Behind the Scenes, Democrats Are Freaking Out About Joe Biden

One of the most prominent features of supermassive black holes that are actively feeding is a jet of plasma. The jet can move at almost the speed of light and extend for many millions of light-years in some cases. New research shows that the jets are not stuck in place, but they can in fact change direction, sometimes even wildly.Researchers combined observations in X-rays and radio waves to spot potential changes in the directions of the jets. The fact that a change might happen is not an obvious fact. Once a black hole is accreting, it can release these powerful jets. The material falling into a black hole will arrange itself into a disk around it. The jets are influenced by the black hole's spin and direction, but not always.The spin itself is difficult to estimate – a brand new approach used a destroyed star – but depending on the size of the disk, the direction of the jet might not align itself with the rotation of the black hole, meaning it can change significantly. In the 16 cases observed by the team, there was significant variation.The old cavities and the current jets int his x-ray and radio images.Image credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ. of Bologna/F. Ubertosi; Insets Radio: NSF/NRAO/VLBA; Wide field Image: Optical/IR: Univ. of Hawaii/Pan-STARRS; Image Processing: NASA/CXC/SAO/N. WolkThe radio observations are more detailed and can be used to work out the current direction of the jet. The X-ray observations are not as detailed, focusing on an area about 30 times wider, but they are crucial because they look at hot gas extending hundreds of light-years around the galaxy hosting the supermassive black hole. Researchers can see cavities in that gas that the jets carved millions of years ago. If the cavities are in a different direction, the jet must have moved.And some have moved significantly. The comparison between the X-ray observations from NASA’s Chandra and the radio images from the Very Large Baseline Array (VLBA) show that the beams of galaxy Abell 478 changed direction by about 35 degrees. The ones of galaxy NGC 5044 changed direction by about 70 degrees.“We found that about a third of the beams are now pointing in completely different directions than before,” lead author Francesco Ubertosi of the University of Bologna, said in a statement. “These Death Star black holes are swiveling around and pointing at new targets, like the fictional space station in Star Wars.”There are some that changed direction by almost 90 degrees, and they did so in between one to 10 million years. Given that these objects are 10 billion years old (10,000 million years), this is a very quick change.“These galaxies are too distant to tell if the beams from the Death Star black holes are damaging stars and their planets, but we are confident they are preventing many stars and planets from forming in the first place,” said co-author Ewan O’Sullivan, of the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard & Smithsonian.The study is published in The Astrophysical Journal.

Along with bonobos, chimpanzees are humanity’s closest living relatives, with a genome that is strikingly similar to our own. Yet chimps don’t drive cars, speak Danish, or play the clarinet, so if we’re so genetically alike, how can we be so different in our appearance and behavior?How similar are we really?Humans and chimpanzees are thought to have split from a common ancestor around six million years ago, which is pretty recent in evolutionary terms. In the mid-noughties, scientists succeeded in sequencing the genome of a chimp named Clint, revealing that, in absolute terms, the species’ genetic code is 96 percent identical to ours.However, much of this difference is accounted for by duplication, whereby sections of the genome are simply repeated in one species but not the other. In terms of actual genes, though, we’re 98.8 percent alike, meaning only 1.2 percent of our genetic code is not found in chimpanzees.That doesn’t sound like much, but when you consider that the human genome consists of around three billion base pairs – or bits of genetic information – then this small percentage adds up to around 35 million discrepancies between the two species.Where are the differences?Many of the differences between the human and chimp genomes can be found in regions that account for transcription factors, which act like genetic switches that tell different genes when to become activated and when to remain dormant. In other words, much of our human-ness has nothing to do with genes that are specific to our species, but is attributable to the fact that the genes we share with chimps are expressed in a unique way.For instance, the genes that code for the neurons in each of our brain regions are pretty much the same as those that are found in chimpanzees, but their pattern of activation ensures we develop more of these cells – and therefore larger brains – than other primates. All that separates us is a small section of the genome that controls the degree of cell division within the nervous system, rather than the actual genes that code for the creation of different neurons.In this way, genomes that appear almost identical can produce wildly different phenotypic characteristics. The genes can be the same, but subtle differences within the parts of the genome that control gene expression can totally transform the end product.Human genesScientists are still sifting through the data to try and figure out exactly how the 1.2 percent of our genome that is uniquely human actually works. So far, they’ve managed to identify certain sections that appear to code for particular characteristics.For example, a gene called ASPM is likely to be related to neurogenesis and brain size in humans, while another called FOXP2 may be associated with speech development. Yet another, called KRTHAP1, influences the pattern of keratin expression in the human hair follicle and may therefore account for differences between our hair and that of our more hirsute apelike relatives.Many of the genes we don’t share with chimpanzees are related to immune function and result in significant differences in disease susceptibility. For instance, chimps are resistant to malaria and certain flu viruses that we humans struggle with, although we’re better at dealing with tuberculosis.Looking at the bigger picture, the minor differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes are a perfect demonstration of the wonderful economy of DNA: rather than requiring a complete re-draft of the code to create a new species, all it takes is a few minor tweaks and you’ve transformed a chimp into a person.

Astronaut training is pretty rigorous, involving trips to neutral buoyancy labs to simulate to simulate microgravity environments, and learning how to operate and maintain space station modules. But, according to former NASA astronaut José Moreno Hernández, there is another, less talked about training session: the pee and poop module – and it comes with its own fairly disgusting exam.During the early days of the Apollo missions, NASA didn't think about peeing and pooping too much. When the first American man went into space, they made no plans at all for if he needed the bathroom. The trip was only supposed to be short, so they figured he'd be able to hold it. However, due to delays prior to launch, he ended up having to wait on the launchpad for hours and ended up having to pee himself.For longer space trips, NASA had to figure out a better system. Before Apollo 12, the main way astronauts went to the toilet was into collection bags. For peeing, this involved inserting your penis into a tube with a rubber, condom-like end. This had its own problems in that the sheaths would often fly off in space, largely due to a sizing problem.For pooping, astronauts would take a fecal bag and use a "finger cot" to position it over the anus.For excursions outside of the spacecraft, astronauts would have to use the fecal containment system (FCS), which is a "pair of underpants of absorbent material worn under the liquid cooling garment." This is a fancy way of saying that when man first walked on the Moon he was wearing a diaper. Thankfully, the toilet situation has moved on somewhat since the early days – at least inside spacecraft – not least because they had to adapt to accommodate female astronauts, for whom a sheath would be somewhat impractical. Now they have an advanced bathroom facility on the ISS. The latest space toilet technology costs a whopping $23 million, in fact.The problem is that in the microgravity environment on the ISS, liquids and solids tend to float where they are without another external force acting upon them. This is a particularly annoying problem when those solids are poop and pee. Gravity on Earth directs pee and poo into the toilet, where it rests until we send it on its final journey. In space, that doesn't happen, so pee and poo need to be guided by air flow.In short, you get a vacuum hose for your pee – but for your poop, you only have a small area to aim into, as creating a normal-sized toilet opening would require too-large of a motor in order to power the airflow. Commander Chris Cassidy explains in the below video how the systems work. "You better have good aim," astronaut José Moreno Hernández told Metro of the toilets. They take some getting used to, with the astronauts required to practice before they go to space."And I kid you not, there’s a class – we take potty 101," Hernández added. "You take a class on going to the restroom and they won’t check you off until you can do a number one and number two."To get to the ISS, there are many requirements. But all must pass the poop test.

The JWST has looked further into the universe than we have ever seen before, discovering a galaxy as it appeared just 330 million years after the Big Bang.Looking this far back into the universe has yielded a few surprises, including those eerily big black holes that keep appearing, confounding our theories about how black holes form. Supermassive black holes we see in the nearer (more recent) universe are, as the name would suggest, pretty big. Cosmologists would like to know how these supermassive black holes, which are found at the center of most (but not all) galaxies, came to be such a large size.     There have been a number of theories, including mergers of black holes, and that the black holes grew through feeding. These early black holes appear to be too large to be explained by these ideas, and much larger than cosmologists had been expecting in comparison to the galaxies surrounding them."Overall, we see that black holes in the young galaxies observed by JWST are about 10 to 100 times more massive than the scaling relation in the local universe predicts," Xiaohui Fan, a professor at the University of Arizona and co-author of a study on these oversized black holes, said in a statement. "The ratio of stellar mass to black hole mass in early galaxies was much lower back then, more than a dozen billion years ago, compared to now. This result has important implications for the study of the first population of black holes."Another idea, which is perhaps becoming more likely to be true in light of recent observations, is "direct collapse" or "heavy seed" black holes. Usually, to get a stellar mass black hole (in the current age of the universe), a star undergoes collapse."A stellar-mass black hole forms when a star with more than 20 solar masses exhausts the nuclear fuel in its core and collapses under its own weight," NASA explains. "The collapse triggers a supernova explosion that blows off the star’s outer layers. But if the crushed core contains more than about three times the Sun’s mass, no known force can stop its collapse to a black hole."With heavy seed black holes the idea is that supermassive black holes would have started out at around 10,000 to 100,000 solar masses, through the direct gravitational collapse of gigantic gas clouds, without an intermediate stellar phase. There are a few things that could make this scenario unlikely too. The gas cloud would need to collapse without fragmenting and forming clumps as it does so, though astronomers have suggested that this could be prevented if the cloud is heated by nearby young stars in pre-galactic gas disks, or if the gas cloud was moving at supersonic speeds in "flows" in the early universe, allowing them to grow for longer, until the gravity is sufficient to start the cloud's collapse into a seed black hole.One team has already claimed to have seen some evidence for a direct collapse hole in observations on galaxy UHZ1, showing that the black hole is too oversized for the galaxy surrounding it, and too early for the black hole to have formed by stellar collapse and mergers – but, it is still far too early to confirm direct collapse black holes. Hopefully further observations will help clear up the mystery of how our current supermassive black holes formed, and whether they formed from light or heavy seeds. 

