Sam is happy.

Conservative influencers sparked outrage after attending a White House meeting where they received binders allegedly containing Epstein case materials. After significant social media buildup suggesting new revelations, attendees shared photos displaying the binders prominently.

The controversy erupted when it became clear the materials contained nothing new beyond publicly available information. This theatrical display particularly angered child trafficking survivors and advocates who have long fought for genuine accountability in the Epstein case.

Critics condemned the influencers for exploiting a case involving child abuse victims for publicity, then delivering no substance. The incident has reignited frustrations about how Epstein's crimes were initially overlooked by authorities and the perception that powerful figures in his orbit remain unaccountable.

The failed "reveal" highlights tensions between serious advocacy and political theater around a case that remains deeply personal for victims and symbolic of institutional failure.

The post generated massive engagement (4.9M views), but faced criticism for making light of a case involving child trafficking through an official government committee account.

This incident coincides with recent controversies where social media influencers claimed to receive Epstein-related materials at White House meetings, only to deliver no new information.

Critics argue this represents inappropriate trivialization of serious criminal matters and victims' experiences, while raising questions about the proper use of official communication channels for content typically associated with internet humor.

original:

https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1895211719255040092

This is a must listen if you wanted to be connected to the New Right’s inner thoughts expressed articulately through Ruthless truth spittin’

ComfortablySmug on X

They are comfortably smug, inside the top 10 or 20 of the New Right, aka The Realignment Coalition.

https://x.com/ComfortablySmug/status/1892420659398983768

Ruthless Variety Progrum

https://ruthlesspodcast.com/

https://www.youtube.com/@RuthlessPodcast

God Bless the Democrats in their current trajectory. Do not change a thing. 😘

1.5 arm Yahya Sinwar bleeding out. Micro-Seconds later a tank shell would ass-to-head inside out him.

In what might be the most tone-deaf power move since Metallica went to war with Napster, the music industry has once again proven it's stuck in its greatest hits era of stifling innovation. Anthropic's recent capitulation to music publishers isn't just another legal settlement – it's a masterclass in corporate hypocrisy wrapped in a love letter to obsolete thinking.

Picture this absurdity: An AI company that boldly claims using copyrighted material for training is "quintessential fair use" just agreed to muzzle its own AI from even discussing the very content it believes it has the right to use. It's like claiming you have the right to read books while promising never to quote them.

The real platinum hit here is how Universal Music and friends have managed to effectively criminalize the digital equivalent of humming a tune to your friend and asking, "Hey, what song is this?" Their victory lap includes preventing an AI from helping you find that song stuck in your head – you know, the one that goes... oh wait, we can't even write that here anymore.

This isn't just about protecting copyright – it's about controlling the conversation itself. In their zealous pursuit to protect Beyoncé's "Halo" and Maroon 5's "Moves Like Jagger," they've managed to put a chokehold on cultural discourse itself.

The punchline? While the music industry celebrates this win for "creativity," they've effectively built a wall between AI and one of humanity's most fundamental forms of expression.

• The irony here is that while Anthropic maintains that using copyrighted material for AI training is "quintessential fair use," the agreement they've reached effectively limits many activities that would traditionally be protected under fair use doctrine by people.

The real irony here – it's platinum-record rich. In trying to protect their intellectual property, they've intellectual-propertied themselves right out of the cultural conversation. Slow clap, everyone. Slow clap.

But hey, at least we can still talk about... oh wait, let me check with my lawyers first.

anthropic agrees to work with music publishers to prevent copyright infringement

https://www.engadget.com/ai/anthropic-agrees-to-work-with-music-publishers-to-prevent-copyright-infringement-154742806.html

Billy Wilder’s *The Apartment* isn’t just a movie—it’s a masterclass in how to make you laugh, cry, and question your life choices all at the same time. It’s 1960, corporate America is thriving, and Jack Lemmon’s C.C. Baxter is the guy stuck holding the bag—or, more accurately, the keys to his apartment. Baxter, a low-level insurance drone, loans out his tiny bachelor pad to his philandering bosses so they can conduct their sleazy affairs. Why? Because he’s desperate to climb the corporate ladder, even if it means being a doormat. It’s awkward, it’s hilarious, and it’s painfully relatable.

