If you didn't see Jon Stewart's Monday hosting of The Daily Show, it was a look at the first 100 days of Trump's new administration.  It will not shock you to learn that the piece was blistering, very detailed and overrun with wonderful, ridiculing sarcasm.
​

On Tuesday, I posted on social media about an article in The New York Times that called Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) a kind of "working class" hero, suggesting he supports lower-income Americans over the elite, claiming that although Hawley is an elite son of a banker and Ivy League graduate, he embraces populist ideals.  And according to the Times,  Hawley represents a growing schism within the party formerly known as Republicans.

In reality, Hawley is a disingenuous. Trump-loving opportunist.  It made me wonder if it was a slow news day for the paper.  After all, in case they had forgotten, lone wolf pseudo-populist Josh Hawley is the guy who urged on the Jan. 6 Insurrectionists and then went running away when they entered the Capitol.

I subscribe to the New York Times, and like the paper, even though I don't agree with it all the time -- and am even bothered by it more often than I like, especially when they bend over backwards to be "neutral" to those who have done next to nothing to deserve the consideration.  And boy, did the Times blow it here, bending over so far backwards that they probably broke their nose in the effort.

To be fair, I’ll note that, no, of course not everyone agreed with my take on the article, including some I usually agree with.  My friend Tony Blumberg – a very thoughtful, even-handed guy who’s an attorney and member of the Highland Park (IL) city council – felt that the article was fairly balanced and neutral, and that it suggested Josh Hawley isn’t really a populist, but more superficial and self-centered.
 
I understand Tony’s point, and much-respect his opinions. And yes, he’s right, the article did point out some contradictory views. I just didn't find their weak efforts remotely well-balanced. For all the occasional refutations, the overriding premise throughout was that Hawley was a populist, and where his supposed populism came from.  Ultimately, to be clear, my quibble wasn't with how Tony saw the article, but with what the NY Times wrote.  After all, for whatever attempt at balance there was, (and, yes, there was some), the article began with a glowing headline about Josh Hawley being “at war” with his party.  Which is ludicrous.  After which, near the very top of the article, they compared his supposed-populism to the wildly-popular Senator Bernie Sanders across the aisle.
 
Let's be clear:  Bernie Sanders has been a populist for over 60 years, two decades longer than Josh Hawley has been alive.  On the other hand, Hawley – as the article itself states – is “a full-throttle champion of socially conservative causes” and a lifelong opportunist.  And that's not just my opinion, but the Missouri politician who helped promote Hawley's career -- the even-handed, well-respected John Danforth -- said in 2021 that he not only regrets ever pushing Josh Hawley, but said on a podcast that it is “what Dr. Frankenstein must have felt”!!!
 
Indeed, even the Times itself had a hard time supporting its own premise of a “war” in the party -- writing "Mr. Hawley may be a lonely voice" and "still, Mr. Hawley is regarded as a loner who has not built coalitions." Some war. And their few examples of this supposed populism ignores the vast scope of his voting record that almost fully aligns with his fellow-MAGOPs. Indeed, checking an "ideology score" from GovTrack shows Josh Hawley comfortably in the top 40% of the far-right part of Senate MAGOPs. Hardly the at-war portion of the party the Times wants to portray him in.
 
So, for starters, while the paper does suggest there is a growing divide in the party, the fact that they even just suggest this, let alone that Hawley represents it, is -- to me -- ludicrous and creating a false narrative. The party today is MAGOP, and has long been. And it is unanimity that has long identified party, both the "formerly known" and current. After all, Ronald Reagan famously referenced the "11th Commandment" of Republicans -- "Tho shalt not criticize another Republican." No matter how much the NY Times wants to suggest a war within the MAGOP, there isn't a battle or brushfire in the party over policy or conscience. It votes near unanimous (House and Senate) on almost everything. Significantly more than Democrats do. Just the other day, Lisa Murkowski actually stated in public that its members are afraid to vote against leadership. A year or two ago, I wrote that the former-GOP is now the fringe group, and MAGOPs control it.  There is no war in MAGOP.  The party is solidly MAGOP.
 