If you’re looking for an example of when nature well and truly said “let’s fuck around and find out”, look no further than the extinct reptile Longisquama, potentially one of the most ridiculous-looking animals to have ever lived.This peculiar creature was discovered in the Madygen Formation, a geological formation found in the south of Kyrgyzstan and home to a vast array of fossils from the Triassic period.There, a team of palaeontologists led by Aleksandr G. Sharov found an incomplete skeleton and imprints of soft tissue belonging to what they dubbed Longisquama insignis, the only member of a genus of reptiles believed to have lived in the Early Triassic just before the appearance of dinosaurs.While the skeleton and imprints showed that Longisquama was only about 5 centimeters (2 inches) long, it also revealed that what the little guy lacked in length, it more than made up for in decoration. Stretching up from along its back could be found a series of comically long, hockey stick-shaped appendages.The imprints of Longisquama's unusual appendages.Image credit: Oregon State University via Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)But surprisingly, it’s not what Longisquama looked like that makes it controversial in the scientific community – it’s what those big ol’ hockey sticks were actually made of and the potential consequences of that.It’s a common belief among palaeontologists that the first appearance of feathers was in the dinosaurs; the presence of feathered dinosaurs in the fossil record and modern-day birds is evidence of that. In that case, one of the best candidates for the origin of feathers is Archaeopteryx.But some researchers think that Longisquama’s bizarre appendages were feather-like structures. In a study from 2000, Terry D. Jones and colleagues concluded that the appendages were not avian but “resembled avian feathers in many details” and were likely homologous – to have shared ancestry – to them.Seeing as Longisquama was estimated to be kicking about before the dinosaurs, that could throw something of a spanner in the working theory – though the study authors were careful to say that the relationship between the extinct reptile and birds is “uncertain”. In other words, while some birds might look pretty odd, they’re not necessarily descended from Longisquama rather than dinosaurs.Other scientists hit back at the suggestion. “The dorsal scales of Longisquama are not feathers, […] they are in fact strikingly different from avian feathers. We conclude that Archaeopteryx remains the oldest known feathered tetrapod,” wrote palaeontologists Robert R. Reisz and Hans-Dieter Sues in a later article.And then there are those who found a middle ground, with a 2012 study proposing that Longisquama didn’t necessarily have feathers as we might know them, but there were some structural similarities. Some of the genes involved in the development of these structures may have been the same ones that later gave rise to feathers.Despite the back and forth, unless scientists manage to bring Longisquama back from the dead, we’re probably never going to know the true nature of its extravagant appendages, or exactly what their purpose was.They’re not exactly the most inconspicuous, so we can’t imagine they’d be particularly handy when it comes to staying out of predators’ sight – but hey, if you’re gonna go extinct, it might as well be because you looked fabulous.

The first English colonizers to settle in North America were forced to eat dogs during an intense period of hardship, as shown by new archaeological discoveries. The grisly remains of this mini-famine also show how canine companions provide a unique insight into the power dynamics between European settlers and Indigenous peoples.In a new study, researchers looked at the genetic ancestry of dogs in the Jamestown colony during the early 17th century to reveal new insights into early colonial America. They found skeletal evidence of six dogs that had been butchered and consumed by the settlers of Jamestown. However, it’s safe to say this culinary choice was made out of necessity. The research highlights a period known as the Starving Time, around the winter of 1609-1610. Wracked by harsh weather, violence with neighboring tribes, poor harvests, and lack of supplies, the Jamestown colony came very close to collapse due to severe starvation. The dogs, it seems, were consumed simply because there was nothing else to eat. “Although the consumption of dog flesh in modern Western societies is considered taboo, there is a long history of eating dogs during periods of stress in England and other parts of Europe. This behavior meant that the occupants of Jamestown acted like other early Spanish, English, and French colonists who consumed dog flesh in times of need,” the study authors write. Genetic analysis of the bones suggests that European settlers were consuming dogs with strong Indigenous North American ancestry. The six butchered dogs found at Jamestown had genetic similarities with Hopewellian, Mississippian, and Late Woodland period dogs from eastern North America.This raises some interesting questions. It’s known that Europeans brought dogs to the Americas for a variety of tasks, like catching pests, herding animals, and physical protection. It's also assumed they were deeply invested in the purity of their dog breeds and maintained the different breeds for separate tasks. However, these results suggest that the European dogs and Indigenous dogs were rampantly interbreeding with each other. Perhaps this was the result of trade between Jamestown colonists and local Native Virginian groups, or maybe it suggests Native people resided within James Fort in the early occupation of the colony (before the relationship turned sour). Either way, the findings show "the colonists and Tsenacomocoans likely had little concern for possible interbreeding between these dogs and English dogs," the researchers suggest. “The ancestry of the Jamestown dogs provides insight into European and Indigenous management of their dogs. Dogs with ancestry predominantly from Europe suggests that either British, Powhatan, or both groups kept their dogs from interacting with each other to maintain specific behaviours or observable phenotypes important to that group,” Ariane E. Thomas, lead researcher and a PhD candidate at the University of Iowa’s Department of Anthropology, said in a statement.“However, a high proportion of Indigenous dog ancestry suggests a more complex engagement between the British and Powhatan peoples at Jamestown and less emphasis on maintaining the separation between dogs and their association with settlers. Identifying Indigenous dogs at Jamestown suggests this second, more complex dynamic is more representative of history,” explained Thomas.Ultimately though, the Indigenous American dogs were outbred by the European dogs. Other genetic research has shown the “near-complete replacement” of maternal Indigenous dog ancestry by European dog lineages during the colonial period of America. “Like other archaeological research that ignores the multifaceted nature of Indigenous presence and persistence within the ongoing context of colonialism, the loss of Indigenous dogs is an under-explored issue of colonial impacts in the Americas,” the authors write.The study is published in the journal American Antiquity.

