But I have a near-religious taboo against using "The Streisand Effect", which has always sounded a little jarring to my ears, since it was coined in the 2000s, long after Streisand had ceased to be a culturally interesting figure, and now used mostly(I suspect) by people who don't really hold any perception of her heyday, just knew about her attempts to suppress the photos.
But that attempt to suppress the photos is what the Streisand Effect refers to. To the degree it might have anything to do with cultural interest, the overall lack of cultural interest, the fact that people wouldn’t otherwise be interested had she not made a big deal trying to hide it, is part of it.
Though make no mistake; for some of us, Barbra Streisand will always be of cultural interest.
Meidas is a fairly credible, if at times tiresomely partisan, source, but I don't know how they discovered this discrepancy, ie. if someone emailed it to them after the redaction had taken place(in which case, the supposed original could be a photoshop), or if one of their journalists discovered it on their own.
redacted
(ETA legal redactions, Dafyd Hell Host) (ETA formatting, DT Admin)
I'm afraid that I don't think that's sufficiently reliable for us to be comfortable republishing those allegations free from fear of litigation. We shall discuss the general principles backstage.
Apparently, photo 468 showed a picture of Trump on a desk that allegedly had an another photo of a survivor. It had been pulled down when the DOJ realized the photo of the survivor was included. It was pulled down. CBS is now reporting the alleged photo including Trump is back up with the other photo of th survivor redacted.
I can see how people could argue that just because there were two photos, one of Trump and one of the survivors on the same desk does not mean anything. We have already seen a photo of Trump with a bunch of women whose faces have been blacked out together.
I have two questions:
1) Why did Epstein allegedly collect all these photos, not just of Trump, but other famous men? I can't say there is guilt by association. But one wonders; and,
2)Why didn't any of the men allegedly in those photos wonder why the women they are seeing were much too young to be on the Epstein property unsupervised?
1) Why did Epstein allegedly collect all these photos, not just of Trump, but other famous men? I can't say there is guilt by association. But one wonders; and,
I think it's possible he was just a celebrity hound. I know there's the blackmail-ring theory, but if he was using any substantial number of those photos to commit the implied amount of criminal extortion, including of some very, shall we say, protected individuals, I think he'd get tripped up pretty quickly.
1) Why did Epstein allegedly collect all these photos, not just of Trump, but other famous men? I can't say there is guilt by association. But one wonders; and,
I think it's possible he was just a celebrity hound. I know there's the blackmail-ring theory, but if he was using any substantial number of those photos to commit the implied amount of criminal extortion, including of some very, shall we say, protected individuals, I think he'd get tripped up pretty quickly.
I think there's a middle ground - insurance rather than blackmail. If you're doing something nefarious in plain sight then powerful people being implicated if you go down acts as a disincentive for any of those people to actually expose you. This works so long as they aren't so powerful as to suppress the evidence of their involvement, or brazen it out.
1) Why did Epstein allegedly collect all these photos, not just of Trump, but other famous men? I can't say there is guilt by association. But one wonders; and,
I think it's possible he was just a celebrity hound. I know there's the blackmail-ring theory, but if he was using any substantial number of those photos to commit the implied amount of criminal extortion, including of some very, shall we say, protected individuals, I think he'd get tripped up pretty quickly.
I think there's a middle ground - insurance rather than blackmail. If you're doing something nefarious in plain sight then powerful people being implicated if you go down acts as a disincentive for any of those people to actually expose you. This works so long as they aren't so powerful as to suppress the evidence of their involvement, or brazen it out.
So, Epstein was worried eg. that some specific politician would rat him out for sex crimes, so Epstein made sure to get that politician photographed in compromising situations so if he exposes Epstein he drags himself down as well?
If that's what you're suggesting, then my counterpoint would be that Epstein seems to have gone out of his way to draw politicians and other celebrities into his orbit, which would seem like an odd hobby to pursue in the first place if he was that paranoid about those same people exposing him.
1) Why did Epstein allegedly collect all these photos, not just of Trump, but other famous men? I can't say there is guilt by association. But one wonders; and,
I think it's possible he was just a celebrity hound. I know there's the blackmail-ring theory, but if he was using any substantial number of those photos to commit the implied amount of criminal extortion, including of some very, shall we say, protected individuals, I think he'd get tripped up pretty quickly.
