Sometimes, certain aspects of an animal’s biology can seem completely redundant, such as the tiny arms of a T. rex, or wings on a flightless bird. But thanks to a recent study of fossilized penguin wings, researchers were able to pinpoint when these birds had turned their seemingly pointless wings into powerful diving aides. A joint […] The post Tiny Fossil Illuminates Penguin’s Surprisingly Useful Wings and How They Evolved appeared first on Good News Network.

Once again, corporate media is painting a conservative lawmaker’s mainstream views as out-of-touch and bizarre. In 2017, JD Vance, then known for authoring his memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” wrote an introduction to The Heritage Foundation’s 2017 Index for Culture and Opportunity, a collection of essays and charts looking at the state of families and prosperity in the United States. Cue the freakout from The New York Times and others. “Years before he became the Republican vice-presidential nominee, JD Vance endorsed a little-noticed 2017 report by The Heritage Foundation that proposed a sweeping conservative agenda to restrict sexual and reproductive freedoms and remake American families,” wrote New York Times reporter Lisa Lerer in an article published Tuesday. Others quickly piled on. “The vice-presidential candidate previously endorsed a collection of almost 30 essays by ultraconservative thinkers on restricting reproductive rights and other freedoms,” wrote The Daily Beast. Business Insider fretted that “JD Vance endorsed a report that criticizes people watching pornography.” MSNBC said Vance’s introduction “has come back to haunt him,” saying the index “includes essays that espouse right-wing talking points, targeting single-parent households, divorce rates, welfare programs, and housing assistance.” The Times, for its part, decided to use a sentence I wrote for the 2017 index to show just how insane they think Vance is. “Authors argued in the 2017 report that women should become pregnant at younger ages and that a two-parent, heterosexual household was the ‘ideal’ environment for children,” wrote Lerer. She added, “‘The ideal situation for any child is growing up with the mother and father who brought that child into the world,’ wrote Katrina Trinko, a conservative journalist, in an essay detailing the ‘tragedy’ of babies born to single mothers.” Now to be clear, as both Vance’s spokesperson and The Heritage Foundation have said, Vance had no editorial control or approval over my essay or any of the others in the 2017 Index of Culture and Opportunity. And for the record, while The New York Times couldn’t be bothered to include it, I also wrote in that essay, “Every parent who chooses life in adverse circumstances should be commended. Many single moms and dads, whether due to later circumstances or a surprise pregnancy, have nobly risen to the task and done an amazing job of raising their children …” But let’s look at my supposedly radical claim that the ideal should be kids growing up with both parents. First, my view is actually the mainstream view. Nearly half of Americans (47%) think that single women raising kids on their own is bad for society, while only 10% think it’s a good thing for society, according to a 2021 Pew Research Center poll. That’s not surprising—because the data clearly shows that kids do best when raised by a married mom and dad. In fact, if Lerer had just read her own outlet, she would know that. In a 2023 commentary headlined, “The Explosive Rise of Single-Parent Families Is Not a Good Thing,” economics professor Melissa Kearney writes, “The evidence is overwhelming: Children from single-parent homes have more behavioral problems, are more likely to get in trouble in school or with the law, achieve lower levels of education, and tend to earn lower incomes in adulthood.” In Kearney’s book, “The Two-Parent Privilege: How Americans Stopped Getting Married and Started Falling Behind,” she explored whether the disadvantages children of single parents faced could be explained by income or education differences between single parents and married parents. But the data shows that it’s the family formation, not simply parents’ education and income, that affect the children. “A child born in a two-parent household with a family income of $50,000 has, on average, better outcomes than a child born in a single-parent household earning the same income,” writes Kearney. Meanwhile, among kids who have a married mom with a bachelor’s degree, 57% have a bachelor’s degree of their own by age 25, according to Kearney. But among kids who have a single mom with a bachelor’s degree, only 28% have a bachelor’s degree by age 25. Funnily enough, while the elites may attack Vance for daring to espouse traditional values, their own behavior suggests they actually agree with him. “Many elites today—professors, journalists, educators, and other culture shapers—publicly discount or deny the importance of marriage, the two-parent family, and the value of doing all that you can to ‘stay together for the sake of the children,’ even as they privately