After Party with Emily Jashinsky - "Happy Hour": That AWFUL Obama Library, False UFO Narratives, & Reflections on Charlie Kirk: Emily Answers YOUR Questions

Episode Date: June 26, 2026

On this week’s edition of “Happy Hour,” Emily Jashinsky opens with a funny behind-the scenes story about her makeshift recording studio during her work trip to Brazil before diving into her mailbag. Emily reflects on her relationship with Charlie Kirk, explaining how the two disagreed on many issues, why she had planned to reach out to him just before his murder, and why she believes it is misguided to dismiss him as hateful. She also discusses Joe Biden's political legacy, arguing that his presidency will be remembered as a turning point in American politics, and weighs in on the controversial design of the Obama Presidential Library. Emily explores why she believes the government has an incentive to seed false narratives around UFOs, examines the growing divide between Republican complacency and Democratic fecklessness, and explains why she has little faith in elected officials. She also answers questions about AIPAC and foreign lobbying, responds to a listener's perspective on Black American identity following comments by Joy Reid about the 4th of July, shares several of her favorite book recommendations, and offers her thoughts on the importance of free speech, independent media, and more… Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hello, everyone, and welcome to a new edition of Happy Hour, which is, of course, a special edition of After Party that we do every Friday on the show here for podcast listeners only. You all know, I love this format. It's where I get to correspond with you via the emails. You send in to Emily at DoublemaCare Media.com. If you haven't subscribed to the YouTube channel yet, that is the best way to help the show out. Now, I have to tell you a little behind-the-scenes information about my recording process today. I am in a closet in Brasilia. And I'm going to be talking really quietly, like we're on NPR, because that's going to provide the best audio possible today with my travel mic,

because it's fascinating. I'm at a hotel that very much is in the Brasilia style and is kind of that mid-century modern architecture, a touch of brutalism. it's like an industrial warehouse. It's absolutely beautiful, but like an industrial warehouse. And so the walls are concrete, which could not be worse, could not possibly be worse for sound quality. So I had to go, like there's nowhere. I had to go into the closet and put a bunch of clothes in the closet to try and dampen the audio just a bit, which is honestly hilarious. So I'm loving it. If you know me, you know I love this stuff, like tech challenges. like a sickness. I love it. I love it. Can't get enough of it. So I'm in a very dark closet with my laptop. I think I am going to just post a video of this because you got to see the setup. I made like a little recording booth in here. And I have a Brazilian Red Bull and just took a sip

and I'm ready to get to your emails. A lot of emails to get to this week. So as a reminder, I go through your emails live, flag them in the inbox and if they look like they're for happy hour and then get to them literally as we are going here and there are a lot of emails to get to this week. For one reason or another, everyone has a lot of thoughts. Okay, let's start with Sam, who, oh, very interesting. Okay, so Sam says, I was just listening to today's happy hour and I find it necessary to respond to Emily from Ohio's situation. So this is, Emily, from Ohio wrote in last week about a rural area and data center backlash. Sam goes on to say, signs are not enough. The people in her town need to take aggressive legal action against their

township commission members. Soning requirements are laws. There is no scenario under which municipal laws should be made under the cloak of NDAs and secret meetings between lawmakers and beneficiaries of such laws. This constitutes corruption on its plain, ugly face. Every one of those commission members should be sued and removed from office. If they municipality resists, the state legislature should be brought into the action. And then he says, by the way, anytime someone talks about going to Milwaukee, it's another thing we talked about on last week's happy hour tips for traveling Wisconsin. Sam says, I always recommend they go to Maters. I haven't been there in years, but from their website, it still looks great. Yes, Maiters is a good Milwaukee recommendation.

And Sam, these all sound like great recommendations for people who are displeased with data centers moving into their towns. Emily's email from last week, I do recommend people go take a look at that one. Emily's email from last week outlined a bit of the process. Of course, you know, journalistically, I haven't been able to confirm any of it. So just to be clear about that, but it does ring, there are echoes of what other towns around the country have absolutely dealt with. So it does ring true. And Emily was very detailed. So appreciated that anecdote from her neck of the woods. And I'm sure Emily will appreciate hearing this from you, Sam. All right. Katie says, it seems to get lost in the discussion of Charlie Kirk's

murder that the people who said nasty things about him were responding to a social media push to create a martyr and ignore his problematic history. At the time of his murder, I did not even know who he was, but my social media feeds were inundated with people demanding universal respect and grief. Similarly, Charlie Kirk did not like how people tried to make a martyr out of George Floyd, and he responded by calling the man a scumbag. He did not show concern for this murdered man's children, and his free speech absolutist stance would probably expect nothing different for himself. I think it is just fine to say that Charlie Kirk was hateful. As a free speech absolutist myself, I think it is wrong to rewrite the history of a person just because they're dead.

I understand that you were his friend and you do not like to hear him disparaged. I would never celebrate the murder of a person, even one who had disagreed with politically, but I would also never tell the people who were targets of Charlie Kirk how they're allowed to talk about him after his death. Okay, so a lot to get to in this email. And similar to what we talked about in those episodes of Happy Hour shortly after the assassination of Charlie. Now, I'll just start by saying, saying Charlie was not my friend. It was, you know, it was there new of each other, but we were not close friends or anything like that. I don't want to mislead anybody into thinking as much. In fact, we had a lot of disagreements over the years. And, you know, not, it's not like we were in

contact. We really weren't at all. But we just kind of from a distance had our differences. But I came to really respect him in the last year or two, particularly the last year of his life and told this story after it was assassinated. But for new listeners, like that week, I was about to reach out to him because of something he'd said that I thought was really well done. So anyway, and I was about to reach out and basically like make amends for years of disagreement. So all that is to say, just to get that first part out of the way, we weren't closer. anything. Second of all, Katie says, I think it is just fine to say that Charlie Kirk was hateful. Yes, Katie, I agree with you. It is just fine to say Charlie Kirk is hateful. You can say that.

Charlie Kirk would have wanted you to be able to say that. That's why he said when he went to campuses that he wanted the strongest libs and wanted people to send the people, wanted people to send the students with the toughest questions to the front of the line. It's actually how they staged his events. I have no idea what he said right away about George Floyd, but George Floyd obviously had a checkered history, was being investigated for a crime at that moment, and had all kinds of drugs in his system. So, I mean, I don't see an apples and oranges here with Charlie Kirk. But I guess what Katie is trying to say, I'm trying to be charitable about this, what Katie is trying to say here is that Charlie Kirk himself did not believe you had to immediately

martyrize people who died in tragic circumstances. He didn't believe that that was any sort of necessity or requirement of reaction to a high-profile tragedy. And I'm sure that's true. I think mostly what, because I'm assuming this is in response to the conversation Megan and I had about Amanda Seafreed, who went and called him hateful very shortly after he was murdered. I don't think anybody should be censored or suppressed for saying that. And I think to the degree they were, Charlie Kirk would be unhappy with it. I certainly spoke out against it when it was happening because it did happen. Greg Lukianoff of Fire was on just last week talking to us about a particularly egregious case out of Tennessee.

