PERSPECTA

News from every angle

Results for "Elites"

88 stories found

Pope Leo XIV Addresses Corruption, Human Rights in Cameroon Visit
PoliticsAPReutersNYT+17le-mondeAl Jazeeranzztagesschaudelfi-ltindex-hrobservadorjutarnji-list+9 more5h ago20 sources

Pope Leo XIV Addresses Corruption, Human Rights in Cameroon Visit

Pope Leo XIV visited Cameroon, where he was greeted by large crowds and delivered a powerful message to the country's elites. He called for an end to corruption and abuse of power, emphasizing the importance of human rights.

Jack Black Inducted into SNL Five-Timers Club
CultureYahoovarietyhollywood-reporter+7deadlinerolling-stonebillboardinquirertmznmescreen-rant10d ago10 sources

Jack Black Inducted into SNL Five-Timers Club

Actor and comedian Jack Black hosted Saturday Night Live for the fifth time, earning him entry into the exclusive Five-Timers Club, celebrated with cameos from Tina Fey, Jonah Hill, and Melissa McCarthy.

AfD Underperforms Expectations in Southern German Elections
Politicstagesschauder-standardaktualne-cz+3deloindex-hrzerohedge1mo ago6 sources

AfD Underperforms Expectations in Southern German Elections

The far-right AfD party fell short of its own expectations in both the Baden-Württemberg state election and the Bavarian municipal elections, despite showing robust performance in other areas.

Bohemian Grove Membership List Leaked
Politicszerohedge1mo ago

Bohemian Grove Membership List Leaked

Bohemian Grove Membership List Leaked An independent journalist has obtained and published what appears to be the 2023 attendance list for ultra-secretive Bohemian Grove, the annual summer encampment of the all-male Bohemian Club in Sonoma County, California, providing a rare look at the roster of American elites who gathered at the shadowy retreat. The list, first shared by Substack journalist Daniel Boguslaw and authenticated by at least one club member, lists more than 2,2...

Epstein files reveal links to Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire power circles
Politicsrfi-english1mo ago

Epstein files reveal links to Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire power circles

Jeffrey Epstein cultivated close ties with West African political elites, forging a relationship with Karim Wade, son of former Senegalese president Abdoulaye Wade, and Nina Keita, niece of Ivorian President Alassane Ouattara, according to a review of emails and financial records related to the convicted sex offender released by the US government last month.

Transatlantic Slavery: Scale and Impact
Worldvijesti-me1mo ago

Transatlantic Slavery: Scale and Impact

Estimates suggest over 15 million Africans were deported during approximately 400 years of transatlantic slavery, with 10.7 to 12.8 million arriving alive in the Americas, highlighting the participation of African elites.

Politicspublico1mo ago

Sexo e poder: o pilar britânico da rede Epstein

O que já se conhece revela outra história: a da transformação das relações entre vários segmentos das superelites, acompanhada pelo aprofundamento da sua dimensão global. Opinião de Pedro Adão e Silva

When Both Sides Go Quiet
PoliticsFox NewsYahoozerohedge+1Tehran Times1mo ago4 sources