value every one of these things. On family matters, they ‘talk left’ but ‘walk right,’” observes Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, in a February Atlantic essay. Wilcox, author of “Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families, and Save Civilization,” noted that a 2022 survey found that a mere 30% of college-educated liberals agreed that children are better off if they have two married parents. (In contrast, 91% of college-educated conservatives agreed with this.) But these college-educated liberals are not themselves going on to become single parents: “69% of the parents within this same group [college-educated liberals] were themselves stably married,” writes Wilcox. So apparently, Vance’s real crime isn’t daring to live by traditional values. It’s that he actually shares those views out loud. Vance, as many known from his 2016 memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” did not grow up in a stable, two-parent family. His parents divorced when he was young, with his dad essentially disappearing. His mother married five times and struggled with drug addiction. Vance was ultimately raised by his grandparents. There was eventually a happy ending for his mom—Vance proudly shared at the Republican National Convention that she was 10 years sober from drugs—but it came long after Vance’s childhood. Vance’s essay in the 2017 index highlights how, years before he became an Ohio senator, he was frustrated by the refusal of the elites to look at how culture shaped outcomes of Americans. “[P]urely economic questions miss something important about our current moment. Too rigid a focus on the material permits us to divorce concerns about opportunity from those about culture. In some ways, this is understandable: The comfort zone of many elites, and thus, their language trends toward the mathematical and technocratic,” he wrote before concluding, “But talk about it we must, because the evidence that culture matters should now overwhelm any suggestion to the contrary.” Vance later added: Recognizing the importance of culture is not the same as moral condemnation. We should not glance quickly at the poor and suggest that their problems derive entirely from their own bad decisions before moving on to other matters. Rather, we should consider the very intuitive fact that the way we grow up shapes us. It molds our attitudes, our habits, and our decisions. It sets boundaries for how we perceive possibilities in our own lives. Culture, in other words, must serve as the beginning of a conversation, not the end of one, and proper conversation about culture will never be used as a weapon against those whom Christ described as “the least of these.” It will be a needed antidote to a simplistic political discourse that speaks often about the vulnerable even as it regularly fails to help them. [Emphasis mine.] That last sentence struck me because it gets to the heart of what sets apart the Yale-educated Vance from his elite peers: A desire to actually help people, even if it means being courageous and saying something politically incorrect. But for refusing to be hypocritical, to live one way and talk another way, Vance is getting crucified by the Left. That’s not surprising. But if we’re serious about helping Americans live better lives, we need fewer sneering New York Times pieces and more Vances. The post The New York Times’ Weird Attack on JD Vance appeared first on The Daily Signal.

ABC News is denying The Daily Signal access to cover Tuesday’s presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris in Philadelphia. The event, which will take place at the National Constitution Center, is the only scheduled debate between Trump and Harris for the 2024 presidential election. ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis will moderate the 90-minute debate, set for 9 p.m. Tuesday. ABC News has DENIED my request for a @DailySignal media credential to cover the Trump-Harris presidential debate in Philadelphia. The National Constitution Center, where the debate is being held, is a 160,000-square-foot building, yet “space is extremely limited.”This is BS.… pic.twitter.com/DQnQGIBCEK— Rob Bluey (@RobertBluey) September 6, 2024 Reporters from other media outlets are normally allowed to attend such newsworthy events (as I’ve done in the past), including a post-debate spin room. Unlike previous years, however, the Commission on Presidential Debates isn’t involved in the planning, leaving such decisions up to the corporate media behemoths instead. In the case of Tuesday’s debate, ABC News worked with both campaigns to establish the rules. It also offered interested media outlets an opportunity to apply for press credentials. In a tersely worded email sent at 12:40 a.m. Friday, ABC News cited a lack of space at the 160,000-square-foot National Constitution Center as the reason for denying The Daily Signal’s request: Thank you for your interest in the ABC News’ Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, PA. Unfortunately, ABC News will not be able to offer you a media credential as space is extremely