So certainly wouldn't be appropriate to accuse us of wanting censorship or suppression. I don't think Charlie would have wanted that at all. But, you know, the question of him being hateful, by all means. People can absolutely make the argument that he was hateful. Absolutely, that should not be suppressed. I do think there's a question of just as a human being, Katie says she wouldn't celebrate the murder of a person. Yeah, that's fair. I think that's probably fair for all of us. I think that's a good position to come down on. And, you know, the entire Amanda Seafreed controversy is that she immediately was posting that he was hateful. Like we're talking like in the days after. he was killed. And Megan's point was maybe way to beat, maybe way to beat. Even if people who are mourning him are treating him as someone who should be martyred, you don't have to react, especially not out of anger. You don't have to. And in fact, it would take some maturity and

emotional regulation that is laudable to hold your tongue. That's fine. And Megan was like, make that argument fine. Just don't do it in the moment. And And I agree with that. I mean, but I don't think anyone should be censored or suppressed. And I think the argument that he was hateful is completely insane. And it is against everything I stand for as much as I disagreed with him. The entire reason that I do a show like breaking points is because everyone around me tells me people like Ryan and Crystal are hateful. And people around them tell them that people like Saga and me are hateful. And it's not true. We're human beings who are coming to the positions that we come to out of, of good faith and our own backgrounds and experiences. And Charlie communicated in ways that are absolutely different than how I communicated or how I communicate. There's no question about that. So I certainly didn't agree with him across the board. But he was a good example of somebody who gets categorized as hateful. Well, it's really, I think, pretty ignorant to slot him into that category. He disagreed with folks. But he was respectful and polite, especially in the last

you know, a couple years of his life, you could see this in his, the question and answer things he would do on college campuses. Respectful, polite, and treated everybody with humanity and decency when he was talking to them. So that's a important illustration. And I think when Jank Yugar reacted, he kind of hit the nail on the head that he, it's an example of the kind of modeled dialogue that we should be having. And it can be very tough. It can be very, very tough. to do that because it's easy in the algorithms program and condition us to see this other person as hateful and bigoted. Take another Red Bull Sip here in my tiny closet studio. So thank you for the question, Katie. Always appreciate the back and forth and always appreciate the tough questions.

I love them. All right. Let's see here. Matthew says, I've heard you talk about the hollowing out of American monoculture and tend to agree with you. The ability to talk to people up music, movies, or TV shows is near impossible now. However, I recently read Free Eye India's book Girls, which in part talks about how social media has flattened childhood. That is to say, because algorithms now feed children the same media. Childhood all across the country looks eerily similar. Each of these statements make sense to me individually, but I know they can't be simultaneously both true. How can it be that we used to have a dominant monoculture that we were much more, but were much more individualized or we're much more balkanized now while also being much more likely to consume

the exact same video as everyone else? Are you able to reconcile this seeming paradox. Thank you. And I really like the show. This is a fantastic question, Matt, and it's one that I've thought about a lot because the, I don't agree with the argument that Twitter is not a monopoly. I don't agree with the argument that Facebook's not a monopoly. Instagram and TikTok, you could kind of argue now is more of a doopoly as Instagram gets further and further into short form video and less into picture posting. That's an understatement. Snapchat's obviously a monopoly. And what that means, is the algorithms have an opportunity to, I was going to say Unify, but that has such a positive connotation, to monopolize, because they have a monopoly on the audience, to monopolize viewing patterns almost in the same way that having three channels did in 1953.

tree. But they don't use it that way, right, because it doesn't incentivize engagement. What incentivizes engagement in people spending as long as they can on the platforms is actually giving people hyper-tailored, very specific, very specific content that is hyper-tailored to their tastes and their specific algorithmic preferences. And that, I mean, is basically what's happening. There are a few podcasts and YouTube channels that rise through the very tippy, tippy, tippy top. But even those don't have the power that something like, I don't know, let's, if we take the example of kids content, cartoon network or the Disney channel had 20 years ago, let alone like the ABC Saturday morning cartoons, they just don't have that power.

And I haven't read Freya's book. But I also think, I think Gen Z, insights are extremely useful and compelling. But also, they don't really have a baseline for exactly how monopolizing or unifying or conformist, maybe, how powerful those three channels were. They don't necessarily have a baseline for what that was like. I don't necessarily have a baseline for what that was like. I know some people who grew up with that cable, and there are certainly people at school and stuff that grew up with that cable. And there was, you know, nothing more powerful. then even when I was growing up than the broadcast networks. So that's that experience is still the same. But yeah, that's that's they have the power to have and and maybe in with kids content because there are fewer,

there's fewer competition for people who can get on YouTube kids or whatever. There's less competition for who can get on YouTube kids. They do have more competition. I'm not sure. Um, but, uh, the power is there to use these platforms that way. Um, but and I don't think they should be, of course, because if they are used that way, then you're just, again, delivering so much power. Like, the power already exists, but I don't want them to use it in ways that bypasses, that puts them back in even more powerful seat as the gatekeeper of the content that we get access to. So it's not great either way, but that is a fantastic question. Let's see.

This is from David, who says, big fan of your work and, Your's Defender Review in the R breaking points subreddit. Oh, man, the R breaking point subreddit is, I think I'm less popular in the R breaking point subreddit than Kamala Harris is with the electorate. So thank you, David. I think I'm also the only host that reads the subreddit. I don't read it that often, but I think I'm the only one that dips into it. David says, not sure if you happen to cross this article from New York Magazine by Ben Terrace titled Building Back the Bidens. Yes, it did. David goes on to say in the article, Terrace recounts a June 5th appearance at a best western in Sioux Falls, South Dakota by an 83-year-old former U.S. president who's playing the greatest hits to a ballroom of Biden dead-enders. I find the rush to shape Joe Biden's legacy on such a condensed post-presidency timeline to be fascinating when his disastrous debate her performance is the lasting image of him for so many of us. To me, Joe Biden will be most remembered for the ethnic cleansing and forced displacement of the Palestinians by Israel that he allowed to take place on his watch.

curious to know if you agree in what you thought about the article. Keep up the great work and looking forward to hearing from you on Happy Hour. I think David, that's how he's going to be remembered on the left. I think he's also going to be remembered. First of all, I think because that debate moment is so visual and gripping, it will be the lasting image of Biden, like more than any policy ever will. And in general, I think we remember presidents for, I don't know, lasting emotional prints that they leave on our culture more than we do any policy. Of course,

those prints are connected to policy in many cases. But in Biden's case, I think it's also just going to be, he's just going to be this image of the dying political establishment clinging to power, literally dying political establishment clinging to power. And I do think the part of his foreign policy related to Israel and Gaza is going to be part of that. that. We are going to remember him as the moment the damn broke, and populism was not able to be put back in its cage for better or worse. So that's how I think. I mean, it's an interesting New Yorker article. And you're right, there probably is some intentional strategy to move the lens away from Biden's policies, foreign policies, because that has just, even as we're watching what happened in New York, and again, this is only New York. And again, this is only New York. York, just to be clear. But what happened in the Connie corridor this week, it's very clear that I think Biden, Biden clinging to power just sparked an even higher level of institutional distrust and enthusiasm for people who are fighting the dying institutions that this is an animal that's

