YouTube/Meghan McCain & Evan Agostini/Invision/AP

Conservative commentator Meghan McCain revealed on Tuesday that he had been “listening to nothing but” Puerto Rican rapper Bad Bunny since his Super Bowl halftime performance, with a  song with an anti-Trump music video being her “favorite.”

“Been listening to nothing but Bad Bunny since the Super Bowl. Congrats to all the lunatics who have inadvertently turned me into the biggest Bad Bunny stan on the planet now,” wrote McCain on social media. “My favorite song is Titi Me Pregunto & NuevaYol.”

Social media users were quick to inform McCain – a supporter of President Donald Trump – of the anti-Trump nature of Bad Bunny’s song “NuevaYol,” which features a scene in its official music video where Trump apologizes to immigrants and says the United States would be “nothing” without migrants from Latin America.

“I made a mistake. I want to apologize to the immigrants of America,” says Trump in a fake presidential address in the video. “I want to say that this country is nothing without the immigrants. This country is nothing without Mexicans, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, Venezuelans, Cubans.”

Bad Bunny’s performance at the Super Bowl polarized viewers, receiving condemnation from many conservative Trump supporters who highlighted the rapper’s history of anti-ICE remarks and complained that the show was in Spanish and featured foreign flags.

The president himself criticized the show in a Truth Social post, calling it “absolutely terrible, one of the worst, EVER!” and an “affront to the Greatness of America.”

“Nobody understands a word this guy is saying, and the dancing is disgusting, especially for young children that are watching from throughout the U.S.A., and all over the World,” he wrote. “This ‘Show’ is just a ‘slap in the face’ to our Country.”

The post Meghan McCain Thanks ‘Lunatic’ Bad Bunny Critics for Turning Her Into ‘Stan’ – And Reveals Anti-Trump Song Is Her ‘Favorite’ first appeared on Mediaite.

Like millions of Americans, I've been watching the news of Nancy Guthrie's disappearance with concern—so I was somewhat relieved when the FBI announced they were releasing new footage of a suspect. Finally, the case had something to go on, even if it was only doorbell video of a masked stranger.

When I saw the footage, I assumed this was something the FBI had in their possession since the beginning, and had finally decided to release to the public. But that's not what happened at all. If you have been following this case closely, you may know that law enforcement had previously confirmed that Guthrie's Google Nest camera was disconnected (presumably by the perpetrator), and that she did not have a subscription that would store video either on the doorbell or in the cloud. Yet despite the fact the doorbell should have been a dead end, the FBI has seemingly produced this video out of thin air.

If you have a Google Nest device in or attached to your home, this might give you pause. Sure, it's one thing if law enforcement is able to obtain video from your subscription or from the device itself. But if you don't keep video records on your Nest, it seems it is still possible to retrieve the footage. How did the FBI do this, and what does it mean for the privacy of your Nest devices?

The FBI likely pieced the video together from fragments

The short answer is that we don't really know for sure how the FBI got the footage, but there are a few leads. According to FBI Director Kash Patel, the Google Nest footage was recovered "from residual data located in backend systems." That's pretty vague, though the FBI isn't necessarily known for its transparency_.

According to experts that spoke to NBC News, however, it is possible to obtain data from the "complex infrastructure" of cloud-based cameras, including Google Nest devices. Retired FBI agent Timothy Gallagher told NBC News that Guthrie's Nest camera might have sent images to Google's cloud service, or at least stored data points locally throughout the hardware of the device, even though she wasn't paying for a Nest subscription. The FBI could have obtained the footage from the cloud this way, or pieced together the video from those data points.

Both possibilities track, based on how Nest cameras work without a subscription: While you need to pay Google in order to save video clips from your Nest cameras, some Nest devices record event histories and store them on-device. The third-gen wired Nest Doorbell can save up to 10 seconds of clips, while the first and second-gen wired doorbells can save up to three hours of event history, all without a subscription. They also support live video feeds when motion is detected, which could impact the video data points saved to the device or cloud.