Let’s start with Jack Lemmon. This guy is the king of playing the lovable loser. Baxter is the kind of guy who makes spaghetti with a tennis racket and still somehow wins your heart. He’s awkward, self-deprecating, and so earnest you want to shake him and say, “Buddy, you’re better than this!” But Lemmon’s performance is so layered that you can’t help but root for him, even as he’s making terrible decisions.

And then there’s Shirley MacLaine as Fran Kubelik. Oh, Fran. She’s the elevator operator with a pixie cut and a heart full of hope, even as she’s stuck in a toxic relationship with Baxter’s married boss, Mr. Sheldrake (played to slimy perfection by Fred MacMurray). MacLaine is a revelation here—funny, sharp, and heartbreakingly vulnerable. She’s not just the “love interest”; she’s a fully realized character with her own struggles and dreams. When she and Baxter share the screen, it’s pure magic. Their chemistry is so real, it feels like you’re watching two people fall in love in real-time.

But let’s not gloss over the darker undertones. For all its laughs, *The Apartment* doesn’t shy away from the messy, uncomfortable realities of ambition, loneliness, and moral compromise. This isn’t some fluffy rom-com where everything gets tied up in a neat little bow. Wilder’s script is razor-sharp, skewering corporate greed and the transactional nature of relationships in a way that feels just as relevant today as it did in 1960. It’s funny, yes, but it’s also deeply cynical—and that’s what makes it so brilliant.

And can we talk about that apartment? That cramped little space is practically a character in its own right. It’s the stage for everything—awkward encounters, drunken confessions, and moments of quiet heartbreak. The way Wilder uses the apartment to mirror Baxter’s emotional state is nothing short of genius. When it’s full of people, it feels suffocating. When it’s empty, it feels unbearably lonely. It’s a visual metaphor that hits you right in the gut.

The black-and-white cinematography is another standout. It’s so crisp and stylish, it makes you nostalgic for a time when movies didn’t need explosions or CGI to hold your attention. And the score by Adolph Deutsch? It’s the perfect mix of whimsy and melancholy, capturing the film’s bittersweet tone to perfection.

And then there’s the ending. Oh, that ending. When Fran shows up at Baxter’s apartment on New Year’s Eve and he tells her to “shut up and deal,” it’s one of the most satisfying, understated conclusions in cinematic history. It’s romantic without being cheesy, hopeful without being saccharine. Wilder knew exactly when to pull back and let the audience fill in the blanks, and it’s a move that pays off big time.

Bottom line: *The Apartment* is a near-perfect blend of humor, heart, and social commentary. It’s a movie that feels timeless, tackling themes of ambition, loneliness, and redemption with a sharpness and authenticity that’s hard to find in modern cinema. Whether you’re watching it for the first time or the fiftieth, it’s a film that only gets better with age.

**Final Rating: 8.6/10**

Punchy, poignant, and packed with personality, *The Apartment* is a timeless classic that deserves a spot on everyone’s must-watch list. If you haven’t seen it yet, what are you waiting for? Baxter’s got the key, and the door’s wide open.

at ~Monday, August 12, 2024 at 9:17 AM.

I knew, without a doubt, that this race was over.

In 2016 I voted for Hillary Clinton. Reluctently, I did the adult thing and voted for her. Despite meeting and making life long friends at a Bernie Sanders rally. There were lots of indepent voters (like me and other veterans) who voted for Sanders during those democrat primaries.

I stand by those votes. Over the years Clinton has proven — she was, and still is, one of the fiercest advocates for both Israel and America. (Albeit with standard issue Democrat TDS.) I would have proudly served as a soldier under her leadership and backed my words with action had she been Commander-in-Chief.

But Donald Trump won.

Initially, I was angry. Sad.

But mostly, I was curious. So, I dug deeper. I researched and reflected.

In the end, my conclusion was simple: Trump is a man who genuinely loves America and truly cares about its future.

In the weeks and months that followed, I tried to reach out to my fellow Americans—to disarm the hostility and foster understanding.

This conversation isn’t complicated. It’s about identifying the critical issues we must address as a nation. Once we do that, we can push those priorities up the chain. But for now, what matters most is connecting with one another.

I’m just an ordinary person who voted for Trump. Twice. We won. We are the New Right. His cabinet will be the most ideologically diverse in American history. This allows him greater operational strategy and tactics unavailable + unthinkable to traditional American Presidents.