Since late January of 2012, the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard has once a week featured a “Mainstream Media Scream” selection in his “Washington Secrets” column. For each pick, usually posted online on Monday, I provide an explanation and recommend a “scream” rating (scale of one to five). This post contains the “Liberal Media Screams” starting in January 2023. > For 2021 and 2022, for all of 2020. For all of 2019. For all of  2018. (Re-named “Liberal Media Scream” as of June 11, 2018.) “Mainstream Media Screams” for: > July-December 2017 posts; January through June 2017; July to December 2016; for January to June 2016; for July to December 2015; for January to June 2015. (2012-2014 are featured on MRC.org: For 2014; for June 17, 2013 through the end of 2013. And for January 31, 2012 through June 11, 2013.) Check Bedard’s “Washington Secrets” blog for the latest choice and his other Washington insider posts. Each week, this page will be updated with Bedard’s latest example of the worst bias of the week. (For more of the worst liberal media bias, browse the Media Research Center's Notable Quotables with compilations of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media.)   ■ New on May 27: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC regular cites Clarence Thomas’s white wife in racist rant See the posting on the Washington Examiner's site where you can watch the video and read Baker's assessment. A week later, Bedard's article will be posted here.   ■ May 20: No Liberal Media Scream this week.   ■ May 13: Liberal Media Scream: Networks shamefully use Reagan to defend Biden (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features all three network Sunday public affairs shows going to bat for President Joe Biden’s betrayal of Israel for largely political reasons by suggesting he was just following a pattern set by former President Ronald Reagan. “Historians would say, ‘Why is it OK for Reagan to do it and not President Biden?'” NBC’s Kristen Welker said in a key example of the effort. At issue was Biden’s flip-flop to hold back weaponry Israel needs to push its effort to rid Hamas from Gaza after the terrorists shocked the world with brutal attacks on Israeli women, children, and troops last October. Biden’s move came in response to campus protests by pro-Hamas protesters. The network talk shows noted that Reagan also played hardball with Israel but typically for more diplomatic reasons than domestic politics. What’s more, as Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) noted, nobody ever questioned whether Reagan had Israel’s back in facing down Arab enemies. From the May 12 ABC, NBC, and CBS Sunday morning interview shows: — ABC’s This Week host Martha Raddatz to Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX): You regularly invoke former President Ronald Reagan. You heard Sen. Coons bring up the fact he paused weapons to Israel as well. You constantly ask yourself, ‘What would Ronald Reagan do?’ That’s what Ronald Reagan did. — NBC’s Meet the Press host Kristen Welker to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): President Biden is not the first president to use arms shipments to try to influence Israeli policy. As you know, former President Ronald Reagan, on multiple occasions, withheld weapons to impact Israel’s military actions. Did President Reagan show that using U.S. military aid as leverage can actually be an effective way to rein in and impact Israel’s policy?… GRAHAM: The Republican Party is with Israel, without apology. WELKER: Well, historians would say, ‘Why is it OK for Reagan to do it and not President Biden?‘ — CBS’s Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR): You know that past presidents have withheld military aid to Israel to force changes in behavior. President Reagan did that. President Bush did that. Why do you have a problem with President Biden doing it? COTTON: Ronald Reagan’s decision to pause the delivery of fighter jets in the 1980s was totally different from what’s happened here. Israel is fighting a war of survival against a terrorist group that committed the worst atrocity against Jews since World War II. In the 1980s, an Israeli ambassador had been targeted for assassination. Ronald Reagan knew the pause of fighter jets would not interfere with Israel’s fighting because they had plenty of fighters. He did not pause munitions. Joe Biden is not sending munitions in the middle of a shooting war that’s a war of survival. And look at the broader context. Israel knew that Ronald Reagan had its back in the region. He sank half of Iran’s navy. Joe Biden has consistently given Iran hundreds of billions of dollars of sanctions relief that exactly funded groups like Hamas. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “The sudden respect for the policies of Ronald Reagan from members of the Washington press corps, who are normally disdainful toward him, is remarkable. It makes one think they all got a talking points memo from Biden campaign allies and are repeating them to challenge their Republican guests.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ May 6: Liberal Media Scream: ABC’s Karl cries wolf with DEFCON 1 Trump warning (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features another breathless election warning from another ABC News Trump critic, Jonathan Karl. A week after This Week host George Stephanopoulos practically seized up over the possibility of former President Donald Trump returning to power, as many voters want, fill-in Karl spun the election as the most important ever on Sunday. “No more crying wolf. This is it,” he said. With six months before the election, let’s hope the New York City Fire Department starts parking an ambulance at ABC News headquarters in case one of the news readers passes out in warning America whom to vote for. Karl, at the top on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: “Good morning. Welcome to This Week. For as long as I’ve covered politics, politicians have said, ‘This will be the most important election of our lifetimes.’ They said that no matter how high or low the stakes actually were. Election Day 2024 is exactly six months from today, and this time, the divisions in our country are so vast and the choice so stark there’s little doubt this really is the most important election of our time. No more crying wolf. This is it.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “The election is six months away, and the top anchors for ABC News are already building themselves into a lather of outrage, lecturing their viewers on who they better not vote for — or else. One wonders how out of control they will become as the election grows closer, especially if polls continue to show Donald Trump in the lead. They’re passing DEFCON 2. Once they hit DEFCON 1, what’s next?” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 29: Liberal Media Scream: Could you cry more, George Stephanopoulos? (Washington Examiner post) For years, George Stephanopoulos ran block and worse for former President Bill Clinton. First, it was Gennifer Flowers, and then Travelgate and Whitewater. Multiple other scandals followed. His boss got away with most and didn’t face the music until he was finally impeached for lying about the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. But on Sunday, in an editorial to lead off his ABC Sunday talk show, the former Clinton spokesman ripped into former President Donald Trump, who is facing several court cases for what some legal analysts see as political attacks. That every move Trump makes is hit by the media or added to his legal troubles isn’t enough for Stephanopoulos. Instead, and the reason he’s our feature for this week’s Liberal Media Scream, he wants Trump treated differently, claiming that the former president has pushed the nation to the brink of civil war despite now being the candidate most people want to win in November, according to CNN. “It’s all too easy to fall into reflective habits, to treat this as a normal campaign where both sides embrace the rule of law, where both sides are dedicated to a debate based on facts and the peaceful transfer of power,” he lectured on Sunday. “But that is not what’s happening this election year. Those bedrock tenets of our democracy are being tested in a way we haven’t seen since the Civil War. It’s a test for the candidates, for those of us in the media, and for all of us as citizens,” he added. From Sunday’s This Week on ABC: Good morning, and welcome to This Week. Until now, no American president had ever faced a criminal trial. No American president had ever faced a federal indictment for retaining and concealing classified documents. No American president had ever faced a federal indictment or a state indictment for trying to overturn an election or been named an unindicted co-conspirator in two other states for the same crime. No American president ever faced hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments for business fraud, defamation, and sexual abuse. Until now, no American presidential race had been more defined on what’s happening in courtrooms than what’s happening on the campaign trail — until now. The scale of the abnormality is so staggering that it can actually become numbing. It’s all too easy to fall into reflective habits, to treat this as a normal campaign where both sides embrace the rule of law, where both sides are dedicated to a debate based on facts and the peaceful transfer of power. But that is not what’s happening this election year. Those bedrock tenets of our democracy are being tested in a way we haven’t seen since the Civil War. It’s a test for the candidates, for those of us in the media, and for all of us as citizens. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Speaking of tests, George Stephanopoulos has failed the journalism test. He seems quite proud of it and likely speaks for all too many in the news media who think they have the moral superiority to declare Trump voters not only misguided but guilty of putting the basic tenets of the country at risk. So, Stephanopoulos, a top Clinton spokesman in the 1990s who suppressed from voters information about his candidate’s misdeeds, will save us all by using those left-wing political instincts to decide which candidate voters should be allowed to pick.