I think there's a middle ground - insurance rather than blackmail. If you're doing something nefarious in plain sight then powerful people being implicated if you go down acts as a disincentive for any of those people to actually expose you. This works so long as they aren't so powerful as to suppress the evidence of their involvement, or brazen it out.
So, Epstein was worried eg. that some specific politician would rat him out for sex crimes, so Epstein made sure to get that politician photographed in compromising situations so if he exposes Epstein he drags himself down as well?
If that's what you're suggesting, then my counterpoint would be that Epstein seems to have gone out of his way to draw politicians and other celebrities into his orbit, which would seem like an odd hobby to pursue in the first place if he was that paranoid about those same people exposing him.
While not wanting to play armchair psychologist, it's not impossible to imagine someone having competing drives - an attraction to celebrity and power, and an inappropriate interest in children - and finding a way to pursue both. It's also possible to conceive such a person getting a sense of power from being able to (even hypothetically) hold this information over wealthy and powerful people, and indeed from being a supplier of a "service" some of the powerful evidently want.
I wonder if the Streisand effect is so well known by now that some redactions are done at random to try to draw attention to them, thus drawing attention away from others.
In effect, you try to hide something (relatively) innocuous but by being so blatant about the hiding, everyone ignores something else.
Speaking of the Streisand effect, Trump's supporter Bari Weiss pulled CBS's report on human rights abuses in the El Salvador prison they used ( CECOT) but the segment leaked on a Canadian TV service, so people grabbed it and it's now being Streisanded around the Internet. I wont link but it was easy to find on Bluesky and I imagine elsewhere
Sounds like Herr Drumpf wants to fight WWII again with his decision to build two Trump Class Battleships weighing 30,000 to 40,000 tons. The last American battleship retired from service in 1994, the USS Missouri, weighted 58,000 tons. He hopes eventually the Navy will have 20-25 of these relics. They are supposed to be nuclear powered and have the latest weaponry available to the Navy, including rail guns, laser weapons. Guns, Guns, Guns, as well as missiles.
The problem is, IMHO, no matter how much lipstick on them, you will still have pigs.
They do not project power like aircraft carriers and missile submarines. They present very large radar signatures for opposing forces. They become high value targets, not flexible assets. Besides, we do not have the shipbuilding capacity to build battleships anymore. What will likely happen is by the time one of these monsters is ready to be built, we will have a regime change.
I’ve always assumed the weakness of modern missiles, is that at some point they will become hackable by cyber warfare specialists. And then you have just provided your enemy with an easy way to bomb your military facilities.
So I can see why you might want offshore military platforms.
Why waste money on building battleships when you could be developing long-range drones instead, or wrecking your opponent's infrastructure without getting up from your desk?
Makes me wonder how warfare will look in the future. We've already got drones being sent out to kill soldiers*; what will be the obvious response is not to deploy those soldiers into danger in the first place and get a drone or robot to do what they're currently doing. Is the endpoint armies of droids fighting each other? Does war then become insufficiently serious that we're not deterred from engaging in it? Do we then get like that Star Trek episode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon
*My God how casually we talk about ending the lives, hopes, dreams and futures of young people. Whenever I take a step back I wonder in abject horror that war hasn't become unthinkable.
Makes me wonder how warfare will look in the future. We've already got drones being sent out to kill soldiers*; what will be the obvious response is not to deploy those soldiers into danger in the first place and get a drone or robot to do what they're currently doing. Is the endpoint armies of droids fighting each other?
Or a really bad combination of that plus one or more of the other 'wars', which featured drones with model names like 'Bird of Prey' luring out and hunting down civilians.
Why waste money on building battleships when you could be developing long-range drones instead, or wrecking your opponent's infrastructure without getting up from your desk?
Why waste money on building battleships when you could be developing long-range drones instead, or wrecking your opponent's infrastructure without getting up from your desk?
Because it's a penis substitute?
I don't think anything Trump does is that easily explained. He's a complex sort of [insert epithet here]
Or it could just be the usual thing of getting ready to fight the last war. In this case, the last century's wars. Trump isn't unique in this, the British army has just spent a fortune on developing a tank that makes its crews sick.