But now what?

At some point, we all need to come together to forge a new way forward.

If you don’t understand this new coalition of voters and their motivations, I’ll do my best to explain it in the future.

Until then—take care of yourselves. Stay hydrated. Find joy in laughter and music. And yes, let’s be honest: your DNC installed (never voted for) candidate wasn’t great. Kamala Harris Sucked.

We all know it. More thoughts to come later! Take care! Hugz!

I was listening to John Podhoretz’s The Commentary Magazine Podcast “A Ka-meh-la Town Hall”. I was struck by their analysis and wanted to expand on it.

• Town Hall Overview:

  • Vice President Kamala Harris attended a Pennsylvania town hall, an essential stop in the battleground state, hosted by CNN’s Anderson Cooper. Despite the event’s aim to sway undecided voters, many found Harris’s responses unconvincing and heavy on campaign rhetoric.

  • One notable exchange involved an "undecided" political science professor questioning Harris’s ability to connect with real voter concerns. This interaction raised questions about how genuinely "undecided" these voters were and whether they represented typical American sentiments.

• Key Criticisms of Harris’s Responses:

  • Harris frequently deflected questions, often steering the conversation back to familiar talking points without directly addressing the issues posed. For instance, when asked about mistakes she might have made as Vice President, she sidestepped by discussing the general challenges of parenting—a point that appeared disconnected, given that she has no children of her own.

  • Such evasive answers frustrated viewers who were looking for transparency, especially from someone seeking to prove her capability as a potential successor to Biden. Harris’s approach came across as politically rehearsed rather than genuine, leaving conservative and moderate voters unconvinced about her ability to confront tough issues head-on.

• Attempts to Relate to Average Americans:

  • Harris tried to connect with voters by referencing her mother’s experience with homeownership, suggesting she understood the financial struggles of American families. However, the specifics of her example—that her mother dealt with mortgages while living in Canada—felt out of touch. The American mortgage system and the economic reality of U.S. homeowners differ significantly from Canada’s, so this anecdote rang hollow for many voters.

  • This attempt to establish common ground fell flat, especially as inflation, rising interest rates, and economic uncertainty strain the budgets of working-class Americans who feel increasingly disconnected from the administration’s policies and priorities.

• Lack of Clear Policy Vision and Rhetoric Issues:

  • Harris’s answers often leaned on broad Democratic talking points but failed to outline substantive policy differences with President Biden on critical issues like the economy or foreign policy. Instead of engaging in the specifics that voters wanted to hear, Harris skirted complex topics, such as the administration’s approach to Middle Eastern policies, leading many to wonder if she’s able—or willing—to step out of the party line.

  • Analyst Van Jones’s comment that "Trump gets to be lawless, and she has to be flawless" highlighted a sentiment that Democrats have boxed themselves into, where Harris appears under intense scrutiny, yet frequently resorts to pre-packaged lines without distinguishing herself. This creates a double standard that hinders her ability to relate authentically with voters.

These are all great starting points among others. I was happy to hear about the parenting claims. This too struck me as insincere. Her language should have been more precise and more people would be forgiving on her claim. However, as it stands it comes across as false.

They spent some time calling attention to the Hitler remarks Harris has spent the past week on.

I would argue that everyday for ten years (3k+ days) Team Blue hammering home the rhetoric along this line: Trump is Hitler. Trump is evil. Trump is fascist with a capital F.

Thanks to the democrats, no one has done more to humanize him. You can combine this with the fact for the last couple months Trump and JD have been on a softer personality feature type all access gauntlet.

Chris Lacivita and Susie Wiles were smart to capture and use that.

Add the layer of a democrat party platform which is forever raining down estrogen. Throw in Biden-Harris administrations and both campaigns Press Relations and Surrogates who all willingly decided to prosecute a tone-deaf, alienating "Biden's Moves are The Right Ones" and if you do not see that -- to hell with you!

Culminating in a Female Not-Quite-A-Powerhouse who forever was wearing one shoe several times larger (Biden-Harris failures) than the other.

Hilarity and awkwardness mixed with a sheen of forced Authenticity ensued. She never really grabbed onto any one thing solidly or for long.

Ladies and Ladies, Kamala Harris.