Again, to be clear, I'm not refuting Tony’s reading of the article at all. Just suggesting that the paper's foundational premise, which required a balancing act, was (to me) deeply flawed.
 
If there is going to be a divide in the party, I would suggest it's not now, but will be closer to the Mid-Terms when members see their re-election at risk by being tied to Trump. But that won't be a divide over conscience or political belief, but expedience and fear for their jobs.
 
Equally important -- because I don't expect many of the MAGOP base to subscribe to the paper, let alone ever dream of reading it, I was bothered all the more so -- because there was plenty in it for MAGOP to pull from it in some article they would read about how the New York Times wrote a long profile praising Josh Hawley as a champion of the common man.  And though, no, the Times didn't exactly do that, they did plenty enough where they did write it.  From all I've seen of Josh Hawley, he is not even remotely a “neutral” kind of person who some can see as being on the side of the Little Guy.  He is a far-right opportunist with no particular moral center who has long-supported almost everything Trump.
 
But mainly…
 
I decided to write about this not just because of how disappointed I was by the New York Times, but even more because of how it lets me bring in my good friend Bart Baker.
 
Whenever I see even half-praise of Josh Hawley, it allows me to note it online and start a countdown until Bart, who lives in Missouri, the state Hawley represents, pops in to respond with one of his classic, trademarked BartRants ™.
 
A few months back, Bart got a Writers Guild of America nomination for writing the Lifetime TV movie, Forever. While well-deserved, I've always thought, though, that what he should have gotten nominated for was his many years of BartRants (tm), but especially those on Josh Hawley.  Alas, the WGA doesn’t cover political bombasts.
 
Anyway, after I posted my initial comments about the New York Times article, I followed it by adding – “The floor is yours, Bart Baker.”

Because as insanely pathetic as the NYTimes story was, there was a side of me that likes it because it gave me the opportunity to tweak Bart’s attention – and then I get to sit back and revel in the BartRant (tm) that I know is coming...”

His response did not disappoint.  Bart uses rants like Shakespeare uses sonnets.  And so, I give him the final word on Josh Hawley, no matter how “even-handed” and “neutral” the New York Times wanted to be about him.

I will not reformat it to put in paragraphs for easier reading.  A BartRant (tm) deserves to be read in its stream-of-consciousness fullness.

A month ago, my pal Mark Evanier wrote about a debate online about whether a video of the very old Jimmy Durante TV show from 1956 featured a very young Mary Tyler Moore, who began her career as a dancer.  You can read about it and see the video here.

(I'm a bit late writing about this here.  I did write to Mark, but the time needed to prepare the material for a column was interrupted by the trip to Chicago.)

As I love Jimmy Durante, and was intrigued by the mention of Mary Tyler Moore, like Mark I wasn't sure about what I saw in the video.  Though I leaned towards, “Hmm, maybe it is.”  So, I decided to do some research, which was very tough going.
 
But uphill as the effort was, after honing in on things to look for I did find on the iMDB database that the very next year, in 1957, Durante was in an episode of a variety show called Club Oasis.  And in the cast that night, Mary Tyler Moore is listed as “Chorus Girl.”
 
That isn’t proof, of course, that she’s in that video on his show – but enough evidence to make me keep looking.
 
What I next found was a customer review on Amazon of a DVD documentary about Jimmy Durante, where the person comments that Mary Tyler Moore is sitting next to Durante during an early production number.  Now, that, of course, isn’t proof either.  So, I went on YouTube to see if someone had posted the video of the DVD.  And…someone did.  So, I started scrolling through it…
 
And at the 10:40 mark, I found the scene that the guy was referring to.  And having watched it just once (let alone repeated viewings and pausing)…there is no question in my mind that it’s Mary Tyler Moore.  She’s sitting next to him for two minutes, so it’s not a case of a quick glance as she dances by.  It’s absolutely her, compounded by all those other “hints.”
 