Alien archaeologists who find the ruins of our civilisation in the future will struggle to understand why, with all the existential challenges facing us, we chose to waste vast amounts of time, resources and energy and slaughter billions of people instead of working together to stop (and reverse) the poisoning of our environment.
Why waste money on building battleships when you could be developing long-range drones instead, or wrecking your opponent's infrastructure without getting up from your desk?
Or it could just be the usual thing of getting ready to fight the last war. In this case, the last century's wars. Trump isn't unique in this, the British army has just spent a fortune on developing a tank that makes its crews sick.
Alien archaeologists who find the ruins of our civilisation in the future will struggle to understand why, with all the existential challenges facing us, we chose to waste vast amounts of time, resources and energy and slaughter billions of people instead of working together to stop (and reverse) the poisoning of our environment.
I'm already wondering it. So are most people. But here we are.
The administration is saying the cost of each ship would be ~$15bil. That would make it the most expensive warships built. Expect cost overruns. Could be in the neighborhood of $30bil if they ever get built. Would that kind of money be spent on food aid. Would likely be more effective if we fed the hungry in my book.
Makes me wonder how warfare will look in the future. Is the endpoint armies of droids fighting each other? Does war then become insufficiently serious that we're not deterred from engaging in it? Do we then get like that Star Trek episode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon.
New York Times today: "Trump Administration Orders Nearly 30 U.S. Ambassadors to Leave Their Posts". Either they all failed the loyalty test or preparations are being made for war. Either way, the USA is weakening itself yet again.
Technically all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president.
It is not all that unusual for a president to call ambassadors home. He dd this during his first administration too.
But, if he names a new ambassador to a country, two things have to happen. The ambassador has to be confirmed by the senate--which is getting more restless; and, two, the ambassador must be received by the assigned country. Countries have been known to name people non grata. Look for Denmark to name the new envoy to Greenland as non grata.
In other news: it has been reported the Supreme Court has ruled against Trump deploying National Guard units to San Francisco. That may be a very big blow, especially with the mid terms coming up. There is a fear he may try to deploy other guard units to election centers in the coming elections. Sounds like SCOTUS is saying no can do.
Forgot to mention: Beginning the first of January, Jim Beam will shut down its Clemont Kentucky production line and does not expect to have it running until 2027. That is the main distillery, two of their smaller plants will continue for the time being. Something about tariffs and Canadians/Europeans boycotting the brand. Okay, American drinking habits have changed too. Way to go Trump. Winning? Tell that to the 1,000 workers who just been laid off. (The Grinch just stole Christmas)
I think the point about the fired ambassadors is that those appointed personally by the president normally resign when a new one is elected, as nobody now owes them any favours, while the competent career diplomats remain in office. It appears that most of those recently fired were career diplomats appointed under the Biden administration (this may need confirmation).
Forgot to mention: Beginning the first of January, Jim Beam will shut down its Clemont Kentucky production line and does not expect to have it running until 2027. That is the main distillery, two of their smaller plants will continue for the time being. Something about tariffs and Canadians/Europeans boycotting the brand. Okay, American drinking habits have changed too. Way to go Trump. Winning? Tell that to the 1,000 workers who just been laid off. (The Grinch just stole Christmas)
From what I’ve read—I have a vested interest in this one—the issues are that Jim Beam and other distilleries have lots (as in millions) of barrels sitting in warehouses, and they have to pay state taxes on those barrels, so they’re working through some the inventory before adding too much more to it.
The stories I’ve read did mention that Americans are drinking less. They’ve also reported that some Canadian provinces removed American liquor from shelves for a while. The connection to tariffs has been limited to mention of “uncertainty” related to tariffs and trade wars.
The articles I’ve seen have reported that no layoffs have been announced yet, and that there are discussions going on about how workers might be reassigned. Have you seen reports or announced layoffs, @Gramps49?
"Following a banner year for U.S. distilled spirits exports in 2024, exports of American spirits fell 9% year-over-year in the second quarter, driven by ongoing trade tensions," according to a new report released by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS).
DISCUS CEO Chris Swonger said U.S. spirits exports to Canada plummeted 85%, falling below $10 million in the second quarter of 2025. U.S. spirits sales in Canada also declined 68% in April 2025.
"U.S. spirits exports experienced notable declines across all key international markets. Exports to the EU — the U.S. spirits industry’s largest market — fell 12% to $290.3 million, while exports to the UK dropped 29% to $26.9 million and those to Japan decreased 23% to $21.4 million," according to the report.