been let out of its cage. And Trump did that on the right, really 2016. But, you know, with super delegates in 2016 and Donna Brazil and Debbie Washington Schultz. They've tried to keep a lid on Bernie, and they have been more successful at that. I think even having the corporate press largely sympathetic to their cultural cause has helped Democrats keep a lid on populism. But I think Biden will be remembered for really being the final straw in all of establishment politics, not that they won't still be around and, you know, probably be successful to, to some degree or another, just that this next chapter in the American story is populist, populist. Hank sends, Emily, understand the reaction to the Obama Library is strange design,

but to be fair, the Picasso sculpture in Daly Plaza unveiled in 1967 when I was a high school freshman, was at first generally considered to be a blight on the city's landscape, too strange for a working-class city, but now the general attitude of many is, don't you dare criticize our Picasso taste changes over time? I could totally see that. Hank happening with the Obama Library and Hank attached a picture of the Picasso statue. And let me just say, I am with everyone back in 1967 who said this is a blight on the city's landscape. And I'm not afraid to say it. This is hideous. I have never seen this. This is hideous. But I get why in a town, you know, town, you would, in a working class town, in particular, be very proud to have

fine art. I think that's, you don't have to like the art, but you're sort of proud that it came to your city. And maybe that'll be the case with the Obama Library. Wouldn't shock me. The pictures do not do it justice. I just have to say that. Like when I was, I didn't even expect to be able to see it. I don't know why. But when I was at the University of Chicago a couple months ago, I think I've said this on a podcast a couple of times. I was stunned by how oppressing it is, how oppressive it is over the landscape of the city there. It's intense. It is. Man, it's something else. It's huge. and it looks like Mordor. It's really crazy to see it in the context of the entire skyline in that area of the city. So that's a rough one. All right. Blake says, hey, Emily, love your show and love having your POV on breaking points. This is for your Friday show. I'm in need of a complete reading list. You're always recommending such great books. I'd appreciate if you can put together a big list of your recommendations. And if you can get some of Saga, Ryan and KB's as well, that'd be great. They're always mentioning books, but it's hard to keep.

track. That's a good idea. I should do that. I could pop that onto substack or something, and that would probably work really well. So Blake, great question. Off the top of my head, I know I've recommended these before, so if people listen to every happy hour, they've certainly heard them. But I would say my must-reads are Dominion by Tom Holland, coming apart by Charles Murray, Alienated America by Tim Carney, Primal Screams, by Mary Eberset,

Devil's Chestboard, by David Talbot. There was another one I was going to mention. I was reading One Dimensional Man by Marcusa on the plane because I didn't download anything and I just had that book on my laptop and I'd never actually read it.

But I would say that's pretty close to essential reading. and Marshall McLuhan. Yeah, those are the ones off the top of my head, but I'll think more. I used to put Pollya up there. Anything from Camille Pollya. So let's see. Or actually just sexual persona by Camille Polly is a great place to start your Polly your journey.

Let's see. Ralph says, I just wanted to thank you for reading my email on your Happy Hour's show. I would love it if you host you host. you went down to Florida and collabed with Patrick Bet David, Vinnie and Tom from PBD, because they show the Christian values you do. FIO. FI. I go by RJ. Oh, RJ. I'm sorry for calling you Ralph. Thank you so much for the email. Thanks for writing in. I do listen to PBD every once in a while. And I actually maintained he had the best Fuentes interview when Fuentes was like after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Fuentes was making the rounds of podcasts because people wanted to kind of quiz him

about that relationship and and quiz him about why he was also attracting young men on the right. And I maintain that I think Patrick Bet David hit the right balance of genuinely trying to understand him while also testing

some of the worst parts of affinticism, certainly putting them to the test, challenging them and challenging him and not letting him off the hook. Bob says 100 so. congratulations. I've enjoyed your show for several months down. Always look forward to your next one. I find you even handed your approach and I like you digging on the intellectual basis for some of what's

going on. Great guests too. A little off topic, but the Pope has managed to knowing me enough to reorganize my charitable giving. Anyway, Fire and Preborn are filling the gap. Congratulations again and looking forward to number 500. Oh, thank you, Bob. That is so kind. Fire and Preborn, great organizations. Thank you for listening. Really, really appreciate that kind note. It's genuinely, it means more than you know. Let's see. David sends a video from Ross Douthit. Oh, this is interesting. Ross went on with Haviv Redig Ger. Oh, I'm putting this in my watch later playlist. And David says there's a moment where Douth talks about why Tucker Carlson is not a, quote, Muslim brother. All right, I'll be listening to the that is a great recommendation. Thank you. Hank sends along a piece from Kurt Schlichter that is a nuanced view of the war, according to Hank. Thank you for the recommendation. I'll take a look of it. Howard says, I laughed when you use the term arrogance to ignorance ratio when talking about

Karas Weisher had not heard that phrase before, but it sure does sum up a problem with many people. When you think of examples, a list is long, particularly politicians. Yep, yep, yep. Let's see, this is a long one. He says he thinks the Obama library building looks like a sewage plant. Howard says, when you start to talk with the difference between millennials and Gen Z, you start to lose me. Too complicated for a boomer. When you talk about Lena Dunham, it always makes me think of her former boyfriend, Jack Antonoff. Well, there are no boomers who know about Jack Antonoff.

So don't say yourself short, Howard. You clearly are not your average boomer. He's now married to Margaret Quali, and in my opinion is the number one example of someone who traded up. Yeah, that's fair. And then on the premise of asking Emily anything, the subject today is UFOs. They've been in the news and given how smart you are on your religious convictions, I wonder what you think. Are we alone? Are they here?

I think it is a lot of bunk. I've never seen a UFO or Bigfoot or the Wisconsin man bat. I am, quote, believe it when I see it kind of guy. Never knew much about JD Vance before he became the VP since then my view has been positive. I wouldn't be wild if 20 had ended up Vance versus Harris, though, that would absolutely be wild. Not other questions, certainly. UFOs, you know, we did a ton of coverage on UFOs back at Federalist Radio Hour, and over the years I have followed it pretty closely. My friend Tom Rogan follows it pretty closely. Obviously, Sager follows it really closely, and I read a lot of the read and consume, a lot of the various podcasts and substack.

on the UFO topic. So I can go fairly deep on some of the stuff, Jacques Valet, Jacques Valet, and, you know, going back to Roswell and I listen to Rogan and Sean Ryan, and I listen to, you know, I've seen Disclosure Day like most of you now. And yeah, I'm sorry, I have not seen disclosure. I've seen the age of disclosure. like most everyone now. And it's complicated, but I actually roughly, trying to think of who comes closest to what I believe. I was trying to compare it to someone.