Here’s the link – jump to the 10:40 mark and watch for the next two minutes.
​

So, did anyone have trouble picking out the woman here who looks exactly like Mary Tyler Moore?
​
​That’s pretty compelling, I think.  But when you see the scene in action for two minutes -- with her moving, thinking, smiling, turning and even a close-up for almost half a minute of just her and Durante, as she reacts to him, not merely a still photo -- it’s even more clear.

I understand why there is a debate from that video making its way around the Internet.  But given that there is documented evidence that it's on the record that she began her career as a dancer, and that she actually did really appear with Jimmy Durante the next year after that video and is listed as "Chorus Girl" and this video evidence, whether on his show or on the Club Oasis show the next year -- I can only state that I am not only positive that that is Mary Tyler Moore on Jimmy Durante's show...but I'm on the edge of bewildered why there is still any uncertainty.

And as long was we're talking about not just Mary Tyler Moore, but also Jimmy Durante, who as I said I love, I thought I'd give him his due and post one of my favorite numbers he did.  I know it was a staple for his act, and did it on TV several times, and that this isn't the best version -- but it's still a very good version, and the only one I could find.  It comes from April 4, 1970, and is the last original episode of a TV program, Jimmy Durante Presents the Lennon Sisters Hour.  This is his bit -- "A Piano is a Delicate Thing."

And yes, for anyone unsure, I'll end the debate here:  that is​ Jimmy Durante.

I didn't think I'd ever have reason to thank Trump for one of his fascist actions -- but thanks to Trump, the far-right supporter of him in Canada running for Prime Minister lost a 24-point guaranteed win, and the liberal candidate, economist Mark Carney won. So, thanks to Trump.

How disastrous a rebuke of Trump was Canada's election?
 
A couple months ago, conservative candidate for Prime Minister Pierre Polivere, the opposition leader, was up 24 points in polls. Then Trump began ranting about 51st state. Polivere not only lost the PM race -- he lost his election to just keep his seat and stay a member of Parliament!
 
So, as a public service for those who didn't watch a 20-minute interview with an economist when I first posted this from The Daily Show back on March 11 before he was even a candidate, here's the the very interesting and wonderfully entertaining (yes, really) 20-minute interview with the upgraded status to "newly elected Prime Minister of Canada".
​

 
If you didn’t see Last Week Tonight with Jon Oliver on Sunday night, the Main Story was on the Department of Health & Human Services. And it was so tour-de-force wonderful that we're going to feature it this morning, rather than its usual evening humor slot.

Make no mistake, it's still very funny.  But funny for it's blistering and damning sarcasm that permeates the whole piece.  Mainly, though, it's a scathing and masterful -- and monumentally deserved -- takedown of Robert Kennedy Junior, with a dose saved for Elon Musk.  But far above all, it focuses on the disastrous Kennedy, a danger to American health on so many levels.

On the one hand, I found the report so excellent that I didn't want it to end.  On the other hand, I was relieved when it finally did.  If I had any quibble, it's that Trump isn't raked over the coals for nominating him and giving him free rein -- nor is the MAGOPs in the Senate for approving him.  They're both referenced for their parts, of course, but deserved much more unrelenting shame.

That aside, this is superb.

I’m a big admirer of The Daily Show’s Jordan Klepper, who is fearless, smart and funny going into hostile political areas and interview people who he has a pretty good idea hate him.  After Daily Show broadcasts, the day’s host usually spends a bit of time answering questions from the audience – and this is a 12-minute collection of some of his responses to questions about his experience.  I posted a much-shorter version of this before, but we get a lot more details and stories here.  His opinions, based on his experiences, are very thoughtful and interesting. 
 
I’m not sure I agree 100% with an overall conclusion he discusses, about how to reach an understanding of sorts between the two sides, though I do get his point in theory.  But as he at least notes, when the two sides aren’t disagreeing on the facts and interpretation of them, but one of the sides just isn’t accepting reality, and their beliefs from that have become “who you are,” then it’s really not ever going to be a case of both sides being more flexible.  Though I do understand what he’s trying to point out.