When Both Sides Go Quiet

When Both Sides Go Quiet Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance There is a political instinct that I’ve developed over the last few decade or so: when both parties are shouting, it’s business as usual. When both parties go quiet, pay attention, because something ugly is probably getting passed or covered up, and the American taxpayer is likely footing the bill of consequences. Few public controversies in recent memory have generated as much bipartisan distrust as the handling of the Epstein files. Republicans accused Democrats of failing to pursue full transparency while President Biden was in office. Now Democrats accuse Republicans of withholding or slow-walking the release of the complete records. The blame shifts with political control, but the underlying fact pattern remains the same: both parties have figures of influence whose names have surfaced in connection with Epstein’s orbit. That reality complicates the politics of accountability and fuels public suspicion that neither side is entirely comfortable with full disclosure. What should have been a straightforward matter of transparency, identifying networks of power, influence, and possible criminal complicity, has instead unfolded as a slow humiliating drip of redactions, procedural delays, partial disclosures and cagey congressional testimony. Each release seems to raise more questions than it resolves. These questions revolve around sex trafficking, exploitation, abuse of minors, coercion and manipulation, elite complicity, obstruction of justice, etc. But the deeper damage taking place now is not only about the crimes associated with Jeffrey Epstein. It is about institutional response. If only one political party had meaningful exposure to the scandal, the other would likely have been far more relentless in demanding transparency. But this is different. Despite Democrats harping on the files now, they were quiet in the years prior to Trump’s second term and, because Epstein’s connections span media, finance, academia, and politics, the discomfort still appears bipartisan. And that is precisely what unsettles me. When both political parties fail to press aggressively on something meaningful, especially something morally explosive, it often suggests that the issue cuts deeper than surface narratives allow. Bipartisan hesitation can signal overlapping vulnerability. Silence across the aisle is rarely accidental. The horror here is not just what may have occurred in private circles of power, but the perception that the institutions tasked with accountability are reluctant to fully illuminate it. Justice delayed in cases involving elites feels less like procedural caution and more like reputational risk management. Whether or not that perception is entirely fair, it is corrosive. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs’ chief legal officer Kathryn Ruemmler announced her resignation after new emails with Epstein came to light, prompting internal pressure at the firm. British political figure Peter Mandelson resigned from the House of Lords and the Labour Party, and Scotland Yard has opened a criminal investigation into his ties with Epstein. In Norway, parliament has launched an external inquiry into prominent diplomats for their connections to Epstein, and police are investigating corruption allegations against former prime minister Thorbjørn Jagland and others. 🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever Across Europe, these disclosures have triggered formal probes, resignations, and institutional reviews that contrast sharply with the relative lack of accountability for high-profile figures in the United States, where calls for investigations and resignations have largely stalled. I mean, is Les Wexner really allowed to just walk around free at this point? How can that be possible? How are Kimbal Musk and Elon Musk allowed to remain on Tesla’s board? Why isn’t Bill Gates being hauled in front of congress? I have long argued that Americans should apply the same “when both parties agree, the American public is getting screwed” scrutiny to monetary policy for a similar reason. It is one of the few areas where both major political parties display remarkable convergence. While they wage visible battles over cultural issues and tax rates, they tend to align on central banking frameworks, large scale liquidity interventions, and deficit tolerance. Like other cover-ups, that alignment deserves examination. Monetary policy operates largely outside daily partisan warfare, yet it shapes purchasing power, asset prices, debt burdens, and wealth distribution. When balance sheets expand aggressively and markets are repeatedly stabilized during downturns, the effects are uneven. Asset holders often benefit first and most. Meanwhile, wage earners experience the lagging side effects such as inflationary pressure, higher living costs, and diminished purchasing power. Supporters of Modern Monetary Theory argue that sovereign currency systems provide more fiscal flexibility than traditionally assumed. Critics counter that, in practice, repeated interventions risk entrenching a cycle in which gains are privatized and losses are socialized. When markets rise, the wealth effect accrues to those with substantial exposure. When markets falter, public backstops prevent collapse. The middle class absorbs the inflationary residue. And the wealth gap widens: The structural similarity matters. When both parties avoid aggressive debate on a policy that materially burdens the average American, it raises the same instinctive question of what incentives are being protected. Monetary policy may not carry the visceral grotesqueness of the Epstein scandal, but it carries long term economic consequences that most Americans don’t know they are bearing, and don’t understand that they are being lied to about. The comparison is not moral equivalence. It is structural parallel. In one case, alleged networks of power may be shielded by mutual hesitation. In the other, a financial architecture persists with limited democratic scrutiny because challenging it would destabilize shared political comfort. In both cases, bipartisan alignment dampens confrontation. Two forms of silence. Two different domains. Both revealing. Foreign policy, particularly the authorization and funding of wars, has often followed a similar pattern. While domestic issues produce loud partisan divides, military interventions abroad frequently pass with overwhelming support from leadership in both parties. Public debate may flare at the margins, but institutional consensus tends to solidify quickly once action begins. History shows that major military engagements, from post 9/11 authorizations to prolonged overseas conflicts, have often been backed by broad congressional majorities. The initial votes are decisive. The funding continues year after year. Only later, when costs mount and public opinion shifts, does meaningful dissent emerge. By then, strategic commitments and financial obligations are deeply entrenched. Again, the pattern is not about moral equivalence between policy domains. It is about incentives. When both political parties converge quickly on matters involving immense money, immense power, or immense liability, scrutiny tends to narrow rather than widen. And when scrutiny narrows at the highest levels, the public’s role shifts from participant to spectator. When both political parties fail to address something meaningful, when they close ranks instead of competing for exposure, the public should not assume the issue is trivial. More often, it suggests the truth behind the surface may be larger and more consequential than advertised. Democracies depend not just on disagreement, but on adversarial pressure. When that pressure disappears, citizens are right to lean in, not tune out. When both sides go quiet, the story is rarely over. As the Epstein files are showing, it may simply run far deeper than we are being shown. Now read: Today's Epstein’s Records Destroy Official Narratives Our Liquidity Addiction Continues Do DOJ Docs Show Epstein Death Notice A Day Early? The Hijacking Of Bitcoin: Epstein’s Hidden Network Why America’s Two-Party System Will Never Threaten the True Political Elites QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier. I am an investor in Mark’s fund. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important. Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 14:00