I'm hesitant to jump to one thing or the other. I find a lot of Rogerers writing on the topic compelling. I think J.D. Vance, in a sort of simplistic sense, has been directionally similar to where I come down on some of this. But I also just don't think we know. I did a podcast with Sager years ago, a Federalist radio hour with him on this, that would probably be worth revisiting and Tom too. But yeah, I just there's so, I think one of the challenges right now is there's so much

disinformation coming from inside the government trying to make you think one way or the other. I think they're using the podcast space for this. I think they're using the substack space for this. And I don't think people who are relaying those messages, necessarily know it. And I don't even know who I'm talking about, right? I just have a strong inclination that there have been false narratives injected into the discourse to confuse people and maybe prepare people for limited hangouts, that sort of thing. I think what we can be sure of is that they're taking this messaging very, very, very seriously. The government is taking

this messaging very, very seriously. And that kind of tells you a lot in and of itself, because if they had nothing and it was, you know, if it was literally nothing, you wouldn't see so much of that. All right. More Red Bull one moment. I'm not usually a Red Bull drinker, but it was a long flight. Marla says, first let me offer my deepest condolences on the last year grandfather. He sounds like a wonderful man who apparently passed on curiosity and a sense of humor to you. Sense of humor for sure. I have a toxic trait of making fun of all of my friends and that and everybody I love really, that might come from my grandfather. Do you think Jimmy Kimball will tap his extremely funny, close friend Adam Carolla, to host in his absence, I doubt it, but it would be great. No,

probably not. It's a good point, actually, re our discussion about Rosie O'Donnell. I wonder if our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights will withstand the Mamdani, Taurico Platner, at all socialists in the end run states subverting the electoral college to keep at bay the immigration that has effectively brought Europe to the point of no return. We need to have the free speech and the right to bear arms to check the angry hostile minority from Steamrolling Our Nation. Congratulations on a year. Thank you for making me think. Thank you for reading. God bless you and your family in this challenging time. Molo, that's a very kind email. Thank you, as always, for taking in the show and then writing in to talk

about it. And this question about the Declaration of Independence Constitution is super interesting to me because right now there's a discourse around the Kami Corridor victories on Tuesday about whether they are, or whether they really, is this a bunch of like literal Marxists and communists who hate America? Like, that's what a lot of people on the right are saying. And I actually think in many cases, the answer is going to be yes. Like, these are people who are steeped in Marxism who don't believe in positive American exceptionalism. In fact, to the extent they believe in American exceptionalism, they believe that America is an exceptionally evil empire. higher, really starting with colonialism around Teddy Roosevelt, McKinley, obviously starting with

slavery for people like Nicole Hannah-Jones. But if you, I mean, this is why I think is very, very important to engage with people who come from that perspective. And I have friends who come from that perspective. And I don't think they're bad people. I really don't think they're bad people for believing that. I think I disagree with them enormously. And I think if some of their policies were enacted, it would do enormous damage to the country. But I also think more and more people are on their side, right? I'm not saying it's the whole country. You know, you still have, I think, like 60%, maybe higher percent of the country that has a great deal or a lot of pride or patriotism. I went through those numbers on the show this week. I'd have to go

back, look up the exact buds around there. So I'm not saying they're everyone, but they are a big component of the young electorate, and I think that means the number is going to grow. And I think that means you have to not treat people like they are bad categorically or just qualified categorically from people who do like America engaging with them and saying, with historical perspective, our system is actually exceptional. It's done lots of bad things. But, you know, my position is that remains a positive exception to the course of human history. And the kind of balance is good. And I just don't believe in categorizing. And Marl, I'm not saying that you did this. I'm just saying I see it online right now constantly. People who are not patriotic as bad, because that's becoming a bigger group of the public in this moment of deep institutional distrust. It's not everyone. I'm not going to act like it's everyone.

it is largely an elite perspective. People who went through the academy system and kind of poisoned on the American Empire in those years. But also young people who are feeling really down for some legitimate reasons. People who saw the opioid epidemic that was foisted on places hollowed out by NAFTA. And then veterans did to the country over the last 20 years. I mean, I just say it's very important to, like, for example, the Frederick Douglass, what to the slave is the Fourth of July speech that we were talking about with, and as in Rachel this week, is such a good example because he talks about all of these legitimate grievances with the American system and then ends on a place of hope with historical perspective on why the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are, what did MLK say, promissory notes? but Frederick Douglass absolutely nailed that balance. And I think that's a persuasive example of why in the scope and span of human history,

America is good, exceptional, worth saving for many reasons. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with the empire. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with foreign policy. It doesn't mean you have to agree on history. But, you know, you could also get into the question of if you live in a place and your family lives in a place, you should, you know, have a vested interest in making it better to protect. and nourish your descendants. And that's all really important. And it becomes, again, a big problem. If people aren't having children, there's another part of that as well. Oh my goodness. We have so many

emails this week. Rachel says, congrats in your 100th episode. Great to hear you talk with Annes too. We had a chance to meet recently. So I wanted to thank you for putting us in touch. Here's to 100 and 100 more. Lucky you, Rachel, getting to meet Anez. That's fantastic. Thank you so much. A hundred is a huge, huge landmark. and I'm really excited about it. And yeah, great. Looking forward to much, much more. Let's see.

This is an email about data centers. Ooh, this is a long thing about data centers. I'm going to read this for sure. Chris, this is from Chris. Yeah, super interesting. All right, I'll take a look at it. Thank you, Chris. Brett says,

Hi, Emily, big fan of your podcast show and your appearance is on breaking points. I'm concerned about the rise of the DSA, but what is missing from the discourse on the right is why they are an ascension. Thank you, Brett. You said it better than I could. People feel like they can't get ahead in this economy, and that's why they're turning to the dark side. What's worse in your mind? The apathy from the Republicans regarding affordability or the fecklessness of the Democrats who won't directly challenge these socialists. The passive approach of Republicans is not affecting change fast enough. They expect Reagan's trickle-down economics to work, but bend over backwards for big tech and big business. What can be done to switch strategies? Take care. You're one of the good ones. Well, Brett, it sounds like your answer to your own question is that the apathy of Republicans is worse than the fecklessness of Democrats. And I agree with you 1,000 percent. Because, I mean, the apathy of Democrats, or I'm sorry, the fecklessness of the Democrats, they don't know what to do right now, right? Because coming out against Bernie Sanders means, you know, like making yourself an enemy of a lot of young activists. And, you know, like, making yourself an enemy of a lot of young activists. And, To me, they should be thinking long and hard about whether it's appropriate to become an enemy of everyone who finds themselves attracted to populism for exactly the reason Brett said, which is that the response of Republicans, who, again, I'm on the right. So I have slightly higher expectations of Republicans, though I probably dislike the party overall as much as Democrats. But that's where it's like if you believe in a country that is a land of opportunity

and a country that does present a path, a viable path to the American dream for the average person, and you are arrogant about your party being the better option. And you are a current Republican, like that is shameful because they have been doing tax cuts over and over again. deregulating over and over again. And I actually think all of that is when done appropriately good. But if you don't supplement it, if you don't complement it, and in fact, you shut down people's populist concerns about, like, turn off the spigot of subsidies to higher education. Let the market work there. They won't do it. I get those are politically difficult. But if we're all about the markets and the markets creating opportunities, there are a lot of problems.

that Republicans have. I think that housing bill is an interesting start, like keeping, I know Cato and libertarians are upset about it because large institutional investors are not overall in the whole country, a big factor in housing. It's a pretty small part of home sales and purchases. But in some areas, like Atlanta, if I'm remembering correctly, it actually is a very significant part that is clearly distorting the market. And there are localities around the country that are having similar experiences. And so that's important. Those sorts of things are important to the average American. But yeah, I think just yelling at people about how good the country is when they aren't feeling it is it's not persuasive. And I think Republicans need to be more empathetic about the economic

challenges to the average person, more persuasive about it, and then more, of course, proactive and offering different policy solutions. We can have conversations about what those might be. I think monopoly is a huge problem just across the board. I agree with much of Matt Stoller over the big newsletters critiques here on if you look at ag, if you look at beef. Banking is pretty bad consolidation-wise. The media companies are pretty bad consolidation-wise.