It's entirely possible the subject walking up to the camera triggered the doorbell to save an event history. But since it took the FBI so long to produce the footage, and since the director claims it was obtained from "residual data," my guess is it wasn't readily available in Guthrie's Google Home app. Maybe the event history saved to the cloud, but it wasn't clear where it was located. Maybe it was overwritten, but the FBI was able to build it back up with recovered data points. My guess would learn toward the latter, as authorities did say the camera had been disconnected. Unfortunately, we don't have a definitive answer at this time, even if the theory is sound.

I've reached out to Google for comment, and will update this piece if I hear back.

Should you get rid of your Nest camera over privacy concerns?

Based on what we know, it doesn't really seem like your Nest doorbell or camera is a fourth amendment disaster waiting to happen—but I don't blame anyone for being concerned. After all, if you don't have a Nest subscription, you might have been comforted by the thought that none of your footage was being saved anywhere, meaning law enforcement or other authorities would have nothing to seize if you somehow popped up on their radar. That doesn't necessarily appear to be the case.

That said, without a subscription, you don't have access to a collection of all clips your Nest camera has ever recorded. You might have a limited event history saved, based on motion detection, but that will be limited to three hours of data. Your device might have data points that an organization like the FBI could theoretically use to restore footage, but that's likely true for any camera or smart doorbell system—not just Nest.

Also, this is not a Ring situation—Google hasn't partnered with organizations like Flock to help law enforcement request footage from users. Nest also lacks Ring's "Search Party" feature, which can turn a neighborhood into a kind of surveillance state, and probably not just to search for lost dogs. I'm not dismissing every security and privacy concern, of course: By putting a commercially-available smart camera on your front door, you are placing your data in the hands of companies like Google or Amazon. If you want to eliminate the risk of the FBI obtaining your doorbell footage, you simply can't have a doorbell with a camera. But barring a warrant, or a Nancy Guthrie-level situation, the chances of your Nest doorbell footage actually being used against you seem rather slim.

Photo: Alex Brandon/AP

A federal judge in Michigan who was appointed by President Donald Trump dealt his administration a blow Tuesday in an opinion that ruled the state did not have to turn over its voter rolls to the federal government.

The ruling, flagged by Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney, came amid over two dozen lawsuits that the Trump administration filed in an attempt to get voter data in multiple cities and states across the U.S. The president and his administration have been making comments repeating old claims of voter fraud and arguing there should be federal control of elections — contrary to the clear language in the U.S. Constitution. In late January, Trump’s FBI conducted a raid in Fulton County, Georgia and seized ballots from the 2020 election.

Judge Hala Y. Jarbou, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, was appointed to the federal bench by Trump in September 2020, and has been a member of the Federalist Society since 2011, according to an archived version of her bio on the Oakland County, Michigan website from when she was a circuit court judge.

In her 23-page opinion, Jarbou found that the federal government had failed to show that it was entitled to the state’s records under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), or the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA).

Going through each of these three laws, the judge granted the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants (the state of Michigan and Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, plus a Michigan retirees advocacy group and two Michigan residents who joined the case as intervening defendants), summarizing her conclusions as “(1) HAVA does not require the disclosure of any records, (2) the NVRA does not require the disclosure of voter registration lists because they are not records concerning the implementation of list maintenance procedures, and (3) the CRA does not require the disclosure of voter registration lists because they are not documents that come into the possession of election officials.”

Specifically regarding HAVA, Jarbou rejected the Trump administration’s arguments by noting that it had failed to “allege any violations of HAVA’s substantive provisions,” and was engaging in a fishing expedition to try and “obtain information to support its (as-yet-nonexistent) claim via discovery.”