limited. Following its decision Friday, several journalists and commentators expressed outrage at ABC News’ exclusion of The Daily Signal. Bad form @ABC NEWS.Also @RobertBluey feel free to debate watch the with me at a local PA bar. I learned a lot more there than sitting with in a room with other reporters. In 2016 watched 1st Trump-Clinton at the Tin Lizzie & learned so much about where that race was heading. https://t.co/9aEG25BHjt pic.twitter.com/51iPYjxJIV— ZitoSalena (@ZitoSalena) September 6, 2024 The next time they preach about press access/the first amendment/ democracy remember not just what @abc says but how they act https://t.co/DELduV5Szv— Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) September 6, 2024 This is egregious. https://t.co/OvKbIWTXWY— Megan Basham (@megbasham) September 6, 2024 Completely unacceptable https://t.co/OR5fmRTgvm— David Marcus (@BlueBoxDave) September 6, 2024 Why won’t @ABC approve Daily Signal attending the debate?Because the are left-wingers who want to minimize the number of truthful reporters in attendance. https://t.co/dxPdzMWCFt— Brent Bozell (@BrentBozell) September 6, 2024 The liberal media wants to squash the conservative media. If ABC gives one leftist website a credential, then we'll know it was Rigged! If the Daily Signal doesn't get in, what about HuffPost? https://t.co/oy4mqSrnR1— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) September 6, 2024 Taking a cue from CNN’s debate between Trump and President Joe Biden, ABC News also won’t allow a live audience at the National Constitution Center. Before the June debate, the White House Correspondents Association objected to CNN’s prohibition on a pool reporter in the studio to observe Trump and Biden. In a June 27 statement, the association wrote: WHCA is deeply concerned that CNN has rejected our repeated requests to include the White House travel pool inside the studio. Through conversations and advocacy, we urged CNN to grant access to at least one print pool reporter for the duration of the debate. WHCA has been informed that one print reporter will be permitted to enter the studio during a commercial break to briefly observe the setting. That is not sufficient in our view and diminishes a core principle of presidential coverage. The White House pool has a duty to document, report, and witness the president’s events and his movements on behalf of the American people. The ABC News debate will mark one of the rare moments when Harris faces questions from journalists. Her only previous interview—the first since Biden dropped out of the race—came last week on CNN. The post ABC News Denies Daily Signal Access to Trump-Harris Debate appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Various military units around the world (notably in the UK during the pandemic) have been getting involved in what are ultimately, due to the goal (censorship) and participants (military) destined to become controversial, if not unlawful efforts. But there doesn’t seem to be a lot of desire to learn from others’ mistakes. The temptation to bring the defense system into the political “war on disinformation” arena seems to be too strong to resist. Right now in the US, Lockheed Martin is close to completing a prototype that will analyze media to “detect and defeat disinformation.” And by media, those commissioning the tool – called the Semantic Forensics (SemaFor) program – mean everything: news, the internet, and even entertainment media. Text, audio, images, and video that are part of what’s considered “large-scale automated disinformation attacks” are supposed to be detected and labeled as false by the tool. The development process is almost over, and the prototype is used by the US Defense Department’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/darpa-digital.mp4 The total value of the program, awarded by the Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate (acting for DARPA) to Lockheed Martin comes to $37.2 million, Military and Aerospace Electronics reported. Reports note that while past statistical detection methods have been “successful” they are now seen as “insufficient” for media disinformation detection. This is why looking into “semantic inconsistency” is preferred. There is a rather curious example given of how “mismatched earrings” can be a giveaway that a face is not real but generated via a GAN – a generative adversarial network. (GANs are a machine learning method.) And SemaFor’s purpose is to analyze media with semantic tech algorithms, to hand down the verdict of whether the content is authentic or false. There’s more: proving such activities come from a specific actor has been near impossible so far, but there’s a “mental workaround” that those behind the project seem happy with: infer, rather than identify. So – just like before? “Attribution algorithms” are what’s needed for this, and there’s more guesswork presented as reliable tech – namely, “characterization algorithms” to decide not only if media is manipulated or generated, but also if the purpose is malicious. Now, the only thing left to find out – how the algorithms are written. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Lockheed Martin Develops System to Identify and Counter Online “Disinformation,” Prototyped by DARPA appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has managed to work fearmongering over the perceived proliferation of misinformation, hate speech, and deepfakes into his message issued on the occasion of the upcoming International Day of Democracy. Not only that but as far as the UN is concerned, this year’s Day of Democracy is focused on – of all things – (at this point in time, upcoming at some later point in time) artificial intelligence (AI). Though the press release might look like a “politically correct word salad,” it does show a purpose – and that’s pressing for global AI regulation. The way is, perpetuating the fear that AI, such as it is today, is truly a possible threat to “democracy, peace, and stability.” According to the UN website, Guterres took this opportunity to frame the problem of erosion of free speech, civil liberties, rule of law, and diminishing trust (ostensibly in legacy media and institutions) as the consequence of that “proliferation of harm.” The Guterres statement starts off reasonably enough: on International Day of Democracy, these now-under-threat values are the ones that need to be promoted. But then he descends into explaining why that is by parroting what has been heard a myriad times thus far from many governments and global political and business elites. For example, what makes free speech so fragile these days? Censorship? Government censorship? And by the same token, is that what’s burdening civil rights in general? Guterres appears to believe – no. It’s all somehow revolving around “AI” and specifically how to control it – as “a tool for good governance.” The UN, born after the devastation of the Second World War as a forum to make sure that never repeats, has been losing in influence over the past decade in particular. Instead of serving its original purpose – especially as all sorts of chaotic behavior and events intensify around the world – this organization is now, alarmingly, trying to find a new lease on life around issues closely related to censorship and repression: the pandemic (via its WHO agency), and now, “disinformation, misinformation, AI…” That’s the context in which a UN secretary-general makes statements like these: “To seize these opportunities, (AI promoting public participation, equality, inclusiveness, ‘human development’…) it is critical to ensure effective governance of AI at all levels, including internationally.” Is that really what’s crucial for democracy now – sir? If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UN Secretary-General António Guterres Complains About “Misinformation” and “Hate Speech,” Calls for “Effective Governance” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Has Anyone Noticed That We Know More About Yesterday's School Shooter Than Crooks?

Former President Donald Trump blasted Vice President Kamala Harris at a town hall for proposing potentially devastating taxes and price controls.  Trump sounded the alarm over Harris’ proposals on price-fixing and taxing unrealized gains during a Sept. 4 town hall with Fox News host Sean Hannity. Trump warned that Harris would not only reverse his tax cuts and bring about the “biggest tax increase in history” but would also be responsible for a “1929-style depression.”  Hannity played a montage of legacy news outlets’ coverage of Harris’ past statements on economic issues, including a radical statement against fracking. The former president responded by going after Harris' current agenda, saying that only Marxists like Kamala Harris’ “Marxist teacher of economics” father would support her radical idea of taxing unrealized capital gains.  Trump said that if Harris enacted her proposal to tax unrealized gains Americans should “go out and open an appraisal company because you’re going to make a fortune, that’s about the only group that’s gonna make it, and accountants.” Trump added that taxing unrealized capital gains, “is the craziest idea and remember there’s very rich people and big international corporations, they don't have to stay in the United States and they will be forced to leave for other countries.” The former president also took issue with Harris’ price-fixing proposal. Hannity noted that price-fixing in the communist U.S.S.R. and Venezuela was "a disaster." Trump agreed adding that price-fixing had a several hundred-year track record of failure. The former president argued that every time price controls are tried “you end up with no product, massive inflation and you end up with the destruction of a country.” Hannity and Trump then discussed the impact of runaway inflation on ordinary Americans. Under the Biden-Harris administration, Americans have suffered through a brutal 5.3% average monthly inflation.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News at (818) 460-7477, CBS News at (212) 975-3247 and NBC News at (212) 664-6192 and demand they tell the truth about the Bidenomics disaster.