There's just the whole, I don't know, our whole economy has become very, very consolidated. And I think that would go a long way towards creating. competition, economic opportunity. And there's just, there's certain things that Republicans see is like categorically untouchable. And I think that should change in certain areas because the true conservative tradition, I mean, look at trade. I think probably the best way to describe myself, if I had to pick any politician, would be like a Robert Taft, conservative. And look at trade, foreign policy. There's just so much, there's so many resources that can. be refocused better. And anyway, so I agree with you, Brett, that the apathy from Republicans

is crazy. Let's see. Buck says, just my opinion, but it seems that Kamlo's word salads are funny in two ways. The obvious is how she can string together words in an endless circle, which no one understands. People laugh at her. Less obvious, I think she's trying to have a moment that will be remembered. In history books, think of MLK Jr. I have a dream. J.F.K.S. Not What Your Country, Lincoln, fours, 40 years ago. She's trying so hard to become famous as an intellectual, pretty funny. Yeah. she is always striving for grandiosity and is incapable of delivering on it, striving for grandiosity without ever being able to deliver grandiosity because she is fuzzy.

She doesn't want to commit to something that would be in that moment grand, right? Like, JFK's inaugural was grand in historical context. We think of I have the dream as kind of trite now, but when it was said, it was grand. Not that we, of course, we think of that as a great moment in American history. I just mean to say that I have a dream is almost a cliche at this point, but it wasn't then because it kind of created the cliche. And so she's not, she doesn't have the kind of ideological commitments, in my opinion, at least, convictions that would allow her to be grand. She is constantly, as she's attempting to be grand, censoring herself and editing herself to play a role. And that's how you end up sounding like

Selena Meyer. And in fact, that is actually the critique of politics that Veep is making, that Selena Meyer is playing a role and is totally lacking convictions and can kind of coast electorally, politically on that. But not always. It's sometimes bites you. And that's kind of the wonderful critique. And I think that's why she ends up sounding so much like Selena Meyer. Much to be said about that. Rebecca sends in disappointment about a particular candidate that she had mentioned in an email earlier. and says, I'm looking forward to hearing from populist candidates that get you and Sagar excited about the midterms. Still love being a part of this tribe.

Yeah, I mean, I really don't get excited about candidates. What's interesting right now, so on breaking points, we have interviewed a ton of DSA and Democratic-Soucial type candidates who are challenging. Most of the time the interviews are about big money. and most of the time they're just kind of in that we'll be interviewing them about why they're different than the it's primaries let's put it that way and I think why we've been doing that is it's it's the Dem T party right like I feel like breaking points was the first to declare it the Dem T party and Republicans aren't really going through that moment right now but there is this period where if you're on the left, you are trying probably to nudge this new movement to be the best that it can be.

And Republicans aren't, again, like Trump is a dominant figure right now. This isn't a Tea Party where there are different people currently working to sculpt the GOP. And I think that is happening on the left right now, which is why there's a little bit more political optimism. And I think why we've, on breaking points, been talking to some of those candidates, I don't, I'm just very pessimistic having interviewed many politicians, maybe needlessly so. And I'm open to disagreement on it. But I'm deeply cynical about 90% of the people who run for elected office. And then, you know, the other 5% up to 95% the other 5% is basically immediately corrupted by the system that they join. So, I've seen it many times. I've seen it up close. I talk to politicians who have absolutely dead eyes and are acting like Kamala Harris, as we just discussed. So for me, that's what I love about journalism is, you know, I don't have to have faith. And many of you disagree with me on this, but like, I don't have a lot of faith in Republican Party and the Democratic Party. You don't have a lot of faith in any given individual politician. I hope that they use their roles to just ends. But I generally doubt that they will or that they will do it for the right reasons. It's good to have a, and this is where I tend to focus more on culture stuff than political stuff. I think the culture is what shapes the electorate. And so if you want to, for example, change people's perception on, you know, allowing men and women's prisons,

then you have to change the cultural perception of it to demand that, to create a demand for politicians to act differently. And I think that's a much more interesting arena. And it's why I'm just like kind of less interested in candidates. But, you know, if it were a GOPT party movement, moment again, that would be super interesting too. James says, I very much enjoy your show. I really appreciate that you can discuss nearly any issue without anger, even when you disagree wholeheartedly. It's an incredible talent and very refreshing. I've heard many people compare APAC and care. I feel like it's an unpaired comparison, and that care was an unindicted co-conspirator in acts of terror. The primary criticism of APAC seems to be that they are under the control of Israel,

either financially or through direct governments. Is there any or all evidence of foreign donations or leadership by non-Americans? American Jews supporting the final refuge for people that have been the victim of genocide seems reasonable to me. However, direct foreign influence is not thanks in advance. You know, the A-PAC, let me pull this up. I'm not super interested specifically in the A-PAC debate because, you know, I think it's a stand-in for how, I think it's a stand-in for money and politics in general, and I think that's why people often talk about it. I'm pulling up something here.

You can probably hear me typing in my little makeshift studio. But this is, I do want to say, an important point being made about groups that are obviously domestic and represent the, it's kind of like what we've talked about with data centers, right? That are there some Chinese bots trying to make Americans mad about data centers so that China wins the AI race, whatever that means, then yeah, I think that's absolutely true. What's not true is that it's all whipped up by China, that this wouldn't exist without China. And that, I think, is totally, totally incorrect. So the care comparison is an interesting one. And I'm trying to remember, I'm pulling this up here, but yeah, the the inception of APAC, my memory, is that it was directly based on, or it was it was directly

derived from the Israeli government. It was an idea project of the Israeli government, which is why they had to register for the Foreign Agents Registration Act. And that that's where it originally, and that's why that originally happened. And they rebranded, which is why I think people are suspicious. This was many, many years ago. And again, I'm trying to get my history correct. But that's my memory of how that happened. So let's see. Let me check this one. Yes. So that is, I forget, What did it used to be called? Farah is, there are a lot of people who will say

Farah is against free speech, and I think that is kind of true in a certain sense, but I think it places reasonable restrictions on speech, meaning it's political, well, let me put it this way. It's genuinely an interesting debate. Free speech advocates don't love. A-PAC, or I'm sorry, don't love Farah, but the debate is over whether you can be, like, I basically am tempted to say that lobbying on behalf of a foreign agent should be banned in America.