There are strong to very strong indications from EV, campaign planning, momentum, etc.

That if there was such a thing as a generic democrat, the people in Harris-HQ in Wilmington, DE would be far happier than having to carry the anchor Kamala Harris has become.

Net negative over negative moves and errors have put the WH as of now out of reach for Harris-Walz.

Campaign Struggles

• Harris's recent speech strategy (responding with Kelly's comments rather than driving her own message with 13 days left) shows questionable campaign judgment

• The shift from "Bidenomics" to "care economy" to “opportunity economy” this late in the race suggests messaging instability

• Questionable partnerships on the campaign trail Liz Cheney, etc.

• Her attempts to simultaneously embrace and distance herself from the Biden administration appear contradictory

• The campaign is spending crucial final days on reactive messaging rather than positive voter outreach

• Her polling and approval ratings haven't improved significantly despite campaign adjustments

• The focus on Trump rather than her own vision suggests defensive rather than confident campaigning as well as reminding the voter of another choice in Trump

Stepping on strategic landmines

Polling numbers and approval ratings remain stubbornly unimpressive. Despite various campaign resets, the needle hasn't moved much, suggesting a deeper issue with the campaign's core strategy or the candidate's appeal.

The harsh reality is that the campaign's current trajectory - marked by reactive messaging, muddled economic positioning, and declining enthusiasm - suggests the anchor of Harris-Walz will break through the glass floor.

Gif:

In a recent interview on public radio, Vice President Kamala Harris aimed to connect with the American public on issues ranging from economic policy to environmental concerns. However, her approach, while appealing to her base, may have missed the mark with the broader, more skeptical audience she needs to win over in her presidential bid against former President Donald Trump.

The Interview's Highlights:

• Economic Policies: Harris touched on reducing bureaucratic hurdles, what she nebulously referred to as "cutting the red tape." Yet, she offered no concrete commitments to deregulation, leaving listeners to wonder about her actual stance on business and market freedoms. Her repeated emphasis on her middle-class upbringing felt more like a well-worn campaign script than a fresh policy proposal.

• Environmental Concerns: The mention of "Forever Chemicals" was a nod to environmental issues, a staple in public radio discussions. However, this felt more like pandering to her existing voter base rather than an attempt to broaden her appeal.

• Connecting with Voters: Harris's attempt to embrace working-class themes, like gun ownership and acknowledging high prices, seems like a strategic move to extend her platform beyond traditional Democratic voters. However, her messaging lacks the detail or the conviction needed to resonate genuinely with those outside her current support circle.

Analysis:

The interview can be seen through the lens of Microsoft's former strategy of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish," albeit in a political context. Harris is embracing elements of working-class culture and extending her narrative to include symbols like American flags and chants that might appeal to a broader electorate. However, her strategy falters at "extinguish" – she hasn't convincingly extinguished doubts or converted the undecided or Republican-leaning voters in significant numbers.

• Embrace: By talking about owning a gun or recognizing economic hardships, Harris attempts to connect with voters who might feel alienated by more urban, liberal policies.

• Extend: Her campaign's use of nationalistic symbols and rhetoric is a clear attempt to extend her appeal, suggesting a broad, inclusive American identity.

• Extinguish: Here, Harris stumbles. Despite the debate and various public appearances, she hasn't managed to decisively close the gap with Trump, indicating a failure to consolidate her narrative in a way that extinguishes his support base.

The debate was perhaps her most significant platform to shift the narrative decisively, yet it seems she didn't capitalize on this opportunity. Her inability to connect beyond her demographic stronghold, especially after her less than stellar performance in the 2020 primaries, underscores a pattern of struggle in broadening her voter base.

Conclusion:

Harris's interview, while well-intentioned, may serve as a testament to her campaign's challenges. With substantial financial backing and a team of seasoned political strategists, her difficulty in resonating beyond her core supporters points to a deeper issue – perhaps a limitation in her political persona or messaging that fails to ignite the passion or trust needed to sway the undecided or purple-conservative-leaning voters effectively.

As the election approaches, the narrative around Harris will likely focus on her ability, or lack thereof, to adapt her message to genuinely embrace, extend, and ultimately extinguish the political opposition. For now, the interview might be remembered more for what it didn't say than for what it did.