The NVRA claim failed because of well-established precedent that Michigan can withhold “sensitive voter information,” Jarbou wrote, citing over a dozen cases finding that “to require such disclosure would contradict the NVRA’s objective of increasing voter participation because the risk of having one’s personal information misused will deter people from registering to vote,” “would also fly in the face of other federal statutes protecting private information,” would undermine election security measures by making voters’ identifying information (driver’s license numbers and last four digits of their SSNs) public and thereby no longer able to be used to verify a voter’s identify when they register, and “would potentially cause the statute to impose an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

“[A] natural reading” of NVRA “suggests that it requires states to disclose information regarding the process by which they maintain their voter registration list but not the list itself,” Jarbou wrote, and this interpretation “avoids the implausible suggestion that Congress intended for every member of the public to access voters’ sensitive information.”

Similarly, the Trump administration’s efforts to argue it should be able to obtain the records under the CRA were rejected, with Jarbou pointing to “the statutory text” and finding the feds’ arguments that the law did not properly cover advances in technology like computerized records.

The distinction she found between the plain text of the law and what the feds were arguing might be “overly pedantic,” Jarbou acknowledged, but “it is a pedantic distinction made by Congress, and it is Congress’s prerogative to make distinctions that may seem unnecessary to a person reading the statute over six decades after its passage.”

Citing a book co-authored by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and renowned legal scholar and Black’s Law Dictionary editor Bryan Garner, Jarbou wrote that “a court is not a ‘telepathic time-traveler,’ and thus it ‘cannot rewrite Congressional legislation to cover a situation that Congress may not have foreseen.'”

Read the opinion here.

The post Trump-Appointed Judge Blocks His Admin From Michigan Voter Rolls: ‘Unconstitutional Burden on the Right to Vote’ first appeared on Mediaite.

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication.

Meta has made virtual reality (VR) accessible to many more people, offering good VR headsets for much cheaper than the competition. Right now, the 128GB Meta Quest 3S Batman: Arkham Shadow Bundle is on sale for $249 (originally $299.99), the lowest price it has been, according to price-tracking tools. You can double the storage for $375.91 (originally $399.99); that version has dropped to $350 in the past. The bundle includes the Batman game (with a list price of $49.99) and a three-month trial subscription to Meta Horizon+ that's normally $7.99 a month.

Get Batman: Arkham Shadow and a 3-Month Trial of Meta Quest+ Included — All-in-One Headset

Meta Quest 3S 128GB

$249.00 at Amazon

$299.99 Save $50.99

Get Deal

Get Deal

$249.00 at Amazon

$299.99 Save $50.99

Get Batman: Arkham Shadow and a 3-Month Trial of Meta Quest+ Included — All-in-One Headset

Meta Quest 3S 256GB

$399.00 at Amazon

$399.99 Save $0.99

Get Deal

Get Deal

$399.00 at Amazon

$399.99 Save $0.99

SEE -1 MORE

It's true, the Meta Quest 3 has better graphics, but it costs substantially more (currently $499.99) than the 3S version. Lifehacker staff writer Stephen Johnson tested both VR headsets to decide which of the two is better, and the Meta Quest 3S was his winner—you can read a more in-depth review of the Quest 3S here. There just isn't enough of a difference between the two models to justify the additional cost, with the Quest 3S's graphics looking very close to the 3 and running the same games and apps.

The Meta Quest 3S has a Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 processor, 8GB of RAM, a display resolution of 1,832 by 1,920 (per eye), and a refresh rate of 120Hz. Once you put them on, the horizontal field of view is 96 degrees, and the vertical view is 90 degrees. The audio is stereo, which is nice, and the speakers are compatible with 3D spatial audio. When it comes to battery life, expect up to two and a half hours of juice before having to recharge (expect it to take about two hours for a full charge). I've recently got the headset and have to say I've never experienced something so immersive (it was my first time using a VR headset). If you've been curious about the experience, this is the best time to get your hands on one.

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication.