Not that you have to disclose it, because that's what Farah says. Ferris says you can lobby for any of these foreign governments lawfully, but then you just, to be in compliance with the law, you have to disclose it so that the American people kind of know where the propaganda is coming from. But I go through fair disclosures a lot, and you don't really know where the propaganda is coming from because it's often hard to trace. They go through subcontractors,

and the money, I think, is pretty, it becomes pretty difficult to follow, and for the average American to understand that it came from X, Y, and Z, is genuinely pretty hard. And I just don't believe that you should really, like, I find it very unpatriotic. There are some people who use Farah to great ends, countries that desperately need the United States help for charitable reasons, or on behalf of alliances that are actually beneficial to the United States. But all that is to say,

that's not always the case. And just the, this is an argument that's controversial. And I haven't, to be honest, thought about it 100% across the board. But my impulse, is I just get very angry about Farah. I get very angry about Farrah. And I'm just like, just ban it all. Be a part of the country or don't. Let's see. I'm trying to get back here to have the exact facts of,

yeah, I think, what was it? I'm trying to find the original name of APEC. But basically, the reason that people are suspicious, it represents a foreign government and not just organically people in the United States who want to support Israel is that there are there are non-crazy allegations that the Israeli government does coordinate with APAC and I'm trying to get the specifics without me just riffing but the thing I was going to say is there are the right would be or the left would be insane to act as though there is not organic support for Israel in the United States.

Again, this is just like the China conversation. We were talking about that we were, it's real. There are actually Americans who really do genuinely want the country to have a robust, positive alliance with Israel, who do support Israel. And to act like it's only because of APAC, I think is sort of similar to how Kevin O'Leary says people are only mad. at data centers because of, only at data centers because of China. Like, I just don't think that's true whatsoever at all. So let me see if, I'll go on to another question and keep. Yeah, it was called the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs.

That's how it was founded. And they, this I'm reading from Britannica right now, encyclopedia that was that was succeeded by the american scientist council was a washington dc based organization that lobbied for federal aid to israel so i just want to pause there and as far as fair is concerned uh it's behalf it's on behalf of a foreign principle technically if you're lobbying for federal aid and that's where this gets really tricky um and it would get really tricky if my you know kind of off the cuff idea to just ban foreign lobbying were involved it's like to what extent is that an intentional material contribution to the foreign principle?

And to what extent is it just organically Americans want all this foreign aid to go to Israel? Like, it's not an easy thing to kind of separate, if that makes sense. So anyway, let me see here. continuing to make sure I get as close as I can to those exact allegations. But again, I'll keep looking up new questions here as we go through it. Let's go on to the next one, which says from Justin, I'll be flying back to Wisconsin this Friday. I wish you a happy weekend from the sky.

Also, the picture of you on your grandpa's lap in the sailor uniform is adorable. I was contemplating your theory. Thank you, thank you, Justin, about accelerations moving to the coastal cities and deserationists moving inland. That would make a great premise for a sci-fi story. I don't know it's that simple. Obviously, a lot of tech companies attract accelerationist types into the coastal cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and Austin. However, does Austin count as coastal, though? However, there's lots of other things that attract people to these places.

There's lots of NGOs and administrative lawyers in the coastal blue cities where people who have high verbal fluency thrive, people who are charismatic and traditionally attractive do well in coastal cities by leveraging social capital and network effects. As a counter example to your thesis, I'm a very technical accelerationist type person, but have left the West Coast for a smaller town. Many accelerationalist types like me can grow disgusted with how the blue leaders have mismanaged the coastal cities and then choose to leave despite opportunity costs. As an example of technology bleeding inland, I'll gladly live in northern Wisconsin and hunt with my optimist. robot using it to carry the deer back to my cyber truck. Anyway, it doesn't seem like your highest resolution take to me. That's hilarious. Thanks for the email, Justin. But what I would say, actually, is that this is my counterpoint. You're proving my theory, which Justin outlined pretty well, which is I think my best guess, my grand theory of American politics over the next 20 to 30

years is that we start to culturally, politically, geographically separate even more than we already are. I hear what Justin is saying about being an accelerationist type. But, you know, it's interesting, actually, to say that you're both an accelerationist and somebody who wants to live outside of a city because of the mismanagement and wants to even hunt, right? Like, that's interesting to me because I see this conflict runs straight through the heart of Elon Musk himself. It's like the Solzheniesin quote about the line between good and evil goes to the heart of every man. line between transhumanism and pro-humanism runs right through Elon Musk.

I feel like for him, it's a sort of arrested development where he's so foundationally obsessed with accelerationism that even as he's starting to see some of the problems with, for example, transhuman transgender ideology, he can't bring himself to break from accelerationism, even though somebody like me would see those as kind of part and parcel of the transhumanist accelerationalist cause. And so kind of what you're saying, Justin, do I think it might undermine my

theory in some sense? Yes, but I also think there's something just about having the value that involves even hunting and wanting to live in a small town. I expect, and maybe I didn't explain this well, that people in my theory who are like that, they might be accelerationist in terms of technology, but it'll be for pro-human causes. So maybe it's like pro-human versus transhuman is a better delineation than anti-human, or I'm sorry, than accelerationist versus decelerationist. I'll keep thinking on that, though. That's good. Hank says, I'm interested in your take on the New York elections this week. I think you did the show with Glenn before the results were in. Yes, that's true. I had to fly all day Wednesday. I'll fly to Miami, then fly to Brasilia from

Miami. So that was taped on Tuesday evening. And yeah, my basic take is, I mean, I think some of this is absolutely relegated to New York City. But I do think candidates like those that want in New York City are going to have a better chance in other elections, whether it's Platner, being better than a Sarah Gideon type candidate, meaning being more politically attractive than a Sarah Gideon type candidate. Yeah, I think, or what's another good example? Italian Rigo's trying to kind of run a progressive campaign, but his cultural problems will likely be significant because he's in Texas. But I think, yeah, in states that are like purple-y, like Maine or senators that are in swing states like Susan Collins, some of those candidates will be surprisingly politically powerful. But a lot of it I do think is New York-ish.

Christine says, no question this week. Just jumping in unsolicited to say, I'm obsessed with Budo's Bay as a woman of a certain age who saw Jaws the years. you saw Jaws the year it came out and continued to be a huge fan. I picked up on the crossover immediately. Also, a few weeks ago, someone mentioned Theo from Golden for you to read out. I was second that. It's a lovely book. A nice change from all the dark stuff going on. Oh, I love that. Yeah, the Widows Bay segment I was so excited for this week. So I hope everybody enjoyed it. You're welcome. No, thank you, Christine, for the email. This is from William, who says I'm a big fan of your show in journalistic styles.

You're usually very fair in your analysis. I'm also a black American who is a actually American with no lineage to Africa or Caribbean islands. Unlike Joy Reid and many black figures, both in Congress, media, or other political platforms, Joy's background includes the Congo on her father's side and Gianna on her mother's side, and she does not represent the views of us, actual Black Americans who will be in USA colors having barbecues and doing fireworks like always on July 4th. There's actually been a major movement among us who identify as Black American to get African dissociation from our official identification in this country. This is especially because of the racism and anti-Black American views. We consistently have seen from African, Caribbean,

in Latino and Asian immigrants who somehow believe that we too are immigrants simply because of our skin color. Amen, William. I'm not sure I familiar you are with the term foundational black American. However, this is how many of us who have lineage dating back to 1776 and even centuries prior are identifying mainly because there are so many black immigrants like Joy Reid who try to speak on our behalf publicly. If you search the term on TikTok, you'll see hundreds of thousands of black immigrants like Joy Reid who are against this because it doesn't allow them to play around with a term African American, as they have been for many years. We're not continental Africans, we're Americans, period.