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 22: Liberal Media Scream: Historian Meacham says ‘patriotism’ demands Biden win (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is a rare five-screamer featuring a liberal journalist turned “historian” and biographer claiming that voter patriotism demands reelecting President Joe Biden over former President Donald Trump. Jon Meacham, the former top editor of Newsweek, said on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, “Patriotism is allegiance to an idea. It’s not just an allegiance to your own kind. That’s nationalism. Trump is a nationalist. President Biden is a patriot.” Talking more like an East Coast elitist than a Tennessee native, the liberal analyst added with seriousness, “I’m lucky in that I don’t have particular policy passions, particular issues.” And he included a condescending little jab at his home state. “I want the constitutional order to continue to unfold, and President Biden is devoted to that constitutional order. Donald Trump is self-evidently not. And I would say to my Republican friends — and I live in Tennessee, so that’s redundant — that it is, in fact, a moral question.” Here is Meacham, on Real Time with Bill Maher, reacting to the news that former Attorney General William Barr (a Trump critic) will vote for his former boss: JON MEACHAM: What Barr is doing, and what so many — I sometimes think of them as the Peter Millar Republicans, right, these are Republicans who are not full MAGA people, they’re men’s grill types who don’t want Democrats picking judges or setting tax rates. They talked themselves into this twice. In ’16 and in ’20. And then came December and January of 2020 and 2021, and, at that point, I believe, and I say this with care, that it is become evident, to me, anyway, that there is a patriotic duty to support President Biden against Donald Trump for this reason: Patriotism is allegiance to an idea. It’s not just an allegiance to your own kind. That’s nationalism. Trump is a nationalist. President Biden is a patriot, and I’m lucky in that I don’t have particular policy passions, particular issues. I want the constitutional order to continue to unfold, and President Biden is devoted to that constitutional order. Donald Trump is self-evidently not. And I would say to my Republican friends — and I live in Tennessee, so that’s redundant — that it is, in fact, a moral question…. To me, the interesting thing about the Republican Party is if you are, in fact, going to put partisanship as your central organizing principle, if reflexive partisanship is the most important thing — I would argue that you need to go back and read George Washington’s farewell address. You need to read the founders that otherwise, you know, they love. You know, they love the founders when they can move it around to agree with them. It’s very clear that if party spirit became the organizing principle, that, that was going to be fatal to the Constitution, and it’s very interesting when Barr said it’s “suicide.” The idea that President Biden is leading us to national suicide. I’m not sure what he’s talking about, but Lincoln used that image in his first major speech in the 1830s. He said if we ever fall, it’s not going to be from a foreign foe: It’s going to be from someone internally rising up and mastering those passions. And those passions about partisanship, that’s what’s ruining us. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Could Meacham be any more condescending and elitist? So much for the pretense of being a journalist and not a partisan activist. His take: I’ve decided which candidate is bad for America, so if you vote for that one, you are not only not a patriot, but you will bring about the destruction of the nation. And he wonders why his neighbors in Tennessee don’t appreciate him for denouncing them as on ‘the wrong side’ of ‘a moral question.’ I bet they have a lot more respect for his views than he does for theirs.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 15: No Liberal Media Scream this week.   ■ April 8: Liberal Media Scream: Joy Reid wants prison, not airport, named for Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream revealed again just how easy it is to make cable TV hosts suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” go nuts. With Congress on Easter break, there wasn’t much Capitol Hill news last week. So when a report was posted about a GOP proposal to rename Dulles International Airport after former President Donald Trump, MSBNC turned all its guns on the idea. On the ReidOut, host Joy Reid said it was bad enough that the “worst” airport in America is named after Eisenhower-era Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. “Let’s make it worse” by naming it for Trump, she said. Instead, she suggested that Trump’s name be put on a Miami prison, a reference to the legal cases he faces, one in Florida. She and her guests, including Ali Velshi and Fordham University professor Christina Greer, piled on. Greer even bashed Washington’s national airport being renamed after former President Ronald Reagan. Reid said, “Yeah, I just call it ‘DCA.'” From Friday’s The ReidOut on MSNBC: JOY REID: Let’s talk a little about this idea of renaming Dulles. Now, Dulles is not the best airport — it might be the worst airport in America. The Republicans are like, “Let’s name it after Donald Trump.” I love the fact that it’s named after one of the most diabolical secretaries of state who destroyed Iran and a bunch of Central America. ALI VELSHI: But let’s make that worse. REID: Let’s make it worse. Also, the Democrats have said, “Instead, let’s name a prison after Trump.” Thoughts? Thoughts? Thoughts? Name a prison in Miami? VELSHI: That is a fantastic idea. … REID: I think this is a great opportunity for the nerds at the table just to talk about Allen Dulles and also his brother — it was John Foster Dulles, I think, and Allen Dulles, and both of them were involved in destroying Guatemala and Iran. VELSHI: Yeah. REID: So I feel like that’s important, and that’s given me the opportunity, so, thank you, Republicans. CHRISTINA GREER: Well, I mean, we’ve — they’ve already renamed National, Reagan, which I refuse to call it. REID: Yeah, I just call it “DCA.“ Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “Glad something about Trump made them laugh, a brief break from the usual full hour of irrational anger at any mention of anything Trump. Naturally, Reid couldn’t hide how her contempt for Republicans goes way beyond just Trump. It’s a disdain so deep she’s still mad about Ronald Reagan getting an airport named for him and the foreign policy of a president who left office more than 60 years ago.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 1: Liberal Media Scream: Top editor joins CNN host in ripping MAGA with their ‘truth’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is a rare but deserved five-screamer in which the editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer joins with a CNN host to condemn former President Donald Trump and his MAGA followers. Appearing on CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt, editor Chris Quinn explained why he wrote a weekend letter to readers about the paper’s anti-Trump coverage. He said, “These are people that watch Fox News or Newsmax and they believe it because they — it appears credible. Then they come to our platforms and see the opposite and they’re conflicted because they like us. They read us for the sports coverage or the local news, or what have you.” Quinn added, “This was for them. I had to, I owed them some sort of an explanation. And the reason it was so difficult is I don’t want to demean them. I don’t want to criticize them. But I can’t stray from the truth. The truth is this guy is a monster. He’s the worst president in history and many people understand that. Those who get their news from not credible sources believe what they’re hearing.” Hunt said, “You said — another piece of this to your point of what the truth is, you said, ‘Trust your eyes. Trump, on Jan. 6, launched the most serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War. You know that. You saw it.’ And just before that you write, ‘This is not subjective. We all saw it. Plenty of leaders today try to convince the masses we did not see what we saw but our eyes don’t deceive us.'” “And I think that this is the piece of it that gets me because I was there on that day and I looked out the window and I saw these people trying to attack the Capitol. And then, now, half of these political leaders are trying to say no, actually, that thing that you saw with your own eyes did not happen.” From today’s CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt: KASIE HUNT: How to cover former President Donald Trump is — quite literally — one of the hardest, thorniest questions facing us as journalists. It is something that I think about quite literally every single day when I wake up to join all of you. And it is especially true in the wake of Jan. 6, which affected me both personally and professionally in addition to, of course, having enormous implications for our democracy. This is why this all stood out to me. The Cleveland Plain Dealer decided they wanted to address this with their readers head-on over the weekend. The editor, Chris Quinn, writes this: “The north star here is truth. We tell the truth, even when it offends some of the people who pay us for information. The truth is that Donald Trump undermined faith in our elections in his false bid to retain the presidency. He sparked an insurrection intended to overthrow our government and keep himself in power. No president in our history has done worse.” And joining me now is Chris Quinn. He is the editor of the Plain Dealer and Cleveland.com. Chris, thank you so much for being here. It’s an honor to have you. CHRIS QUINN: Good morning. HUNT: So I loved how you approached this because you started with your readers — with the people who write to you about this. Many of them, of course, are supporters of Donald Trump. And you write some of them are more thoughtful than others, shall I say. But this is something that I have wrestled with because there are so many people in the country who support Donald Trump and many of them have reasons for doing that that have to do with the circumstances that they face. We don’t want to lose empathy for those people. We don’t want to not speak to those people. To be, you know, advocates and helpful in terms of providing those people with information. But you sat down and you grappled with this question, and you tried to explain why you’re doing what you’re doing in the way that you’re doing it. Can you explain a little bit more of that to all of us right now? QUINN: Yeah. This was a very challenging piece to write. It actually took me almost six months to get my thoughts together. I get two kinds of correspondence from Trump supporters and one is not nice. It’s very condescending and sneering. And I kind of chalk that up to people who had felt left out of society. Donald Trump gave them a club to participate in. And there’s nothing I can say or do to help them understand what we’re doing. But the other half write me with great courtesy and implore me for an explanation. They say, “You are dismissing a large segment of the country when you say that Donald Trump is the monster you describe him as and I don’t see him that way. What do you say to me?” These are people that watch Fox News or Newsmax and they believe it because they — it appears credible. Then they come to our platforms and see the opposite and they’re conflicted because they like us. They read us for the sports coverage or the local news, or what have you. So this was for them. I had to, I owed them some sort of an explanation. And the reason it was so difficult is I don’t want to demean them. I don’t want to criticize them. But I can’t stray from the truth. The truth is this guy is a monster. He’s the worst president in history and many people understand that. Those who get their news from not credible sources believe what they’re hearing. HUNT: Yeah. I will just say I think that the decline in our local media is a crisis for many, many reasons, but not least is that you, as a local paper, have a level of trust with people in your communities that is simply not possible to establish when you are a national news organization. And I think that really comes through in this piece that you wrote. And you said — another piece of this to your point of what the truth is, you said, “Trust your eyes. Trump, on Jan. 6, launched the most serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War. You know that. You saw it.” And just before that you write, “This is not subjective. We all saw it. Plenty of leaders today try to convince the masses we did not see what we saw but our eyes don’t deceive us.” And I think that this is the piece of it that gets me because I was there on that day and I looked