LG has some of the best OLED TVs on the market, from entry-level models that suit a lower budget to ultra-premium, high-tech options. If you want OLED-quality performance from a reliable brand without breaking the bank, the LG B5 is an intuitive smart TV with the brand’s signature vivid color, contrast-rich visuals, and strong gaming features. Right now, this 77-inch LG B5 OLED TV is $1,500 off at Best Buy in a Presidents Day Deal, bringing its original $2,999.99 price tag down to $1,499.99.

LG - 77" Class B5 Series OLED AI 4K UHD Smart webOS TV (2025)

$1,499.99 at Amazon

$2,999.99 Save $1,500.00

Get Deal

Get Deal

$1,499.99 at Amazon

$2,999.99 Save $1,500.00

The B5 is LG’s most affordable 2025 OLED TV, and its biggest draw is excellent OLED picture quality, with true blacks, strong color accuracy, and detailed contrast (as well as built-in burn-in mitigation). It’s suitable for both streaming and gaming, with 4K resolution, a 120Hz refresh rate with low input lag and VRR, G-Sync, and FreeSync support, as well as HDMI 2.1 ports. It uses the easy-to-navigate webOS platform and includes a range of streaming apps, free channels, and AI features like AI Voice ID, which can recognize individual viewers and switch to their profile. 

While it has a lot in common with the C4, the lower price tag and the fact that it supports Wi-Fi 6E make this model more appealing for some buyers. And for a huge OLED TV, it’s aggressively priced, making the 77-inch LG B5 OLED TV a smart value buy for gamers and everyday viewers at $1,500 off. However, if you want better brightness and more advanced processing, you may want to level up to the C4 or the newer C5.

The View’s Ana Navarro heralded Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl half time performance as a “micro joy” needed to help with “macro sadness” being experienced by Latinos in the United States.

The NFL’s choice of the artist, whose real name is Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, drew the ire of President Donald Trump and MAGA followers who protested by putting on an alternative show via Turning Point USA featuring Kid Rock.

“I think maybe the reason that Trump doesn’t like Bad Bunny is because Bad Bunny unlike him isn’t a nepo trust fund baby,” Navarro said on Monday’s show. “Just 10 years ago — this is amazing to me — just 10 years ago Benito Martínez Ocasio, Bad Bunny, was bagging groceries at a supermarket in San Juan and uploading his music to YouTube. Ten years later, here he is at the biggest stage in the world.”

Navarro continued, “There were so many people texting me yesterday on my timeline who told me they were weeping. And I can’t overstate what it means to the Latino community that has seen itself persecuted, attacked, racially profiled. We have seen for the last year our children dragged through the streets. We have seen our pregnant women, our elderly dragged through the streets, disappeared and detained. To have Bad Bunny use that platform to say, ‘Do not otherize us. We are all part of America, and we are all equal and we all belong, and love is stronger than hate.'”

“You know, micro joys help us deal with macro sadness,” Navarro added. “I have had macro sadness for over a year under Trump seeing what he has done to my community and what he continues to do to my community. I am so grateful to Bad Bunny for having given me that micro joy.”

Watch the clip above via ABC’s The View.

The post The View’s Ana Navarro Gets Emotional Over Bad Bunny’s Performance: ‘Can’t Overstate What it Means’ After What Trump ‘Has Done to My Community’ first appeared on Mediaite.

When I asked real people why they post their workouts online, I received well over a hundred replies, many of them filled with venting about body image issues and unattainable beauty standards. That's didn't surprise me. What did surprise me was that the majority of these responses came from men. 

Carefully measured chicken and rice, obsessive tracking of macros, the guilt when a workout is missed: On social media, these behaviors are framed in the language of performance and strength. The same rituals that would be clear indications of disordered behavior for women are redefined as “discipline” and “optimization” for men. How many men suffer in silence because eating disorders are coded as a women's issue? How many cases go unrecognized when they're framed as "clean eating" or "serious training"? When eating disorders and body dysmorphia get rebranded as "fitness goals," a lot of men are left struggling in plain sight. 