There's actually a lot more like Santa's topic, but I know you get a lot of email, so I'll just simply say that when you do see black people expressing the type of views that Joy has, just know that they represent the views of African and Caribbean immigrants, not U.S. actual black American citizens. Have a great weekend. William, fascinating email. I'm absolutely familiar with that movement to get African out of the American in African American. And that's why I typically just say black Americans.

I don't like saying black and white because I feel like it's reductive. So I usually try to say black Americans and white Americans. There's no right way to do it, I feel like. But I also don't just like referring to people by their skin color. So that's where I typically say black Americans instead of African Americans because I'm familiar with exactly what you're saying. And these distinctions are so interesting. And I think, you know, you hear this with, I've heard this from many Hispanic Americans as well, that like if you're comparing migrants from Mexico to migrants from. Cuba and you're saying, oh, Hispanics are going to do X, Y, and Z, you're probably missing huge nuances because you've decided to categorize people by their race before anything else. And I think that is generally true, and it's super interesting in this big context. So thank you, thank you for that note, William, super interesting. And I'd love to know more about it. Let's see. All right.

N says many experts have said that the deciding factors for many voters in recent primaries were affordability in Gaza, especially the latter. I don't disagree with this view, but would like to add a certain nuance. My premise is that the election results are mostly due to the complete erosion of free speech in the country. In today's America, there is simply no space to have a balanced two-way conversation about Gaza without being labeled anti-Semitic, canceled, or in extreme cases being grabbed and held indefinitely by unidentified agents. In this muzzled environment, many of us realize that we have no personal agency in our lives. and having a normal conversation could come at great personal costs. The issue that matters then is that we will be heard, and the only power we have is our vote. Yeah, so this is super interesting, and because this is how I felt about a lot of the culture war issues

during what people refer to as the Great Awakening. And what I mean by that is they become stand-ins for bigger-picture questions, and this is why I refer to the trans issue as a litmus test for a lot of voters. And I really stand by that. I think that's absolutely true. That is like if you can't answer the question of whether a man should be in a woman's prison or in a woman's shelter, right? The examples of like in the Alaska example of men with women who had been,

who are sheltering because they've been beaten by men, if you can't answer that question or if you think that a girl should have to wrestle a boy and you, you will say that you believe it's just, you know, you use all the jargon and all of the jargon that implies people who disagree with you, want kids to be at suicide risk or whatever. That is just a litmus test for, I think, a lot of voters' honesty. And I kind of think that's also the case with the, for voters on the left, with the Gaza question, in that I think they believe in order to continue defending what Israel did over many, many months. From, again, the Democrats' perspective, you basically have to be lying or you have to be very, very bad.

And so I think it's a sort of litmus test. And actually I heard Morris Katz, who is one of Zoroamamani's advisors, say that on CNN, with Dana Bash, who is asking him, like, why do you just talk about APAC. And he was like, well, I think it's the same thing as crypto. He gave another example to it, but he's like, I think it's the same thing with crypto. That you like, you have these problems and it's basically just these problems with money. But the issue is powerful with voters because it's, I don't think he used the term litmus test, but because on the left, it's just a matter of like you're trying to elect the politician from the left. Do you trust them to be honest with you? And I think that's how a lot of voters see it. Do you trust them to,

represent America or your community first. And again, that is my explanation for, I think, how a lot of people do see it and why it has become a very powerful individual example. Let's see. This is from Pedro. Oh, interesting. Okay, well, Pedro, that's a, this is not a happy hour email, but an interesting email, nonetheless.

Let me see. here it's a it's just a like a conversation um what else do we have oh look i did it amazing i didn't think i was going to be able to do it but i did it uh okay oh and finally i was multitasking a bit uh as i was answering your questions and trying to make sure i had some precision to this apex question because i do think it's an important one and that's why we spent time on the whole kevin o'leary thing um it reminds me a lot actually also of the nRA where the NRA was specifically blamed for defeating particular gun bills, like after Sadie Hook. And I think, again, I actually mean, I really believe that it's similar in that.

The NRA and the amount of money that was the NRA controls is honestly not even that big compared to other industries. And on top of that, the NRA actually poorly, at that point in time, particularly poorly, represented the organic natural opinions of millions of Americans who believe in a very robust Second Amendment. And so to blame the NRA is crazy because those senators were going to be punished by their voters. Anyway, like, this is actually kind of what happened with John Cornyn. John Cornyn didn't lose that primary because of the NRA and who else, if I'm remembering this quickly or correctly, but John Cornyn partially lost that primary because a whole lot of people in Texas saw him a bit of a litmus test issue too. as somebody who turned us back on two-way proponents.

That might have been after Evaldi. And I'm not saying there aren't legitimate debates about these bills. I am just saying that oftentimes it's the special interest group is powerful and it's important. But sometimes it's actually more of a response to organic and natural public opinion. And so it's a scale difference, right? I think the percentage of Americans who are becoming supportive of an alliance with Israel, a strong alliance with Israel, is becoming pretty small if you look at polling. But anyway, that is to say, I think APEC for a while, probably has, along with other groups, reflected broad public opinion.

And I think the democratization of media has changed that. But anyway, I'm reading from Ballotpedia here, which is a great website, knowing the people behind it, it's a fantastic website. So it says Isaiah Keenan founded APAC in 1954 under the name American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs. In 1959, the name was changed to American Israel Public Affairs Committee to, quote, enlist the support of broad-based Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of Beny Brith, according to Morris S. Solomon of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. and then in terms of like modern evidence back in the Bush administration, this is a story a lot of people might remember, reading from the New York Times, May 4th, 2005, federal agents arrested a Pentagon analyst on Wednesday, accusing him of a legally disclosing highly classified information about possible attacks on American forces in Iran to two employees of a pro-Israel lobbying group.

The analyst Lawrence A. Franklin turned himself into the authorities on Wednesday morning in a case that has stirred unusually anxious debate in influential political circles in the Capitol, even though it has focused on a mid-level Pentagon employee. The inquiry has cast a cloud over the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee which employed the two men

who are said to have received the classified information from Mr. Franklin. The group, also known as APAC, has close ties to senior policymakers in the Bush administration, among them, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is expected to appear later this month at the group's annual meeting.

So that's a fair early modern still more than 20 years ago. But that is a source of some of the, I would say, like modern skepticism about all of that. Let's see. I'm sure, well, let's see. If there's anything else noteworthy in this near Times article, Mr. Roseman and Mr. Weisman had regular discussions with Israeli officials about the Middle East. And investigators have long said they believe that the APAC employees had veered into the area of national security, meeting with Israeli officials, including intelligence agents, although the affidavit made no mention of Israel as a recipient of any information. So that does really get right up to the line of FARA registration.