15 Oscar wins you may have forgotten about
CultureBusiness Insider1mo ago

15 Oscar wins you may have forgotten about

Eminem won the Oscar for best original song in 2003 and performed at the ceremony in 2020. Craig Sjodin/Contributor/ABC via Getty Images On Sunday, Hollywood stars will gather at the Dolby Theatre to celebrate the Oscars. While some names feel synonymous with Oscars' history, others have been forgotten over time. Eminem won the Oscar for best original song in 2003 for "Lose Yourself." On Sunday, March 15, Hollywood's elites will descend upon the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles for the biggest ...

Escândalos Reais
Politicsobservador1mo ago

Escândalos Reais

O escândalo Epstein manifesta a podridão de algumas elites: esta crise mundial é, sobretudo, uma crise moral.

North Korea touts nuclear advances as Kim re-chosen to lead ruling party
PoliticsDawnyonhap-english1mo ago2 sources

North Korea touts nuclear advances as Kim re-chosen to lead ruling party

North Korea’s ruling party touted nuclear advances as it re-elected Kim Jong Un to the top post of general secretary, state media said on Monday, during a rare national congress. Thousands of party elites have packed the capital Pyongyang for a once-in-five-years summit of the ruling Workers’ Party, a gathering that directs state efforts on everything from diplomacy to war planning. The congress offers a rare glimpse into the political workings of reclusive North Korea, and is widely seen as ...