On CNN This Morning, CNN Chief National Affairs Correspondent Jeff Zeleny uttered a very cynical "why not?" on the question of whether Joe Biden should pardon Hunter. The show had played the clip of Biden flatly telling ABC's David Muir that he would not pardon his son. But hey! That was then, when Biden was running for president. And this is now, with Biden out of the race. So, yeah, "why not?" Biden breaking his promise would give a new meaning to a favorite line of his: "On my word as a Biden." Zeleny used the tried-and-true MSM dodge of putting his opinion in the mouths of others, framing his answer as a some-would-say spin. Zeleny built his case for the pardon by noting that the power to do so is "one prerogative a president has. I guess some would say why not use it?" Kasie Hunt also pushed the notion that Biden should pardon Hunter, asking Brad Todd, the sole Republican on the panel: "If you're Joe Biden, is there a reason not to pardon his kid at this point?" The "kid" is 54. Pledges,schmedges. Holding politicians to their promises is something the liberal media only tends to do with Republicans. The MSM mercilessly raked George H.W. Bush over the coals for going back on his "Read my lips: no new taxes"—despite the fact that the liberal media actually favors raising taxes on "the rich." Brad Todd, the sole Republican on the panel, had every confidence that Biden would go back on his word: "I don't think there's a person in this country that believes he won't pardon his kid." Question: What are the odds Hunter would have pleaded guilty if the fix weren't already in with the Big Guy Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 9/6/24 6:18 am EDT KASIE HUNT: A shocking twist in Hunter Biden's latest legal drama. President Biden's son pleading guilty in his federal tax case to all nine charges. The surprise plea coming just as jury selection was set to get underway, his lawyer telling reporters he made the decision to quote, protect those he loves from an unnecessary hurt and cruel humiliation. This would have been Hunter's second public trial this year. ABBE LOWELL: Hunter put his family first today, and it was a brave and loving thing for him to do. HUNT: The sentencing is now scheduled for December 16th.  Hunter could face up to 17 years in prison and a more than $1 million fine—if—he's not pardoned. That's a possibility that Joe Biden had ruled out during Hunter Biden's federal gun trial earlier this year.  DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you, will you accept the jury's outcome, their verdict, no matter what it is? JOE BIDEN: Yes. MUIR: And have you ruled out a pardon for your son?  BIDEN: Yes. MUIR: You have. HUNT: Now, yesterday, the White House press secretary reiterated that message, telling reporters the answer is still no. But Jeff Zeleny, there is one critical difference between the Joe Biden there that said he would not pardon his son Hunter, and Joe Biden today. Which is that he is no longer running for reelection. JEFF ZELENY: Without question. I mean, so we'll see how this goes. Everything has changed in President Biden's world since then. He was seeking reelection, in that interview with David Muir, in a very tough reelection fight. Now he's not. So look, this is going to be, it's one prerogative a president has. I guess some would say why not use it?  . . .  HUNT: Brad, as the Republican at the table. I mean, if you're Joe Biden, is there a reason not to pardon his kid at this point? BRAD TODD:  I don't think there's a person that country that believes he won't pardon his kid. You know, but let's go back a minute. Hunter says he didn't want put his family through it. He should have thought of that before he sold access to his father to some of the seediest corporations and entities in the world. He, he's put his family through plenty on purpose for a long time.

On Saturday night, the Israeli military made a macabre and horrifying discovery: the slain bodies of six hostages taken by Hamas, including American citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin. All six hostages had been shot point-blank in the head some 48-72 hours prior, presumably upon the approach of IDF soldiers; Hamas terrorists chose to murder the hostages they had held in terror tunnels for over 300 days rather than risk their liberation. The discovery sent the entire nation of Israel into mourning. On Oct. 7, Israelis were forced to remember that the enemy they face is not merely violent, but purely evil. In subsequent months, with the extraordinary progress of the IDF in Gaza over the protestations of the Biden administration, Hamas’ evils were relegated once more to the realm of military conflict. But the very thought of these victims — Goldberg-Polin, 23; Eden Yerushalmi, 24; Ori Danino, 25; Alex Lobanov, 32; Carmel Gat, 40; and Almog Sarusi, 27 — suffering without sunlight, food or water for nearly a year, all to be shot to death within hours of their possible freedom, reopened all the wounds of Oct. 7. It turned out that all the diplomatic overtures made by America — overtures largely accepted by the supposedly intransigent administration of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — meant nothing. As Netanyahu pointed out, “whoever murders hostages does not want a deal.” That was predictable enough, given the fact that Hamas’ chief goal is its own survival — a goal directly at odds with Israel’s necessary goal of extirpating Hamas. That is why Hamas has consistently declared for months that there would