out the window and I saw these people trying to attack the Capitol. And then, now, half of these political leaders are trying to say no, actually, that thing that you saw with your own eyes did not happen. Was it that that really was the thing that underscored this the most to you as well? QUINN: Yeah. And look, it’s heartbreaking what you’re seeing today. I come from a state where we’ve had senators like George Voinovich and John Glenn — people who would never have stood by during these recent years and allowed what’s happened to happen. And today, we have J.D. Vance and we might have Bernie Moreno, whose claim to fame is they want to be puppets for Donald Trump. And it’s not what we should be about. And that’s why I referenced that New Yorker piece in what I wrote because the New Yorker had a book review that looked back and said the reason Hitler came to the fore wasn’t because a bunch of people went and voted to have a fascist leader. It was because the people in government, in trying to get power for themselves, appeased him and that allowed him to rise. That’s what we have going on. Everybody knows what the truth is. The people in Congress were there. They were under threat from it. But for expedience, they’re denying it happened. HUNT: Do you think that those people who are looking to enable Donald Trump, as you say, what is the — their level of culpability here? I mean, obviously, you talk about Trump, himself, and his, the actions that he takes and his role in trying to hang on to power. But these enablers, I mean, what responsibility do they bear? QUINN: I think they have full responsibility. I think journalists who veer from the truth are going to end up having full responsibility. Look, we’re a regional newsroom and we’re doing well. We’re actually one of the local newsrooms that’s kind of figured it out and we’re thriving and we’re not in any danger of going away. But we have our limited influence. And so, we’re doing what we can. We’re, you know, we ask ourselves what’s the right thing to do here? The right thing to do is to call this out, not to say there’s two sides to Donald Trump. There aren’t two sides to Donald Trump. Anybody who has been watching and trying to discern what the truth is here knows that this guy tried to destroy our entire system of government and will do so again. Somebody has to say it. I wish people like Dave Joyce, a congressman from Ohio who’s a good guy, would stand up and just denounce it. Because if you started to have a few people of good conscience do that, maybe we could stop this wave, which is frightening beyond belief. HUNT: Well, I’m very grateful that you took the time to join us today, Chris, and I do commend reading this column. I will again say this is something I think about literally every single day because we do want to be a resource, a place for people who want to support Donald Trump or who feel dissatisfied with the system in their own lives. I just had to make sure that those ears are continuing to be open to us is a challenge that I grapple with every day. And I really appreciated reading this. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “With his smug moral superiority, Quinn encapsulates everything that’s wrong with modern journalism. He’s decided what ‘the truth’ is and his readers better get on board. No wonder fewer and fewer are buying local newspapers. They’ve become just as insulting to their readers as the national media have been for decades. Incredulous that anyone could see Trump as a better president than Biden.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 25: Liberal Media Scream: Condescending ‘Really?’ to Rubio’s wish to be Trump VP (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream reveals just how deep the disrespect for former President Donald Trump goes in the press, especially with those who have created a profitable side gig writing and talking about him. In just one word, ABC’s Jonathan Karl heaved up a sanctimonious putdown of Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) when the topic of the likely 2024 GOP presidential nominee’s pick for running mate was raised. Rubio has said he would be honored to get the nod, as have about a dozen other leading Republicans. What’s more, Rubio would likely help Trump add to his coalition to create a potentially winning ticket. But all Karl had to say was, “Really?” It didn’t end there. As Rubio explained the problems President Joe Biden dumped on America, Karl couldn’t help but complain, “You’re not suggesting that’s all happening because of Biden?” Rubio affirmed, “Absolutely I am.” Here’s the exchange on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: JON KARL: There was some reporting this week that you are possibly under consideration to be Donald Trump’s running mate. I don’t put a lot of stock in this reporting right now. We’re early. But you said it would be “an honor” to be offered a spot on his ticket. Really? SEN. MARCO RUBIO: Yeah, I think anyone who is offered the opportunity to serve this country as vice president should be honored by the opportunity to do it if you are in public service. I’m in the Senate because I want to serve the country. Being vice president is an important way to serve the country. But I’ve also been clear. I’ve never talked to Donald Trump. I’ve never talked to anybody on his team or family or inner circle about vice president. That’s a decision he’s going to make. He has plenty of really good people to pick from. KARL: I mean, the reason why I asked is, I mean, look what happened to the last guy. I mean, a mob stormed the Capitol, literally calling to hang Mike Pence, and Trump defended those chants of “hang Mike Pence.” RUBIO: I will tell you this, that when Donald Trump was president of the United States, this country was safer. It was more prosperous. We had relations, for example, in a part of the world that I care about called the Western Hemisphere that were very strong. We had a lot of good things done there. I think the country and the world was a better place when he was president, and I would love to see him return to the White House in comparison to the guy who’s there now, Joe Biden, who’s been a disaster economically. Look at the world. Every single day, we wake up to a new crisis, to a new conflict. Everything has gone on fire since the time Joe Biden took over. Afghanistan’s gone down. Ukraine has been invaded. Now the Philippines and the Chinese are on the verge of something bad happening every single day. Not to mention the threats to Taiwan. And we have this blowup in Haiti going on in our very own hemisphere. We wake up every single day, terrorist attacks, 9 million people across the border. That’s what matters to me. KARL: But, I mean, you’re not suggesting that’s all happening because of Biden? RUBIO: Absolutely I am. Absolutely I’m suggesting it’s happening because of Biden. He’s president and his weakness and his — KARL: It’s because of Biden that Russia invaded Ukraine? RUBIO: Absolutely. KARL: It’s because of Biden that Haiti? RUBIO: Absolutely. I mean Putin is sitting there, saying these guys can’t even stand up to the Taliban and they have to fly people hanging off the wings of these airplanes. Now is the time to go. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “How arrogant and condescending for a broadcast network TV host to scoff at a U.S. senator for saying he’d be ‘honored’ to serve as the vice presidential candidate of his party. And then, to act astonished over a common Republican talking point about President Biden’s foreign policy failures shows Karl is little more than a liberal political operative in the guise of a journalist who is incredulous that anyone could see Trump as a better president than Biden.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 18: Liberal Media Scream: ‘Bloodbath’ is what media are doing to Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream focuses on the media and President Joe Biden’s distortion of former President Donald Trump’s warning of an economic “bloodbath” if he’s not returned to the White House to stop China’s dumping of autos in the U.S. under Biden. The media, and now the Biden campaign, pulled the word out of a long Trump explanation at an Ohio political rally of auto sales to make it sound like he was calling for a civil war if he’s not elected. It’s very similar to what the media did after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots and spelled out how they’d treat a President Trump if given a chance. Leading that fake rant over the weekend was ABC and a guest on This Week, New York magazine’s Susan Glasser, formerly with the liberal-left Washington Post and Politico. Without any sign of embarrassment for distorting Trump’s words, Glasser ranted on about how threatening Trump is. In office, Trump did assail reporters for their “fake news” and overwhelming bias but also was the most accessible and talkative president during his one term. He followed an Obama-Biden administration that was condemned by journalists for avoiding reporters and using technology to go around the media. Susan Glasser on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: “Donald Trump, it seems to me, it’s very hard eight years into this. We still struggle with how to cover him as journalists, but in a way, the unhinged, rambling rants that you see from the former president of the United States are baked in, and I think, in a way, we are all desensitized and inured to the extraordinary, remarkable and very at times un-American and threatening things that the former president is saying. “I’m not saying it’s easy to understand how to cover it, but I think we have to cover it when the former president, who’s already incited violence among his followers, says that there’s going to be a bloodbath after the election if he does not win. He is telling us what he is going to do. … I’m sorry. I just have to say something. Like Donald Trump is attacking, in a broad-brush sense, the basic pillars of American democracy. Period. Full stop. If that’s not news to you. It’s not about tariffs. That’s not the reason why millions of Americans are supporting Donald Trump. Let’s be real about that.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Yes, after eight years of constant hyperventilating by journalists, over supposed outrageous comments from Donald Trump, many have become ‘inured,’ but it’s not journalists. It’s the public to the media’s never-ending scare-mongering about Trump bringing an end to ‘the basic pillars of American democracy.’ Glasser’s answer: Double down and get more journalists to be even more aggressive in denouncing Trump. Good luck with that, convincing anyone who has already tuned out such vitriol.