As a result, many boutique distillers are entering bankruptcy, as discussed in the article.
If I were younger, I'd be doing more to make up for the shortfall in sales. But I can't drink like I did during earlier Republican administrations. It seems very unfair that my capacity for metabolizing alcohol has diminished while their capacity for evil has increased.
Force him to listen to several of Trump's long, rambling, nonsensical speeches. That should be enough to put anyone to sleep.
Very true. Take his speech in North Carolina, one did not see any of the audience save for the people sitting behind him on the stage. And even then, it did not take long for members of the audience to begin to turn to their phones. See https://www.rawstory.com/trump-small-crowds/
I had to laugh when I read the first sentence of that article: “Donald Trump’s rally in tiny Rocky Mount, North Carolina drew a smaller than expected crowd to the economically distressed region, leaving merchandise vendors and supporters disheartened.” With a population of around 55,000, Rocky Mount is hardly huge, but it’s not “tiny” either, especially for that region of North Carolina.
The article also doesn’t mention why Trump was in Rocky Mount. It was (ostensibly) a rally for Michael Whatley, former chair of the RNC and one of the Republican candidates in the 2026 Senate race for Thom Tillis’s seat. Rocky Mount straddles the Nash County-Edgecombe County line. (The train tracks that run down the middle of Main Street mark the county line.) The Democratic candidate will be former governor Roy Cooper, who is from Nash County and who practiced law in Rocky Mount for many years. So they were trying to kick off Whatley’s campaign in Cooper’s back yard, as it were.
Of possible relevance to the story’s focus on the small crowd (in a town of 55k people), Edgecombe County is majority (55% or so) African American, voted for Harris (60%), and went Democratic in all 14 statewide state office races. Nash County is plurality but not majority white, and barely went for Trump (50.37%). It went for the Democratic candidate (at least once by only a handful of votes) in eight of the 14 statewide state office races. Both counties went for the Democratic congressional candidate.
Rocky Mount itself, per the 2020 Census, is 63.35% African American, 26.63% white.
Comments
Though make no mistake; for some of us, Barbra Streisand will always be of cultural interest.
Now, now, some of them will be other Republican politicians or business leaders who are pro-Trump.
Meidas is a fairly credible, if at times tiresomely partisan, source, but I don't know how they discovered this discrepancy, ie. if someone emailed it to them after the redaction had taken place(in which case, the supposed original could be a photoshop), or if one of their journalists discovered it on their own.
redacted
(ETA legal redactions, Dafyd Hell Host)
(ETA formatting, DT Admin)
Doublethink, Admin
My apologies.
I can see how people could argue that just because there were two photos, one of Trump and one of the survivors on the same desk does not mean anything. We have already seen a photo of Trump with a bunch of women whose faces have been blacked out together.
I have two questions:
1) Why did Epstein allegedly collect all these photos, not just of Trump, but other famous men? I can't say there is guilt by association. But one wonders; and,
2)Why didn't any of the men allegedly in those photos wonder why the women they are seeing were much too young to be on the Epstein property unsupervised?
I think it's possible he was just a celebrity hound. I know there's the blackmail-ring theory, but if he was using any substantial number of those photos to commit the implied amount of criminal extortion, including of some very, shall we say, protected individuals, I think he'd get tripped up pretty quickly.
I think there's a middle ground - insurance rather than blackmail. If you're doing something nefarious in plain sight then powerful people being implicated if you go down acts as a disincentive for any of those people to actually expose you. This works so long as they aren't so powerful as to suppress the evidence of their involvement, or brazen it out.
So, Epstein was worried eg. that some specific politician would rat him out for sex crimes, so Epstein made sure to get that politician photographed in compromising situations so if he exposes Epstein he drags himself down as well?
If that's what you're suggesting, then my counterpoint would be that Epstein seems to have gone out of his way to draw politicians and other celebrities into his orbit, which would seem like an odd hobby to pursue in the first place if he was that paranoid about those same people exposing him.
While not wanting to play armchair psychologist, it's not impossible to imagine someone having competing drives - an attraction to celebrity and power, and an inappropriate interest in children - and finding a way to pursue both. It's also possible to conceive such a person getting a sense of power from being able to (even hypothetically) hold this information over wealthy and powerful people, and indeed from being a supplier of a "service" some of the powerful evidently want.