The shutdown of USAID and the deeper crisis behind it
PoliticsDawn1mo ago

The shutdown of USAID and the deeper crisis behind it

“Why did you start driving inDrive?” It’s my go-to icebreaker with drivers in Pakistan. Lately, the answers have been unsettlingly similar. “I used to work in the development sector,” one man told me. “Then I lost my job.” I’ve heard that line — or a version of it — too many times to dismiss as coincidence. Since the United States pulled the plug on its aid apparatus, the fallout has been immediate. On the surface, the shutdown of USAID is being framed as just another abrupt policy reversal — a bureaucratic casualty in an era of disruption. But look closer, and it reveals something far more profound: the cumulative weight of domestic and international tensions that have been simmering, both within and beyond the US for decades. Cycles of aid, cycles of distrust The first source of strain lies beyond US borders. From its inception as a Cold War instrument, American foreign aid has been shaped by an enduring tension between its declared objectives of development and altruism and its underlying strategic and political calculations. This duality has long been apparent to the recipient elites and the broader public alike. During the Cold War, many governments acquiesced, in part because Western donors faced little competition and alternative sources of assistance were scarce. That landscape has since changed. As non-traditional donors, most notably China and the Gulf states, have expanded their presence, and as domestic political incentives within recipient countries have shifted, scepticism toward USAID has become more explicit and politically salient. In countries such as Pakistan, where mistrust of American intentions runs deep, US assistance is often perceived less as generosity than as intrusion. What is now framed as a backlash against American aid is better understood as the culmination of a long-simmering tension and a legacy of mutual misperceptions between donor and recipient. Pakistan’s experience with US foreign aid agency illustrates this dynamic with particular clarity. American assistance to Pakistan has never been linear or predictable; instead, it has unfolded in cycles closely attuned to Washington’s shifting strategic priorities. During the Cold War, aid was channelled primarily through a security-alliance framework aimed at containing the Soviet bloc, with economic assistance tightly coupled to military cooperation. These flows declined sharply after the 1965 war, reinforcing perceptions of US aid as conditional, transactional, and reversible. Another peak in this equation followed in the 1980s, when General Ziaul Haq aligned Pakistan with the US in opposing Soviet expansion in Afghanistan. Yet with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent imposition of US sanctions on Pakistan’s nuclear programme under the Pressler Amendment, assistance once again contracted. It was only after 9/11 that the aid surged anew, this time framed around counterterrorism and stabilisation. Even at its height, however, much of this assistance remained shaped by security imperatives, short funding horizons, and heavy reliance on contractors, rather than long-term institution-building. For many Pakistanis, therefore, the shutdown of USAID feels less like an abrupt rupture than the latest turn in a familiar cycle of engagement and disengagement. The second factor is bureaucratic pathologisation. Like many large organisations, aid agencies are susceptible to institutional dysfunction, and USAID has been no exception. In practice, particularly in contexts such as Pakistan, as commissioner on the Afghanistan War Commission Andrew Wilder has noted, its programmes increasingly came to be structured through a security lens rather than a development one. Key decisions were made in Washington, filtered through multiple layers of contractors, and ultimately deployed on the ground with limited scope for local input. At the same time, bureaucratic incentives privileged projects with easily quantifiable indicators, favouring what could be measured over what was substantively effective. These patterns were neither accidental nor new, nor are they unique to the US. Over time, however, they eroded both the legitimacy and the perceived effectiveness of USAID, among recipients abroad and critics at home. These institutional dynamics had tangible consequences on the ground. In Pakistan, USAID funding became heavily concentrated in sectors aligned with stabilisation and security objectives — such as service delivery in so-called “fragile” districts or rapid-impact infrastructure — often at the expense of slower, politically unglamorous investments in local institutional capacity. NGOs and development professionals structured entire career paths around USAID project cycles, only to see those opportunities vanish when priorities shifted or funding was abruptly frozen. The result was a hollowing out of local expertise and institutional memory. When aid was withdrawn, it left behind far fewer durable institutions than its scale and visibility might have led one to expect. The mismatch between stated development objectives and the underlying security logic was further compounded by an overreliance on quantifiable metrics to demonstrate impact. This tendency was reinforced by a development ecosystem shaped by the overproduction of economists and political scientists trained as methodological specialists rather than regional experts. Programmes designed in Washington often prioritised what could be easily counted — number of schools built, clinics refurbished, trainings delivered, or kilometres of roads completed — over whether such interventions meaningfully strengthened local institutions. In Pakistan, this logic was especially evident in sectors such as education, health, and local governance, where projects were assessed primarily through output indicators rather than sustainability or local ownership. Multiple layers of contractors further diluted accountability and blurred responsibility once funding cycles ended. Over time, this produced a paradox: USAID became both omnipresent and poorly understood — associated with large budgets and extensive reporting, but yielding limited and uneven institutional impact. That credibility gap left the agency especially exposed when domestic political support in the US began to erode. The third major factor behind the dismantling of the aid lies in the domestic backlash within the US against international cooperation. Opposition to foreign aid, multilateralism, and international institutions long predates Donald Trump, reflecting decades of polarisation over globalisation and America’s role in the world. By the time Trump entered office, hostility toward international engagement was already deeply embedded in US politics. In this context, shuttering a highly visible aid agency became a potent domestic signal; it becomes a way to demonstrate responsiveness to voters who view global commitments as costly, wasteful, or illegitimate. Dismantling USAID was therefore less a recalibration of foreign policy than an act of domestic political theatre. The US government’s official justification for shutting down USAID frames the move as a response to “China’s exploitative aid model” and a means of advancing American “strategic interests in key regions around the world”. It is true that China has dramatically expanded its development footprint and largely operates outside the traditional Western aid framework. But that explanation doesn’t hold up to deeper scrutiny. If Washington were genuinely seeking to compete with Beijing in the development arena, the more coherent response would have been reform and reinvestment, not withdrawal. Moreover, Chinese and US aid are not direct substitutes. They target different sectors, rely on distinct instruments, and frequently operate alongside one another in the same countries — Pakistan among them — without displacing each other. In Pakistan, Chinese assistance has concentrated on large-scale infrastructure and energy projects, while USAID has focused primarily on education and health. Chinese aid typically flows through bilateral, government-to-government channels, whereas US assistance has often bypassed the Pakistani state, working instead through NGOs and contractors. China’s rise may well be sharpening anxieties in Washington, but it does not, on its own, explain why the US would choose to erode its own institutional capacity in response. A looming domino effect The shutdown of USAID, then, should not be understood as a one-off policy blunder or an idiosyncratic choice tied to a single administration. Rather, it reflects the convergence of long-accumulating tensions: between the professed ideals and strategic deployment of aid abroad; between development objectives and bureaucratic practices within aid agencies; between international commitments and domestic political incentives at home. USAID’s collapse is best understood not as the cause of these pressures, but as their most visible manifestation. The consequences of this decision extend well beyond the fate of a single agency. They reveal the fragility of the broader international aid regime, which ultimately depends on the willingness of a small number of leading powers to absorb the political and financial costs of institutionalised cooperation. When that willingness erodes, institutions lose both credibility and purpose and eventually collapse. Signs of this erosion are already evident, as other major donors, including the United Kingdom and Germany, begin to scale back their own aid commitments. What is at stake, then, is not merely the dismantling of USAID, but the gradual unravelling of an international aid regime built on mutual trust and a sustained commitment to lifting the world’s poorest out of poverty.