be no hostage release without a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, along with the discharge of hundreds of convicted terrorists and murderers. Anything less than survival for Hamas is a loss. Dead Palestinians help Hamas achieve its goal of pressuring Israel; dead hostages help Hamas achieve its goal of pressuring Israel. And yet the immediate response of America and Great Britain has been to push Israel into more concessions. Asked whether Netanyahu had done enough to secure the hostage release, President Joe Biden — fresh from the beach in Delaware — said “no.” That is obviously political madness; if the murder of hostages wins indulgences, surely Hamas has the incentive to murder more hostages. But it is, far more importantly, moral madness; handing a victory to the very monsters who currently hold toddlers and threaten to shoot them in the head is the essence of cowardice. It’s worse: it’s complicity in evil. The only possible moral frame in which Israel can be blamed for Hamas’ monstrousness is a relativistic one, in which barbaric evil can be projected onto the “root cause” of the West. There is a reason so much of the left views America’s loss of the Vietnam War as a victory, or sees the Afghanistan pullout as a triumph, ignoring the viciousness of the Viet Cong and the Taliban. In this view, the cruelty of the West’s enemies is merely a response to the West’s own cruelty — and the evidence of that proposition is the existence of our enemies. Were we kind, generous and tolerant, we would have no enemies, goes the logic — thus the presence of our enemies demonstrates how fatally flawed we are. This perverse philosophy gives ammunition to the world’s worst human beings. Depriving evil actors of agency means leaving them free to pursue their worse designs, secure in the knowledge that the more savagely they act, the more they will be excused for their cruelty. The West, in this view, can never triumph but through surrender. This philosophy will destroy the West from within as well as from without. Cowardice is the greatest aid to evil; in fact, it is its own form of evil, for without it, evil could never win. A West incapable of distinguishing between those who kidnap and murder hostages in pursuit of Islamist theocracy and those who seek to free those hostages is a West that simply cannot survive. Ben Shapiro’s new collection, “Facts and Furious: The Facts About America and Why They Make Leftists Furious,” is available now. Shapiro is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” and co-founder of Daily Wire+. He is a three-time New York Times bestselling author. To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Hunter Biden’s shocking guilty plea in a California courtroom on Thursday led to a more shocking network-news result. ABC, CBS, and NBC all led their evening newscasts with Hunter’s plea. Between them, the Big Three aired more than eight minutes of coverage. Public broadcasting? Not so much. The PBS NewsHour gave it 54 seconds in a longer interview with NPR legal reporter Carrie Johnson with the online headline “Trump attorneys and prosecutors clash over key details of his election interference case.”     NPR’s All Things Considered listed their four-minute Ryan Lucas story online as story number 15. Fifteen. Their top story was a puffball by Asma Khalid titled “What Kamala Harris' foreign policy of might look like if she becomes president.” Let’s review what did not appear in these stories on the pro-Harris networks: No Republican soundbites or statements.  Republicans would have had plenty to say. The Big Three all ran Hunter’s lawyer Abbe Lowell proclaiming “Hunter decided to enter his plea to protect those he loves from unnecessary hurt and cruel humiliation. Hunter put his family first today.” No mention of the suppression of Hunter Biden's laptop exposing the guilty activities from in the last weeks of the 2020 campaign. We saw dated Biden soundbites pledging he wouldn't pardon his son. We didn't see dated Biden soundbites ludicrously claiming “My son has done nothing wrong." He even said that last year to Stephanie Ruhle on MSNBC.  Most ignored or soft-soaped Hunter's binging on crack cocaine and hookers with his untaxed millions. ABC and CBS couldn't explain where the "humiliation" came from in a trial. NBC mentioned "payments to women and luxury car purchases."  NPR's Ryan Lucas said the trial was "expected to dredge up some very embarrassing details of a very dark period in Hunter's life when he was addicted to crack cocaine." Most omitted the word “felonies.” They referred vaguely to Hunter pleading guilty to “federal tax charges.” ABC’s Pierre Thomas was the exception.  Most ignored any effects on the Kamala Harris campaign. On this, NPR's Ryan Lucas spun furiously. Anchor Ari Shapiro asked, "Does it still matter politically?" He claimed it's disappeared:  RYAN LUCAS: Well, they certainly do not matter to the same extent as they did back in, say, June, when Hunter was convicted of gun charges in Delaware. But these legal troubles of Hunter certainly were seen as a political liability for President Biden in the middle of what was a very tight 2024 presidential race. Republicans certainly have tried to use Hunter's personal problems to hamstring his father politically. But, yeah, now that President Biden isn't running for reelection, the potential political impact of Hunter's conviction here -- well, his guilty plea here and his conviction in Delaware on gun charges has really kind of disappeared.