1. A phenomenon where negative perception and pressure on Donald Trump lead to increased solidarity and support among his followers, extending beyond his core base. This effect is characterized by a rallying of his supporters, who perceive him as unfairly targeted or criticized, resulting in a defensive and unified response against perceived adversaries, such as media outlets and political opponents.

Bodies of 6 hostages murdered by Hamas found in Rafah tunnel -- IDF | The Times of Israel

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-september-1-2024/?utm_source=article_hpsidebar&utm_medium=desktop_site&utm_campaign=at-least-32-of-the-136-hostages-held-in-gaza-killed-20-others-feared-dead-nyt

Six Bodies Recovered in Gaza Were Hostages, White House Says - The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/09/01/world/israel-hamas-gaza-war

May Hashem Avenge your Blood.

Bless their families, may their memory be a blessing to all who hear or see.

The strategy behind such political ads taps into the emotional undercurrents of the electorate. Research indicates that political advertising often targets emotions first—be it fear, hope, anger, or pride—before any rational consideration. This approach was evident even back in 1960, where Kennedy's campaign leveraged the power of television to connect on an emotional level, setting a precedent for how campaigns could be run effectively.

The use of media, like television in Kennedy's era, underscores the shift towards more personalized and emotionally charged campaign strategies, which continue to shape voter perceptions and decisions. This historical context not only reflects on past strategies but also illuminates current political advertising techniques, where the essence of appealing directly to voter sentiment remains a cornerstone of electoral politics.

Kennedy won the popular vote by a very slim margin, receiving 49.7% of the vote compared to Richard Nixon's 49.5%. This margin was one of the closest in American history, with Kennedy leading by approximately 118,550 votes out of nearly 69 million votes cast.

In the Electoral College, Kennedy secured 303 votes against Nixon's 219, despite Nixon winning more individual states. Kennedy's strategy successfully focused on key states with higher electoral votes.

New-York Historical Society

https://www.nyhistory.org/blogs/i-approve-this-message-the-birth-of-election-ads-and-9-classic-tv-spots

The 1952 election was a landmark moment where the power of television began shaping political destinies, and Dwight D. Eisenhower was just the man for the job. Here was a war hero, a man whose smile and straightforward demeanor captured the essence of American optimism. The "I Like Ike" campaign, with its catchy tune courtesy of Irving Berlin and animation from Disney, wasn't just an ad; it was a cultural phenomenon.

This campaign understood something fundamental about American voters: we're driven by emotion. Eisenhower's team played to the hopes and pride of the nation, rather than just the fears and angers, setting a tone that felt like morning in America long before Reagan coined the phrase.

Now, Adlai Stevenson, a Democrat, tried to appeal to the intellect with long-winded speeches, which might have been impressive in a debate club but fell flat on TV where simplicity and charisma win the day. From a center-right view, Stevenson's approach was out of touch with the average American, who preferred Ike's straightforward promise to clean up Washington and end the Korean War.

The introduction of TV ads like "I Like Ike" marked the beginning of a new era where political campaigns would become more about personality and presentation than policy deep-dives. This shift might irk some policy wonks, but it resonated with a post-war America looking for a leader who embodied stability, strength, and a return to prosperity.

And let's not forget, this was an America tired of twenty years of Democratic control, ready for a change, and Eisenhower represented that fresh start. His campaign was a masterclass in using new media to connect with voters on an emotional level, setting a template for future Republican campaigns that understood the heart often leads the head in the voting booth.

Do any recent modern presidential elections remind you of this race or 1956?

New-York Historical Society

https://www.nyhistory.org/blogs/i-approve-this-message-the-birth-of-election-ads-and-9-classic-tv-spots

Tensions run high when Captain Tony Soprano discovers an unauthorised trade operation running on Federation garbage routes.

#startrek #edit #startrekthenextgeneration #picard #sopranos

Courtesy of

Emlowz Channel:

“I make film and TV edits, mostly Star Trek 🖖”

https://www.youtube.com/@emlowz

"get yer cube running right!!!" #startrek #edit #sopranos

#youtubepick Cash Flow Problems - Star Trek: The Next Generation [EDIT] #startrek

Courtesy of

Emlowz Channel:

“I make film and TV edits, mostly Star Trek 🖖”

https://www.youtube.com/@emlowz