Seven Killed in Israeli Drone Strike on Gaza Refugee Camp
WorldAl Jazeerafazle-figaro+6The Independentaktuality-skcyprus-mailndtvDaily Sabahvanguard-ng4d ago9 sources

Seven Killed in Israeli Drone Strike on Gaza Refugee Camp

An Israeli drone fired two missiles near a police post in a refugee camp in Gaza, killing seven people and injuring several others. Four of the injured are in critical condition.

Scenarios for Russia's Future Post-Ukraine War
Worldfaz7d ago

Scenarios for Russia's Future Post-Ukraine War

An analysis explores four potential scenarios for Russia's future after the conflict in Ukraine, suggesting reforms might only occur if the regime faces a severe crisis following a defeat. The article highlights the potential danger from elites, currently under Putin's firm control.

Andrew Tate Posts Racist and Anti-Western Messages
Worldobservador1mo ago

Andrew Tate Posts Racist and Anti-Western Messages

Andrew Tate has published racist and anti-Western messages, accusing those in power of theft and a fraudulent global economy. He encouraged his followers to support a 'world revolution' against elites.

Owen Jones Analyzes UK Elite's Stance on Iran War and Trump's Obsession
Politicsdanas1mo ago

Owen Jones Analyzes UK Elite's Stance on Iran War and Trump's Obsession

Owen Jones, writing for The Guardian, analyzes how British elites have become a 'cult of death' and suggests that the British public does not want to participate in what he describes as Trump's 'war obsession.' He also comments on Keir Starmer's perceived lack of political direction regarding the Iran conflict.

Moderate Democrats plot path to victory by winning the middle
PoliticsThe Guardian1mo ago

Moderate Democrats plot path to victory by winning the middle

At the Third Way conference in Charleston, centrists debated ways to win – and were sure electoral success lies with them Joe Walsh half jumped out of his seat when discussion at the Third Way conference in Charleston turned to how Democrats sound to voters. “Tone! My God!” the former Republican congressman shouted. “The Democrats come across as, like, professors, academics, elites. I mean, my God, rip off your freaking sport coat and talk to me! Listen to me like a regular human being.” Con...

