remove a president. It's not about to be used to remove a president‚ and I think you're right on these terms‚ no. Jonathan Karl: I mean‚ we hit a real high watermark with the second Trump impeachment‚ the trial in the Senate‚ where you actually had seven members of the president's party vote to impeach him. It was only the second time that you had seen a member of the president's party vote to convict in a Senate trial. The first time was Trump's first impeachment. That was just one vote‚ though. Steve Inskeep: Mitch McConnell famously said impeachment is a political process and the conviction‚ the trial is a political question‚ not a legal question‚ and that has played out at least in the way that people have cast their votes. Franklin Foer: So‚ one of the central characters in this saga‚ Hunter Biden‚ meandered onto Capitol Hill this week. And since he doesn't make very many public appearances‚ it's worth listening to what he had to say. Hunter Biden: There's no evidence to support the allegations that my father was financially involved in my business because it did not happen. Franklin Foer: Asma‚ what do you think President Biden is thinking when he watches a clip like that? Asma Khalid: I have absolutely no clue. But what I will say is that the White House has been very eager to never touch any questions as they relate to Hunter Biden‚ whether they were about Hunter Biden's artwork‚ whether they're now about this‚ any questions‚ they don't. What I will also say‚ though‚ is that they often routinely tell us in the White House is that‚ you know‚ the president loves his son very much. This is a man who has long struggled with addiction‚ and‚ look‚ it's his only surviving son. And so I think many of us would say there's this constant tussle between what you emotionally want to do for your child. That being said‚ this is a different dynamic and that this is the president of the United States and anything his son does is going to get a lot of attention. Jonathan Karl: And the White House has kind of‚ they have been very careful not to really say anything‚ but for a while they were saying that Joe Biden had no knowledge of his president's business dealings. And then well-known now‚ he wasn't involved in his president's dealings. I mean‚ he clearly had knowledge. He loves his son. He's close with his son. They talk all the time now‚ as you might expect. Look‚ Hunter -- it's such a tragic case. If you read Hunter Biden's very forthcoming biography‚ autobiography‚ that he wrote‚ really a memoir of his addiction that came out just months after Biden became president‚ it goes into incredibly lurid detail about his descent into addiction. And‚ I mean‚ this is a guy who came close to dying. In some ways‚ it's amazing that he survived it. And‚ you know‚ his father will do anything to stop him losing another son. Franklin Foer: There's so much scar tissue‚ there's so much guilt there‚ and I'm sure it complicates the way that they‚ the White House‚ more specifically the president‚ deals with this Hunter Biden thing‚ which just continues to loom over things. Steve Inskeep:  Well‚ it is a strange thing to reflect that the most recent revelation by the Oversight Committee appears to have been payments between father and son‚ because Joe Biden‚ prior to being president‚ helped him make car payments and then was being repaid by Hunter. So‚ where did he get the money? But this is a kind of tragic example of what you're saying. This is a difficult family relationship with a guy who had a very difficult time‚ as opposed to something the president did as president. Asma Khalid: I will say‚ though‚ as tragic as it is‚ I think from really like an emotional family perspective‚ it is nonetheless a political liability‚ right? I mean‚ the president doesn't want to be discussing his son. He doesn't want any of this. No Democrat that I've spoken to really wants to see this play out ahead as we move into the final election. Franklin Foer: And you read these reports in Politico and other places that the White House would like to take a different approach than the one that Hunter Biden is taking‚ but the president has an exceedingly hard time making that case‚ and he doesn't really want to hear that case. Jonathan Karl: And Hunter Biden wants to fight back against this‚ he believes that he has been‚ he and the people around him believe that he has been a victim of a political‚ you know‚ hit job. He acknowledges he's made all these mistakes. He acknowledged what you heard him acknowledge there in terms of his taxes. He was ready to plead guilty‚ you know‚ in a plea deal. Now‚ that that's off‚ he wants to fight back and wants to fight back against the people who he believes‚ with very good reason‚ are going after him because the real target is his father. That said‚ he is now facing felony charges on his failure to pay taxes‚ felony charges that will -- you know‚ we will see play out amidst the presidential campaign just as we're going to see‚ you know‚ felony charges against Donald Trump. Franklin Foer: Is there anything they can do to diffuse this? Because as Asma says‚ it's stuck‚ that there -- Asma Khalid: It’s muddying the waters. And one thing I will say is that while it was certainly‚ and Hunter says‚ right‚ and this is -- you hear from a lot of Democrats‚ is that it's being put forward to sort of poison the atmosphere and go after the president. I will also say that more than once‚ on two different occasions‚ I have met younger voters of color who specifically cited to me Hunter's situation in saying that they felt like he was not being treated as fairly as some other. I mean‚ one young woman I met at the NAACP convention over the summer said there are so many young black men in jail‚ why should he get a pardon? Why should he get a pass? Which I think is an interesting observation of how some of this is percolating down even into fragments of the Democratic Party. Jonathan Karl: I mean‚ it's really interesting‚ because the talking point from Biden's allies‚ from Hunter Biden's allies is‚ if his name weren't Biden‚ he wouldn't be prosecuted for this. He's being prosecuted for failure to pay taxes‚ taxes that he ultimately paid with interest plus penalties. So that's a good point. That's not usually charged. Then‚ again‚ he wouldn't have been making millions of dollars in these foreign ventures if his name wasn't Biden either.