In effect, you try to hide something (relatively) innocuous but by being so blatant about the hiding, everyone ignores something else.
The problem is, IMHO, no matter how much lipstick on them, you will still have pigs.
They do not project power like aircraft carriers and missile submarines. They present very large radar signatures for opposing forces. They become high value targets, not flexible assets. Besides, we do not have the shipbuilding capacity to build battleships anymore. What will likely happen is by the time one of these monsters is ready to be built, we will have a regime change.
So I can see why you might want offshore military platforms.
*My God how casually we talk about ending the lives, hopes, dreams and futures of young people. Whenever I take a step back I wonder in abject horror that war hasn't become unthinkable.
Or a really bad combination of that plus one or more of the other 'wars', which featured drones with model names like 'Bird of Prey' luring out and hunting down civilians.
Because it's a penis substitute?
I don't think anything Trump does is that easily explained. He's a complex sort of [insert epithet here]
Alien archaeologists who find the ruins of our civilisation in the future will struggle to understand why, with all the existential challenges facing us, we chose to waste vast amounts of time, resources and energy and slaughter billions of people instead of working together to stop (and reverse) the poisoning of our environment.
I doubt he can remember that far back.
I'm already wondering it. So are most people. But here we are.
That's exactly the ST episode I thought of, too.
Couple of points.
Technically all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president.
It is not all that unusual for a president to call ambassadors home. He dd this during his first administration too.
But, if he names a new ambassador to a country, two things have to happen. The ambassador has to be confirmed by the senate--which is getting more restless; and, two, the ambassador must be received by the assigned country. Countries have been known to name people non grata. Look for Denmark to name the new envoy to Greenland as non grata.
In other news: it has been reported the Supreme Court has ruled against Trump deploying National Guard units to San Francisco. That may be a very big blow, especially with the mid terms coming up. There is a fear he may try to deploy other guard units to election centers in the coming elections. Sounds like SCOTUS is saying no can do.
The stories I’ve read did mention that Americans are drinking less. They’ve also reported that some Canadian provinces removed American liquor from shelves for a while. The connection to tariffs has been limited to mention of “uncertainty” related to tariffs and trade wars.
The articles I’ve seen have reported that no layoffs have been announced yet, and that there are discussions going on about how workers might be reassigned. Have you seen reports or announced layoffs, @Gramps49?
FWIW, Jim Beam is owned by a Japanese company.
As a result, many boutique distillers are entering bankruptcy, as discussed in the article.
If I were younger, I'd be doing more to make up for the shortfall in sales. But I can't drink like I did during earlier Republican administrations. It seems very unfair that my capacity for metabolizing alcohol has diminished while their capacity for evil has increased.
And @Ruth, you have my sympathy. It is indeed not fair.
Very true. Take his speech in North Carolina, one did not see any of the audience save for the people sitting behind him on the stage. And even then, it did not take long for members of the audience to begin to turn to their phones. See https://www.rawstory.com/trump-small-crowds/
The article also doesn’t mention why Trump was in Rocky Mount. It was (ostensibly) a rally for Michael Whatley, former chair of the RNC and one of the Republican candidates in the 2026 Senate race for Thom Tillis’s seat. Rocky Mount straddles the Nash County-Edgecombe County line. (The train tracks that run down the middle of Main Street mark the county line.) The Democratic candidate will be former governor Roy Cooper, who is from Nash County and who practiced law in Rocky Mount for many years. So they were trying to kick off Whatley’s campaign in Cooper’s back yard, as it were.
Of possible relevance to the story’s focus on the small crowd (in a town of 55k people), Edgecombe County is majority (55% or so) African American, voted for Harris (60%), and went Democratic in all 14 statewide state office races. Nash County is plurality but not majority white, and barely went for Trump (50.37%). It went for the Democratic candidate (at least once by only a handful of votes) in eight of the 14 statewide state office races. Both counties went for the Democratic congressional candidate.
Rocky Mount itself, per the 2020 Census, is 63.35% African American, 26.63% white.
So, you are saying Trump's rally at Rocky Mount was like Ruddi Gulliani's mews conference at the Four Seasons' Garden Center?