OpenAI has a Hollywood problem. They just hired a guy to fix it.
TechnologyBusiness InsiderYahoo1mo ago2 sources

OpenAI has a Hollywood problem. They just hired a guy to fix it.

Charles Porch (with red flower), formerly of Meta and now OpenAI, at the Met Gala. Theo Wargo/FilmMagic OpenAI just hired Charles Porch, Instagram's head of partnerships. Porch has deep connections to celebrities and Hollywood, and plans to talk to them about their "fears" of AI. Maybe OpenAI is realizing they need celebrities to stop publicly hating AI so much. A "detriment" to human creativity, said Vince Gilligan, creator of "Breaking Bad" and "Pluribus" about AI. "Horrifying," said James Cameron about the possibility of AI actors. "I'd rather die," said Guillermo del Toro. "Incredibly destructive," said Cate Blanchett. It's not hard to see why OpenAI recognizes it has a bit of an image problem among some people in Hollywood. It appears that the company is now trying to change that. OpenAI just poached Charles Porch from Meta, where he oversaw celebrity partnerships for over a decade, as Vanity Fair reported earlier. Porch is generally recognized for helping make Instagram the cultural juggernaut it is today by helping celebrities who might have been confused by or disinterested in newfangled social media join and use the platform. Porch has deep connections in the entertainment industry — celebrities like Harry Styles attended his lavish wedding this summer in France. Porch wrote on his personal Instagram about his job change: "From helping Beyoncé figure out how to launch an album exclusively on social media to onboarding Pope Francis to Instagram (he held my hands and asked me to pray for him) to watching creators become the next generation of entrepreneurs, the impact on culture that me and the team have been able to have is something that I take great pride in." It's not clear exactly what Porch's new gig will entail. He told Vanity Fair that his first step will be to go on a "listening tour" to hear the hopes and fears about AI from creatives and celebrities. I've asked OpenAI for comment. For Hollywood actors, filmmakers, and studio executives, those fears are pretty big. Why wouldn't Brad Pitt be alarmed to see a passably real AI-generated version of himself in a fist-fight against Tom Cruise? The idea that AI could replace actors, screenwriters, and other creatives is alarming, especially as Hollywood as an industry is hurting. Box office sales haven't bounced back from the pandemic, streaming is complicated, fewer and fewer projects are being made, and efforts to cut costs by filming overseas have devastated Los Angeles' middle-class of film industry workers. On top of that, AI is, as far as I can tell, widely considered a theft machine that gobbled up tons of images and videos from movies and TV for training data, largely without permission or compensation. You can see a filmmaker or actor's point of view here: They stole my face and my work to build this tool, and now they want to use it to make soulless slop that will undercut the value of my work? Why OpenAI's hire has a tough road ahead Not great! I imagine Porch has his work cut out for him. OpenAI and other AI companies have started making deals with Hollywood. Disney made a $1 billion deal with OpenAI around the time Sora 2 launched, licensing Disney characters like Mickey Mouse and Darth Vader, and also becoming a customer and investor in OpenAI. Lionsgate and AMC made deals allowing their catalogs to be used for training Runway. (Business Insider, through our parent company, has a somewhat similar deal with OpenAI.) But those deals with studios, while they might stave off copyright lawsuits and create some cash flow, aren't winning over the hearts and minds of the celebrities and creatives — the kinds of people who make headlines when they call AI "horrifying." Perhaps OpenAI is realizing that celebrities still hold the kind of cultural capital that can't be built in the Bay Area. And while OpenAI has been pretty successful in pushing its agenda in Washington, thanks to an AI-friendly administration, it still has an uphill battle to win over the general public, which remains fairly skeptical of AI. And for that, you need to get the celebs on board. There's a beautiful irony now that these big AI companies are paying big bucks to hire human writers, and VCs are now obsessed with the concept of "taste." It turns out that kinds of "soft skills" that had long been undervalued in Silicon Valley are more relevant than ever now that AI can do a lot of the technical work. And someone like Charles Porch, who has the connections and ability to charm a roomful of Hollywood types and other cultural elites, is more valuable than ever. That's the kind of job AI can't take. Read the original article on Business Insider