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 11: Liberal Media Scream: Hollywood freaks over Trump (Washington Examiner post) Hollywood’s awards season has finally ended and in perfectly normal election-year fashion: Tinseltown freaking out over former President Donald Trump’s possible return to the White House. Oscars host Jimmy Kimmel got a retort from Trump after he blasted the former president and his Republican allies. Kimmel responded, “Well, thank you, President Trump. Thank you for watching. I’m surprised you’re still — isn’t it past your jail time?” But his shruggable performance was far outdone by the angry venting of actor Robert De Niro, who stepped up his attacks on Trump. On Friday, De Niro pleased Bill Maher’s audience by blasting Trump. “Vote for Trump and you’ll get the nightmare. Vote for Biden and it will be back to normalcy,” he began. To laughter and applause from Maher’s Los Angeles studio audience, De Niro marveled at how anyone could support Trump. He called the poll-leading former president “a total monster” who will install a “dictatorship.” More insults followed: “sociopathic, psychopathic, malignant narcissist,” as well as an “idiot” and “clown.” From Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO: ROBERT DE NIRO: The bottom line is: It’s Biden vs. Trump. We want to live in a world that we want to live in and enjoy living in or live in a nightmare? Vote for Trump and you’ll get the nightmare. Vote for Biden and it will be back to normalcy. … The guy is a total monster, and anybody, I don’t understand it. I guess they get behind the kind of logic: They want to f*** with people, screw them because they’re unhappy about something. He’s such a mean, nasty, hateful person. I’d never play him as an actor because I can’t see any good in him — nothing, nothing at all, nothing redeemable in him. Whoever the people are who want to vote for him, and they look like intelligent people around there, for some reason, it can’t be, it cannot be. If he wins the election, you won’t be on the show anymore. He’ll come looking for me. They’ll be things that happened that none of us can imagine. That’s what happens in that kind of a dictatorship — which is what he says. Let’s believe him. Take him at his word. He’s a sociopathic, psychopathic, malignant narcissist. He is a dangerous person … the people who somehow think he’s going to be the answer to their prayers, whatever those are. BILL MAHER: Did you know him as fellow New Yorkers? DE NIRO: Never wanted to know him. MAHER: Never wanted to, you must have crossed — DE NIRO: He was an idiot. He was a clown. He was a clown in New York. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Rants like this from pretentious Hollywood celebrities probably drive more to vote for Trump than dissuade anyone from supporting him. How many care about the all-too-predictable left-wing political views of lefties in Hollywood who always denounce the Republican candidate and advocate for the Democratic one? Not anyone who is drawn to Trump.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 4: Liberal Media Scream: Media role is reeducating you on greatness of Bidenomics (Washington Examiner post) President Joe Biden has apparently realized that pitching “Bidenomics” is a loser politically, but his White House forgot to tell its media echo chamber. According to an Issues & Insights report, Biden has “ditched” the term, with the report noting Biden and his White House used the term 59 times last July. By last month, it got a mention just 10 times. That makes sense since most polls show that the public viewed the term negatively because they feel that the economy is poor and that prices are unjustifiably high. But the well-paid Washington media thinks the public is stupid and needs to be reeducated on just how great Bidenomics is for them. For example, this week’s Liberal Media Scream features longtime editor and columnist Margaret Sullivan telling fellow anti-Trumper Christiane Amanpour that it’s up to them to make sure people understand the consequences of their wrong-headedness. “You know,” Sullivan said on Amanpour’s show, “people think that the economy is not doing well. You know, do our public service mission, which is to make sure, as sure as we can, that we have an informed electorate. Whose fault is that? Well, it’s partly the fault of the media. And I think that that ought to be rectified.” From Saturday’s The Amanpour Hour on CNN CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: The horse race and an age-old dilemma. Why the obsession over Biden’s age misses the point. MARGARET SULLIVAN, GUARDIAN: I wonder whether people are as aware of Trump’s authoritarian plans as they are of Biden’s age. AMANPOUR: My next guest says enough is enough with the media’s hyperbolic herd mentality coverage of Biden’s age and competency. Critic, columnist, and academic Margaret Sullivan urges us to get real about the issues because this election is about much more than, quote, “chasing clicks.” SULLIVAN: I think that the leaders of major American news organizations should have front and center in their minds, and be communicating to their staffs, that this is an extremely consequential election and we should be doing our public service role that it’s not so much about chasing the latest clicks and the latest horse race coverage but rather to make sure that we’re getting the stakes of the race across to people. You know, people think that the economy is not doing well. You know, do our public service mission, which is to make sure, as sure as we can, that we have an informed electorate. Whose fault is that? Well, it’s partly the fault of the media. And I think that that ought to be rectified. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “What Margaret Sullivan advocates is exactly why the media have lost all credibility and trust for most Americans. She’s decided Trump is too dangerous to be president, so journalists should throw away all standards of journalism by openly joining Team Biden to convince voters of Biden’s virtues while downplaying his negatives. And then journalists wonder why they are seen in such low esteem when they are little more than Democratic Party operatives.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 26: Liberal Media Scream: Trump Derangement Syndrome flies off the charts (Washington Examiner post) The media have been on a rantfest lately, warning that former President Donald Trump will end democracy and execute his enemies. Just consider what Bob Costas said over the weekend. “You have to be in the throes of some sort of toxic delusion in a toxic cult to believe that Donald Trump has ever been, in any sense, emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, or ethically fit to be president of the United States,” he said. But that’s nothing compared to our Liberal Media Scream focus on Tom Schaller, the author of White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy, who went further to attack the half of the nation that has supported Trump over the years. White rural voters, he told MSNBC’s Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski, “are the most racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay geodemographic group in the country. … They’re the most conspiracist group: QAnon support and subscribers, election denialism, COVID denialism and scientific skepticism, Obama birthism.” And that’s just the start of his five scream rant. From Monday’s Morning Joe on MSNBC: MIKA BRZEZINSKI: As we barrel toward a likely rematch of the 2020 election, one candidate continues to have a hold over white rural voters. But it’s not Joe Biden, seen here as a boy on the right side of your screen, who went to public school, is the son of a used car salesman, and was born to a middle-class family in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Instead, it is Trump, here on the left side, a private school-educated son of a New York City real estate tycoon who became a millionaire at 8 years old and didn’t have to serve because he claimed he had bone spurs in his little feet. So, why is it that Trump appeals so much to a group he couldn’t be more different from? Joining us now, professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Tom Schaller, and journalist and opinion writer Paul Waldman. Their new book out tomorrow is entitled, White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy. Tom, I’ll start with you. Why are white rural voters a threat to democracy at this point? You would think, as we pointed out, looking at Joe Biden’s background and Donald Trump’s, that the opposite would be true. TOM SCHALLER: “We lay out the fourfold interconnected threat that white rural voters pose to the country. First of all, we show 30 polls and national studies that demonstrate this. So we provide the receipts in Chapter 6. They are the most racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay geodemographic group in the country. “Second, they’re the most conspiracist group: QAnon support and subscribers, election denialism, COVID denialism and scientific skepticism, Obama birthism. Third, anti-democratic sentiments. They don’t believe in an independent press — free speech. They’re most likely to say the president should be able to act unilaterally without checks from Congress or the courts or the bureaucracy. They’re also the most strongly white nationalist and white Christian nationalists. And fourth, they’re most likely to excuse or justify violence as acceptable alternative to peaceful public discourse… “I think this is the disconnect, right? They’d rather channel their rage. I think what a lot of white rural Americans have decided is that their economic fortunes are decided by globalization and frankly, late-stage capitalism, which is eating up all the mom and pop stores and taking away the extractive industries, in coal and farming and so forth, so they might as well vote on their culture issues, they might as well vote on God, guns, and religion because they feel like neither party is going to deliver any material benefit. “They’re not going to reverse the closure of rural pharmacies and rural hospitals and rural healthcare facilities, which are disappearing not because of communism and not because of socialism but because of capitalism, right? Rural pharmacies and hospitals are closing because they’re not moneymakers, and unless they’re part of a regional chain, they’re disappearing. So Trump comes in and says, let’s just hate on cities, let’s just hate on minorities, let’s hate on immigrants, and at least they can deliver on that. And so they’re not even voting in their material interest anymore, and that’s causing a further decay and decline of rural communities.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “So, if a class of voters prefers a candidate you don’t like, it couldn’t be that they just have a differing opinion with which you can respectfully disagree. No, you must impugn and demean them to discredit their irrational preference for the candidate you condescendingly have decided is not in their best interest. And since this makes MSNBC viewers feel superior, you get a welcoming platform on the left-wing cable channel’s morning show.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 19: Liberal Media Scream: Colbert says Trump ‘going to prison’ better than sex (Washington Examiner post) Remember when late-night comedy shows were funny instead of being populated by left-wing lecturers? Case in point in our weekly Liberal Media Scream is Late Show host Stephen Colbert. Along with many people last week, he watched the televised testimony of Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis and her explanation of her affair with an attorney she put in charge of the election case against former President Donald Trump. “How good was this sex? Good enough to risk democracy over?” he asked in his monologue. Colbert then added, “You know what feels really good? Donald Trump going to prison. That — that, my friends — is what they call a real happy ending.” From Thursday’s Late Show with Stephen Colbert on CBS:     STEPHEN COLBERT: Now, I don’t know who’s telling the truth here yet, but I will say exchanging business cards isn’t exactly a meet cute. The movie’s not called When Harry Networked with Sally. Now, at one point, Willis had had enough and really laid into opposing counsel. FANI WILLIS: You’re confused; you think I’m on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial. COLBERT: Damn straight. Yeah. That’s right. That’s right. Here’s the thing. Yes, it’s true Donald Trump and his associates are on trial in this, one of the most important cases in the history of our republic. So, and, I’ve just got one follow-up question here: Given that if you are removed from the prosecution, it could delay this trial until after the election: How good was the sex? Good enough to risk democracy over? Because I’ve never had sex that good. You know what feels really good? Donald Trump going to prison. That — that, my friends — is what they call the real happy ending. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Liberals love to complain that Donald Trump has broken many norms, but prominent entertainment media figures like Colbert have destroyed late-night TV. It was a comedy refuge from hard-edged politics, but Colbert is using his show to advance left-wing talking points and push his hate of Trump and conservatives in the guise of comedy. It’s not funny, and a legend like Johnny Carson, whose political jokes were light-hearted and chided both sides, is rolling over in his grave.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 12: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC host laughably says press against Biden (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream has LOL written all over it. Imagine any cable news show host claiming that the media has a negative bias against President Joe Biden. LOL, right? That’s what happened on Sunday’s Meet the Press when MSNBC host Jen Psaki said the media showed its bias when it simply repeated what the nearly 400-page report from special counsel Robert Hur said about the president’s foggy mind. Psaki, who was Biden’s first White House press secretary, complained that the media should be attacking former President Donald Trump, not her former boss. “If you’re sitting in the White House and on the campaign right now, you’re absolutely banging your head against the wall at the way that the Thursday report has been covered, given all of the things” Trump has said and done, she said. From the roundtable on Sunday’s Meet the Press: JEN PSAKI: If you’re sitting in the White House and on the campaign right now, you’re absolutely banging your head against the wall at the way that the Thursday report has been covered, given all of the things that have happened this week, including, and I know you asked Chris Christie about this, the fact that Donald Trump yesterday suggested that Vladimir Putin should have free rein in attacking NATO allies, and what do we see is wall-to-wall coverage of whether a guy who is four years older than his opponent is too old to be president. KRISTEN WELKER: And we are going to get to NATO. Go ahead. BRENDAN BUCK, former spokesman to ex-speaker Paul Ryan: Part of that job, to bring that to the front is, it’s the president’s job to bring that out and attack his opponent. I mean, the president is not taking the opportunity on Super Bowl Sunday. He’s not taking, really, any opportunities. And we hear, time and again — PSAKI: First of all, that’s not true. It’s not being covered. He has traveled just as much as Donald Trump, as Barack Obama. It is hard to break through the cloud of Donald Trump in this media environment. That is true. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “A media hostile to a liberal cause or Democratic politician is such a novelty that liberal political operatives like Jen Psaki just can’t comprehend it. After three-plus years of sycophantic coverage of Joe Biden, he gets a few days of negative coverage, and she lashes out at the media for daring to briefly act as real journalists. Welcome to the world endured every day for decades by conservatives and Republicans.”   Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 5: Liberal Media Scream: Kristen Welker likes to lecture Republicans, too (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a look at new Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker’s treatment of Republican leaders. And surprise — not — she continues to be just as biased as former host Chuck Todd. First, she lectured House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) on the border bill released by the Senate on Sunday. “You are now the speaker of the House. Do you not have a responsibility to your voters, to the people who put you in office, to address what you have called a crisis and catastrophe? Isn’t something better than nothing?” she said. Then, she passed along the Democratic talking point that after three years of aggressively enacting open border policies, “Joe Biden said he would shut down the border.” From Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC: KRISTEN WELKER: You have been calling for legislative change to actually deal with this problem. You are now the speaker of the House. Do you not have a responsibility to your voters, to the people who put you in office, to address what you have called a crisis and catastrophe? Isn’t something better than nothing? SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Kristen, we did that. We did that nine months ago. And since we passed our measure in the House to solve this problem, and the reason we had to do it is because we saw that President Biden was not fulfilling his obligation under the law. That’s why it is such a failure of leadership, but we did our part. And by the way, since then, in the nine months since that bill sat on [Senate Majority Leader] Chuck Schumer’s desk, collecting dust, 1.8 million illegals have been allowed into this country, welcomed into the country, sent around the nation into every community — communities near everyone listening and watching this morning. And that is a catastrophe, and the American people know it, and that’s part of the reason that Joe Biden has the lowest approval rating of any president facing reelection. WELKER: Even former President Trump, though, called for legislative change on this issue. You have one of the slimmest majorities in the House in history. Don’t you have to compromise to get something done? What you passed in the House can’t pass in the Senate, Mr. Speaker. You know that. JOHNSON: We are willing to work. We are willing to work with the Senate. I am not disclosing that, and I’ve been very consistent for the hundred days that I’ve had the gavel. We are willing to work, but they have to be serious about it. If you only do a few of those components, you are not going to solve the problem, and Kristen, that is not a Republican talking point. That’s what the sheriffs at the border, the Border Patrol agents, the deputy chief of U.S. Border Patrol, a 33-year veteran of the agency, told us. He said that it’s as though we’re administering an open fire hydrant. He said, “I don’t need more buckets,” like the president has proposed. I need to stop the flow, and we know how to do that, but Joe Biden is unwilling to do it. WELKER: Let me ask you about your decision, and by the way, Joe Biden said he would shut down the border. He’s calling for more funding. He’s calling for you to pass this legislation. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “A perfect example of a so-called journalist serving as an advocate for Washington’s media-political establishment, demanding a recalcitrant conservative get in line and adopt the approved narrative.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ January 29, 2024: No Liberal Media Scream this week.   ■ January 22, 2024: Liberal Media Scream: Washington Post’s Rubin wants Trump ‘fascists’ reeducated (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features popular Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin doubling down on her Never Trump campaign. Appearing on the MSNBC weekend show Velshi exactly a year from Inauguration Day, the onetime conservative opinion writer said that the masses appearing at former President Donald Trump’s rallies “are part of a fascist cult.” And, she added, “they’re impervious to any kind of data, any kind of information. But what you have to do, if you care about democracy, is mobilize the people who already know that he’s a danger and reaffirm and reeducate the people who are perhaps kind of flirting in the middle — they’re soft Republicans, they’re never Republicans — about the danger of going back to Trump.” Rubin on MSNBC’s Velshi on Saturday: “Why it’s perhaps important to go to one of these rallies is to understand why he does have supporters. These people are part of a fascist cult. And let’s be honest, there are a lot of them. But a lot of them doesn’t mean that they are behaving logically or rationally. To the contrary, we’ve seen in other fascist regimes that millions of people, sometimes even a majority of the country, becomes intoxicated with an authoritarian figure, and these people are utterly irrational. If you speak to some of them, they will spit back these bizarro conspiracy theories. They actually believe in all of the mumbo-jumbo that he tells them. “So I think it would be a wake-up call about what these people are about, and, no, we’re not going to convince people who are part of the cult to switch. As you say, they’re impervious to any kind of data, any kind of information. But what you have to do, if you care about democracy, is mobilize the people who already know that he’s a danger and reaffirm and reeducate the people who are perhaps kind of flirting in the middle — they’re soft Republicans, they’re never Republicans — about the danger of going back to Trump. And I think that’s the job between now and November, and that’s the challenge for the Biden administration.” Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “How condescending of Rubin to be so comfortable denigrating supporters of a presidential candidate she despises with one of the most vile insults. Just because she hates Trump doesn’t make those going to his rallies, the very embodiment of democracy in action, ‘fascists.’ Whatever happened to liberals wanting to expand participation in the democratic process?” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ January 15, 2024: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC’s Mika all in to help Biden’s reelection (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features Mika Brzezinski, the co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, fawning over first lady Jill Biden in a sign of where the cable network stands before the 2024 presidential primary season begins. With easy questions quizzing Biden about her favorite emoji to dismissing chants of “Let’s go Brandon” that still follow the president, Brzezinski put on an able defense of the Biden White House. Among the questions posed to the first lady was this: “The division in this country, the cruelty of MAGA Republicans against your family. Does any part of you once in a while think, ugh, maybe we bow out?” The questions were part of Brzezinski’s Know Your Value “movement.” Our partners at the Media Research Center highlighted these from last Thursday’s show and today’s event at the White House: MIKA BRZEZINSKI: You’ve been married to President Joe Biden for 46 years. There have been Senate races, three presidential campaigns, eight years of your husband serving as vice president. Unthinkable personal loss and challenge, and now democracy is on the ballot. What do you think when you hear people say, “Well, I just can’t vote for Joe Biden this election?” What is it that they may not know about him at this point, especially when the alternative seems to want to change this nation so radically? BRZEZINSKI: Potentially another four years in the White House. With everything you do here, does yet another one give you any pause thinking of, like, the personal health and well-being for both of you? The division in this country, the cruelty of MAGA Republicans against your family. Does any part of you once in a while think, ugh, maybe we bow out? BRZEZINSKI: How have you been coping personally with the onslaught of accusations against your husband and your family, including and especially Hunter, the focus of a House Oversight Committee hearing holding, holding him in contempt, obsessing over him, showing pictures of him during vulnerable moments in his battle with addiction on the floor of the House. This would crush any family. BRZEZINSKI: What do you think when you hear Trump Republicans calling it “Biden crime family” or one congresswoman, “The Biden crime family sold out America,” Marjorie Taylor Greene, “He’s a liar, he’s mentally incompetent,” and let’s not even talk about what “Let’s go Brandon” means. But you have U.S. senators holding signs that say that. ….BRZEZINSKI: Your favorite emoji? JILL BIDEN: Oh, my gosh. The turquoise heart. BRZEZINSKI: Turquoise heart? BIDEN: Yeah. BRZEZINSKI: I don’t have the turquoise heart on my phone. What does that mean? BIDEN: It’s like the beach. It’s calm. BRZEZINSKI: Oh, I like that. BIDEN: Color of the sea. BRZEZINSKI: Do I type out turquoise heart? Comfort food? BIDEN: Oh, french fries. BRZEZINSKI: Umm. Yeah, yeah. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Mika Brzezinski is all in on the reelection of Joe Biden. First lady Jill Biden picked well in selecting Brzezinski to interview her, confident she wouldn’t be challenged as they both could commiserate with how awful Trump is and how mean Republicans are to her family, topped by letting her tout the turquoise heart emoji. How informative.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ January 8, 2024: Liberal Media Scream: Stephanopoulos judges Trump an insurrectionist, unqualified for 2024 (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is a five-screamer featuring an ABC host and former Clinton handler acting as judge, jury, and executioner of former President Donald Trump and his effort to remain on the 2024 primary ballots and let voters, not partisan state officials, decide his fate. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, on his Sunday show This Week, was quizzing his panel about the campaigns in some states to declare Trump ineligible for election because an official decided that the former president triggered a 14th Amendment ban on insurrectionists. On his show, which occurred the day after the third anniversary of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, one of his panelists suggested the Supreme Court will decide Trump is guilty but that it will be up to Congress and not the states to erase the GOP front-runner’s name from the ballots. “If you say he engaged in insurrection,” Stephanopoulos said, “I don’t see how you can escape the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment and say he’s qualified to run for office.” Panelist Donna Brazile, an influential liberal and former acting Democratic Party chairwoman, told her host, “I totally agree with you, George.” From the roundtable on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Sarah, what’s your guess on what the court does here? SARAH ISGUR, SENIOR EDITOR OF THE DISPATCH: I think you’ll have the Supreme Court hold that he is not disqualified from being on the ballot. They’ll overturn the Colorado Supreme Court. STEPHANOPOULOS: The question is, how will they do it though? ISGUR: Correct. I think they’ll say that, in fact, the 14th Amendment makes clear it’s up to Congress. If Congress can requalify someone by a two-thirds vote, there’s no timeline on that. Which means that, you know, as one of the amicus briefs has pointed out, it’s really supposed to be post-elections about holding office, not running for office. And so I think they’ll say it’s really Congress’s job. The states can’t make up their own standard. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it more likely than not? Et cetera. What’s interesting to me will be whether or not the Supreme Court goes out of their way in order to get those three, Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson votes, in saying, “Yes, it was an insurrection, and yes, he engaged in it, but it’s up to Congress.

Javier Milei is a rock star. The president of Argentina was, in fact, in a Rolling Stones cover band as a teen. But now he plays stadiums — like Buenos Aires’ 8,400-capacity Luna Park — as a political phenomenon, a charismatic cross between Donald Trump and Milton Friedman. Except that Milei, a former economics professor himself, is more free-market than Friedman, in theory at least. He’s a devotee of the most notoriously “intransigent” free-market thinker of them all, the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. As Mises’ masterwork, the nearly 900-page opus “Human Action,” turns 75 this year, Milei has made a cover version of sorts: his own new book, “Capitalism, Socialism, and the Neoclassical Trap.” He took to the stage at Luna Park to promote it after the Buenos Aires International Book Fair canceled him in retaliation for cuts he’s made to government arts funding. Clad in a long leather jacket yet wearing a tie, his collared shirt untucked, Milei was a nerd gone wild, belting out a hard-rock number called “Panic Show” by a band named La Renga before launching into an econ lecture. That might sound like a buzzkill, but Milei’s brand of political economy is full-on “anarcho-capitalism,” and it’s finding fans even among Argentines who’ve long benefited from their government’s many subsidies. Reporters for The Guardian spoke to one businessman at Milei’s May 23 rock concert/book launch/political rally who called the president’s slashing of transportation subsidies “directly detrimental to my personal activity” yet who still believed “we must finish the economic cleanup — we can’t keep living a lie.” Milei’s election last year scrambled the conventional wisdom of North American pundits, who assumed populism had to be hostile to free-market principles. Yet here was an ardent capitalist ascending to power in the land of Juan and Evita Peron, a duo whose big-government economic nationalism was assumed to be a blueprint for the populist right. For his part, Milei makes no secret of his admiration for Donald Trump — for what he calls Trump’s “fight against socialism” — and posed with him for a photo op at CPAC last February. Milei’s not the only evidence that populism and libertarianism can be allies instead of enemies, however: The Libertarian Party recently shocked many anti-populist libertarians in this country by inviting Trump to speak at the LP national convention. Is this simply a case of outcasts banding together? Milei and Trump do represent a repudiation of the old leadership class in their countries. Those leaders were Peronist in Argentina; here, they were Clinton Democrats and Bush Republicans. Outsiders attacking the political establishment might be expected to have a similar attitude — a rock ‘n’ roll attitude of defiance, ready to shock and offend. But there are deeper connections between free markets and anti-establishment politics. The anti-tax movement that kicked off with California’s Proposition 13 in 1978 was a popular revolt that presaged the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The Reagan revolution was born of free-market populism. Although many intellectuals who now attach themselves to populist causes find economics to be a “dismal science” — one that casts doubt on their power to save the country through policy brainpower — free-market economics suggests many good reasons why voters turn populist. Inflation, for example, brings free-market theorists and populist voters’ instincts together. As Milei said in a recent Time interview, inflation “means you lose the purchasing power of the money you have in your pocket, which is theft. In other words, printing money and putting it on the market is theft; it’s counterfeiting; it’s fraud.” And just as some businessmen who’ve lost their subsidies still back Milei, populist voters in the United States aren’t necessarily looking for handouts. They want a fair shake, not a New Deal. “No taxation without representation” is a perfect expression of the populist side of libertarianism and the libertarian side of populism. The American Revolution wasn’t just about high taxes — which weren’t steep by today’s standards. It was about the fact that the taxing authority belonged to an elite that wasn’t accountable to the people. The American colonists didn’t hate King George III, not at first. But they demanded control over their own economic destiny, for better or worse. That’s what populists are calling for today — including free-market populists like Javier Milei. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. To read more by Daniel McCarthy, visit www.creators.com

Iconic attorney Alan Dershowitz ripped the "Hitler Youth" he's observed "marching against Israel on college campuses" — and shared a major concern that "they are our future leaders." In a preview of Memorial Day remembrances, Dershowitz on Sunday addressed that crisis and others facing America in an interview on WABC-AM’s “Cats Roundtable" show. 'What worries me is 10, 15 years from now, these Hitler Youth will be members of Congress, will be on the editorial board of the New York Times, will be owning media stations … and [will] substitute their own radical progressive anti-American craziness for the stability that our Constitution calls for.' "We who care deeply, we who care for the people who died who we remember on Memorial Day, they fought for our freedom, and we're giving it up too easily," he said. "We have to fight back, and there's not enough fighting back," Dershowitz exclaimed. Speaking about the anti-Israel protests on college campuses, he observed that "this is much like what happened in Germany in the early 1930s, when Nazi students blocked Jews from entering universities. This is a lot like the lead-up to what happened in the 1940s." The former Harvard law professor added that during Harvard's recent graduation, "students walked out. Students wore Hamas-supportive garb. Students were on Hamas’ side, and they are our future leaders. That's what worries me. What worries me is 10, 15 years from now, these Hitler Youth will be members of Congress, will be on the editorial board of the New York Times, will be owning media stations … and [will] substitute their own radical progressive anti-American craziness for the stability that our Constitution calls for." In light of such concerns, Dershowitz urged Americans with "common sense" to "prioritize" larger issues, such as keeping our nation "strong" and securing U.S interests abroad.Dershowitz also lamented that American colleges and universities "are going to hell” through the implementation of diversity, equity, and inclusion mandates — and added that DEI is "anti-Semitic to its core and anti-intellectual and anti-progress and anti-meritocracy.""The big enemy of the hard left today is meritocracy," he told show host John Catsimatidis. "People like you and me, we made it by hard work, we made it on our merits ... we worked hard, and we succeeded. And that's anathema to the people on the progressive left. They don't want that. They want people to be rewarded only for the color of their skin and for identity politics. And we show ... that you can make it on your own, but they don't like that. And they don't like the fact that Israel made it on its own — a poor country with no natural resources becomes the high-tech giant. They hate Israel for that because they hate meritocracy." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!