Men can have eating disorders, too

Boys and men now make up about a third of those diagnosed with eating disorders, and that figure likely understates the crisis. In particular, muscle dysmorphia—sometimes called "bigorexia"—is characterized by excessive and compulsive exercise, a persistent belief that one is insufficiently muscular, and an obsession with muscle mass, size, and leanness. 

Unfortunately, much of fitness culture allows men to engage in disordered behaviors by wrapping them in performance language. "Bulking" and "shredding" cycles can mask seriously problematic eating patterns. Without giving certain men in my life an armchair diagnosis, I can confidently say I’ve seen the mental fallout when someone’s extreme caloric restriction becomes "cutting" or compulsive exercise becomes "staying on track."

Unsurprisingly, social media amplifies these harmful messages. Mason Boudrye, who describes himself as "someone known to post gratuitous thirst traps," shared with me the mental fallout of always trying to look a certain way. “Even if people don't admit that the obsessive tracking and strict adherence to diet qualifies as disordered eating, I know it’s true for me,” he says. The social media of it all makes these feelings even more public and persistent. 

We all scroll through feeds of chemically enhanced physiques presented as natural and achievable. This naturally breeds more self-scrutiny, more comparison, more perceived inadequacy. Matthew Singer, a yoga teacher, says most “fitspo” (fitness inspiration) “is as helpful for fitness as previous winning lottery numbers are for winning millions. Fitspo cannot take into account genetics, job and family circumstances, health history, or any of the other countless factors that influence health outcomes." Our bodies are treated like projects always in need of correction, devoid of much-needed context.

What’s most troubling to me is the way men don’t get to call out disordered behaviors by name. There is both a misconception around who eating disorders affect, and a deep reluctance among affected men to seek help for a problem they've been socialized to handle alone. Society has constructed a masculine ideal that equates vulnerability with weakness, making it nearly impossible for some men to admit they're struggling with their relationship to food and their bodies.

Unattainable beauty standards stay unattainable

Botox injections in men may get called “Brotox," but a cheeky nickname shouldn't shroud the fact that unattainable beauty standards are leading men to take more extreme measures. Dr. Claudia Kim of New Look New Life Cosmetic Surgery says she's seen a rise in men turning to beauty treatments: jawline contouring, under-eye correction, hair restoration, skin rejuvenation. “These approaches offer noticeable yet discreet results with little downtime,” says Kim, fitting neatly into lives that were never supposed to include these concerns.

What's telling, Kim adds, is that her male patients are usually entering the aesthetic realm for the first time. In this sense, men are catching up to beauty regimens women have been undertaking for generations, and slowly learning what women have long understood: Namely, that appearance affects professional success, social capital, and romantic prospects—and the goalposts are always moving. At the same time, the masculine ideal demands stoic self-sufficiency, even as it requires costly and constant aesthetic labor. 

What does all this mean for the average person with an average budget? The treatments Kim describes—jawline contouring, hair restoration, aesthetic procedures—aren't cheap. Nor are supplements, meal prep services, personal trainers, specialized equipment, and so on. Beauty standards increasingly require you to spend more money, meaning your appearance is yet another health arena where class determines outcomes. And if they can’t afford to look the way they feel pressured to look, men are uniquely left behind to suffer in silence.

As a woman, I’ve spent most of my life jealous of how men were allowed to age, or gain weight, or simply be in their bodies without constant intervention. Now I have a more sympathetic gaze, especially after hearing so many men admit they were never given the language to articulate aesthetic concerns without shame.

The bottom line

There’s a big difference between healthy self-care and the sense that your body is never good enough. Meticulously tracking every calorie, every rep, every perceived flaw—why should one woman’s obvious eating disorder be another man’s enviable achievement? 

Women have been battling body image issues and unattainable beauty standards since birth, but a lot of men were never taught how to fight this particular war. To me, the takeaway is that we all need to be on the same side. To fight this war, we need a more honest conversation about what we're doing to men's relationships with their bodies. Until we acknowledge that, all this talk of "cutting" and "discipline" will allow dangerous behaviors to keep hiding in plain sight.