Pelosi Appears To Have Picked Their Candidate For President In 2028
Politicszerohedge1mo ago

Pelosi Appears To Have Picked Their Candidate For President In 2028

Pelosi Appears To Have Picked Their Candidate For President In 2028 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) may be retiring from Congress at the end of this term, but she's not done trying to shape presidential races. The 85-year-old former House speaker has turned into what one former aide calls "a Gavin fan-girl," deploying her legendary donor network and political capital to boost California Gov. Gavin Newsom as a 2028 White House contender. The move lands as a calculated slight to Kamala Harris, who polls ahead of Newsom nationally but appears to have lost Pelosi's confidence after the 2024 debacle. According to a report from Axios, Pelosi has spent months publicly and privately vouching for Newsom.  "From the standpoint of leadership, vision, and values, knowledge of the issues, strategic thinking about how to get things done, he's masterful," she told The New Yorker. She told Vogue earlier this month, “I’ve seen him grow politically, I've also seen him have this beautiful family, and for all of us who love him, seeing him evolve has been wonderful to behold.” She’s even trying to help Newsom shed the perception of coming from privilege, telling The Atlantic, "Everybody thinks of Gavin and a silver spoon. But that isn't right. He was a very hard worker in everything that he did, whether it was personally, professionally, and then civically." This week, Pelosi told Politico that Newsom "would make a great president," though she added Democrats have many strong potential candidates.  The hedge shouldn’t fool anyone.  Pelosi isn’t likely to gush unless she's decided. Former aides say she's been eager to publicly vouch for Newsom whenever asked and has privately admired how he's navigated Trump "with a combination of defiance and charm." One former staffer said Pelosi "doesn't crush on many people" and added, "She's hardly ever wrong. When she says she sees something, it's a real thing." Of course, Pelosi’s connection to Newsom isn’t limited to politics. Her brother-in-law was married to Newsom's aunt, and Pelosi frequently says she knew Newsom before he was born. Politically, they’ve been connected for years, as she's mentored him since his days as San Francisco mayor, watching him rise through California politics like a puppet master or a kingmaker. While Pelosi is reportedly focused on helping Democrats retake the House in November and making Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaker, she’s clearly looking to the future and sees Newsom as the next leader of the party who will bring Democrats to the White House. This may be a significant vote of confidence for Newsom, but it’s also an undeniable betrayal of another California Democrat, Kamala Harris.  Pelosi endorsed Harris quickly after Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 race, reportedly frustrating Barack Obama, who wanted a more open process. “The Obamas were not happy,” a Pelosi confidant told ABC’s Jonathan Karl for his book Retribution. 'This person summed up Obama's message to Pelosi as, essentially, "What the f*** did you just do?"'  Harris lost badly to Trump, spending more than a billion dollars in the process, leaving many major donors deeply disillusioned with her. Pelosi’s support would have gone a long way to repair the damage, but Pelosi appears to have moved on.  Harris leads the 2028 field with a 27.5 percent national polling average, according to Race to the White House, while Newsom trails at 22.7%. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sits at 9%, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg at 8.7%, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro at 4.9%, and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker at 3.4%. Neither Newsom nor Harris has publicly announced their intent to seek the presidency, but both are reportedly considering, which makes Pelosi's public courtship of Newsom a calculated snub. Pelosi's endorsements carry weight with the donor class and party elites who decide primaries long before voters cast ballots. By elevating Newsom now, she's signaling to those constituencies where the smart money should flow. Whether Pelosi's bet pays off depends on factors beyond her control. Newsom has baggage from California's struggles with homelessness, crime, and out-migration on his watch. Harris, meanwhile, carries the weight of a failed campaign but has name recognition and institutional support, and isn’t a white male — a huge plus for a party that has gone all in on identity politics.  Tyler Durden Mon, 02/16/2026 - 19:30