Nobody really enforced FARA until Paul Manafort and, well, mostly Paul Manafort, and Gates got slapped with Fara violations. Of course, they were in an effort that Tony Podestep was part of, too. But anyway, so in 2005, I don't think anybody was watching Farah super closely, but that does get right up to the line of Farah registration. According to, again, that affidavit, there's also some research that I've seen people circulate. This is from a group called Dawn Media. I think it was, yeah, it was founded by Jamal Khashoggi. So take that for what you will. not a broadly pro-visual organization

that says staff the American and Israel Public Affairs Committee maintain strong connections to the Israeli and U.S. governments, no surprise there, and the broader pro-Israel ecosystem in the U.S. Dawn today is releasing new data mapping the professional connections with more than 3,000 current and former APEC staff.

The data demonstrates a revolving to a relationship between A-PAC and U.S. and Israeli government institutions with dozens of current and former A-PAC staff having worked for Israeli or U.S. government bodies. And again, just you would need evidence of like direct coordination, but that's where the speech implications of Farah are genuinely complicated for some people. It's like, right, you have to be directed, right? Your actions have to be directed by the foreign principle. They can't just be beneficial to the foreign principle.

They have to be directed by under the control of the foreign principle in question. And that could be a foreign political party in the case of Ukraine. It was called the Party of Regions that Manafort and Podesta were wrapped up in, and they founded the shell tank called the European Center for a Modern Ukraine that was actually a front for the Party of Regions to avoid registering for Ferrar. And they didn't register for Ferrar. They only did it retroactively. And so they were secretly getting paid a ton of money from a Ukrainian political party. And it was being directed by that party. The party paid them and said, all right, go lobby on our behalf to the U.S. government.

They went to Hillary Clinton State Department in Podesta's case. And Manafort was doing that as well with Republicans. And so if it's being directed by it doesn't have to necessarily be the government. It could be a political party or something like that. You do technically have to disclose it. So that's where, again, it's right up on the line. And it might honestly just be better to pan it all outright. But, and then you would be free to say whatever you'd want to say because it's illegal for you to be taking any money.

Anyway, all of this stuff is very, very difficult to regulate. The money is becoming more difficult to trace because of social media and influencers and more difficult to see as a consumer. So anyway, that's just a little bit on the question. I mean, it's similar to the NRA in that I really believe public opinion hasn't been influenced specifically by APEC, but I do believe that APEC did have a lot of control over kind of the Overton window conversation for a long time. And, you know, it's, again, for me, it's a stand-in for money and politics, especially money and politics on issues where public opinion is more flux than something like the Second Amendment where you just have a lot of Americans who are always going

to support a pretty robust Second Amendment protections. So anyway, yeah, big money. influences what we think. It definitely influences how we think in the Overton window of the sort of boundaries that we think about and sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. And it's just good to have the information about how it's happening in order to make that decision, if that makes sense. So I'll leave it. Oh, wait. Oh, bonus. Bonus coming up. I forgot that I discovered emails in my spam folder. Let me just go through a couple of things. them. Because I think I discovered a lot. All right. All right. So this is from, oh, interesting. Wow, these go back. This is from Amu, who says, I'm a huge fan. The respectful, smart, good faith,

and humorous way you and Ryan examine topics is endearing and informative. What do you think about a policy designed to achieve 100% voter participation? My favorite is a lottery prize of maybe $10,000 for every legitimate voter in each congressional district. That is interesting. I'm going to say drawbacks, you tell me. This is a topic. No one talks about politics, not Bernie, not anyone. It's out of the Overton window for a reason. It must be a third rail of some start. You know, I'm of many minds on this. I think we all have such a privilege to vote in this country. And some people just are so depressed by our politics and busy, disengaged. It is now really hard to be informed that they genuinely want. check out because they literally don't have time for it. They don't have the energy for it. And in some

sense, we still should see this as a civic obligation that even when it is a huge burden on our schedules and on our emotional capacities, we should still recognize the blessing and the privilege that it is. But we should also have a choice to do that. And this is kind of where I do disagree on that. I think that's a good point. But I think a lot of people, if you have mandatory voting or you have an incentive like that, people are just going to go and check off boxes. And so I think it's good to have a system where you have to put in some effort to vote. And that's why I actually really believe that you should just have a national holiday election day, give everybody off. And that's that. You can have some very limited exceptions for mail-in balloting. But that should be like you should have to physically

get up, go to the polls. I think that's how you have integrity and confidence about the counting. And And honestly, I support paper ballots. Lots of problem with paper ballots, too. Don't get me wrong. But yeah, I don't know. I guess I'm more up in the air on that question. But I think it is just psychologically, it's a little bit different when you're hitting a button

and you have to then trust that the machine is tabulating it. Again, this is, I'm not saying anything about the machines being hacked or whatever. I'm just saying psychologically are, like, when you used to have to put the paper ballot into the machine and you saw it, like it looked like kind of a fax machine. and you saw it go in there and you could see it working. It's different than the big computers where you press a button and it goes to the next screen or it says you're done. You then have to just sort of trust that everything worked out for the best. And with the paper, there's a copy, right, that goes into the bottom of the machine.

So, yeah, psychologically, I'm sort of a fan of that. And I'm not really a fan of lowering the barrier to vote because in some sense, it makes it easier for ballot harvesting. where people are just going around filling out their husband's ballot or their wife's ballot or their son's ballot, or then going around and picking up ballots and doing things that we don't know about because it's not in a controlled environment. So I think I do disagree with that one. Here's an email from Vance who says your latest episode was fantastic. This was back in May, so I don't even know what it was. Let's see.

Oh, okay. I think, wait, I think we're, oh wait, here, this is a good one. Marlowe, this was one that got missed. I'm a long-time fan of Rand Paul, contrarian, yes, but real consistent convictions. Let's see, real common sense guidelines to master for success. Critical thinking, logic, grammar, and rhetoric, then entrepreneurship, and then AI, be able to learn, run a business, and not get taken advantage of. Also, I was sad to see I was taken in by the nails into the surgical gloves and the tragic picture of Henry Novak. remember hearing a woman's voice in the body cam footage, and when I saw the AI picture alone

it anger me more. Now I wonder if I did hear a woman's voice. We are in strange times. Yeah, Marla, I'll have to go back and look at that video too. It does. So I'm actually here in Brazil speaking for, it's like a, it's a YouTube Civic Summit. So it's for people who are trying to use YouTube as a tool, other journalists, and then also like campaigns who want to start using YouTube as a communication tool. And one of the questions that I got earlier today was about fake news and how these digital environments make it super easy to spread that type of thing. And my answer was also that we're in great conversations now. Like I use this comparison of if I said something incorrect on Fox News, for example, it just kind of, it were just like egregious.

It would just kind of go into the ether and maybe someone would blog about it. And maybe that blog had potential to go viral or something. But if I say something that's like controversial and egregious, for example, on breaking points, there will be multiple videos quickly being like, here's why Emily is wrong. And I think that's a good thing. I think it's better that we're in conversation than we only rely on the gatekeepers. There are advantages and disadvantages to every model. But anyway, that's just a quick final thought here on today's edition of Happy Hour. Thank you all so much for the condolences for making it to 100 episodes, for cheer. us out as we go for 200, 500, $200,000, $200,000, that would be a little crazy. But I appreciate it so much.

Appreciate our great team here. They've been with us all year. And we are looking forward to bringing you all more great coverage of, of course, this midterm cycle, the crazy cultural stories that are crossing the transom every single day. And I will be back on Monday with more after party. God bless everyone. Have a great weekend.